Political Theory

Re: Death threats in a libertarian society

ThatOldGuy — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:40:42 GMT

Walter Block says:

The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.

So if we are to take the NAP we can only come to the conclusion that a death threat should be illegal because it is a threat of violence to someone's person.

Re: Death threats in a libertarian society

K.C. Farmer — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:53:36 GMT

I bet money on anti-wussyism too. The person that makes a death threat should expect to become a target himself either through provocation of self defense or in terms of economic costs for violating the NAP. Threating someone's life is no joke, and making such threats without the means of backing it up is tantamount to suicide. Such a person will not be permitted to behave in such manner and then hide behind the law as determined by the State.

Re: Death threats in a libertarian society

Merlin — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:38:50 GMT

Well, here we have an interesting poll on what kind of rules would a bunch of guys enforce on their own homes should they be allowed to. What remains to be seen if which of these sets of rules (if any) shall prove economically viable to insure upon for liability insurance companies (or to adopt, for private arbiters) . I still bet money on anti-wussiysm

Re: Death threats in a libertarian society

Sage — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:40:50 GMT

alimentarius:
Should death threats be illegal?

Coercion is defined as the forcible subjection, actual or threatened, of the person or property of another to one's own uses, without that other's consent.

So yes, threats are illegal.

Of course, there is a continuum problem. A shrieking madman running at you with a poleaxe is clearly an illegal threat; but it's not so clear in the case of a quadriplegic threatening to kick you. But just because it's a fuzzy boundary doesn't invalidate the distinction (Sorites).

Re: Death threats in a libertarian society

E. R. Olovetto — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:35:02 GMT

No2statism:

I don't think they should be punishable in a libertarian society, because no actual damage was done--mainly, the result isn't tangible, unlike an actual assault/battery or murder, where someone gets hurt or dies, respectively.

This is just plain wrong. Threats of violence are aggression. You could consider some forms of non-violent threats, like to blackmail or wag your finger at someone, but those are entirely different.

Kinsella's article is pretty good on explaining threats.

For those of you familiar with Block's take on proportionality, (teeth + costs of capture + premium for scaring), we could say that no teeth were involved. Nobody's life was taken, or no arms were chopped off as the criminal threatened to do. CoC is a side matter, and the threat would be taken up under what he calls a "premium for scaring". This aspect includes "palpable, immediate, and direct" threats, as well as some other situations we wouldn't think of as threats per se.

Re: Death threats in a libertarian society

scineram — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:23:45 GMT

Merlin:

Wanderer:
I mean, the state usually gets its money through threats of violence, not so much violence per se.

Guys, if somehow we all knew that the State would no longer, from tomorrow on, ever exercise violence again, but only threaten to, do you think that anyone would be intimidated into paying taxes? By threatening violence per se, the State commits no wrong whatsoever. It’s only because of its “perfect” track record in carrying on such threats that we confuse the two.

I personally would decline entering into the property of anyone who would require indemnity should any verbal threat be made against him. Wusses just aren’t my type. And I bet money that most people woudl chose to act similarly.

Now hand that over, or else.

Re: Death threats in a libertarian society

Andrew Cain — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:08:36 GMT

Merlin:
By threatening violence per se, the State commits no wrong whatsoever.

Apply that to foreign policy. And why is it moral to threaten what is immoral in the first place? Hypothetically, if the government says to you 'Unless you do what we want, we will imprison your parents, bankrupt your brother, rape your sister and poison your wife.' You see no wrong in such behavior?

Merlin:

I personally would decline entering into the property of anyone who would require indemnity should any verbal threat be made against him

Do you blatantly walk around giving out death threats? I don't think such behavior would be allowed on the property in the first place unless some strange fetish were involved.

Re: Death threats in a libertarian society

Merlin — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:58:28 GMT

Wanderer:
I mean, the state usually gets its money through threats of violence, not so much violence per se.

Guys, if somehow we all knew that the State would no longer, from tomorrow on, ever exercise violence again, but only threaten to, do you think that anyone would be intimidated into paying taxes? By threatening violence per se, the State commits no wrong whatsoever. It’s only because of its “perfect” track record in carrying on such threats that we confuse the two.

I personally would decline entering into the property of anyone who would require indemnity should any verbal threat be made against him. Wusses just aren’t my type. And I bet money that most people woudl chose to act similarly.

Re: Death threats in a libertarian society

Arvin — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:01:56 GMT

I would interpret it as violence in the future, and ofcourse I can defend myself from violence whether it is in the future och right now.

Re: Death threats in a libertarian society

The Late Andrew Ryan — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:00:53 GMT

I think it depends upon the validity of the threat. But if pointing a gun at somone's head is illegal then sayint that "I'm going to kill you" when on top of a skyscraper or some other serious threat is illegal.

Re: Death threats in a libertarian society

No2statism — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:57:34 GMT

I don't think they should be punishable in a libertarian society, because no actual damage was done--mainly, the result isn't tangible, unlike an actual assault/battery or murder, where someone gets hurt or dies, respectively.

Re: Death threats in a libertarian society

Wanderer — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:46:20 GMT

I agree with laughing man on this one. I mean, the state usually gets its money through threats of violence, not so much violence per se.

Re: Death threats in a libertarian society

K.C. Farmer — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:44:18 GMT

The State uses threats of imprisonment and/or death all the time. Is the threat of imprisonment any less acceptable than the threat of death?

A death threat is an act of aggression.

Re: Death threats in a libertarian society

Merlin — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:06:10 GMT

I think that immediate death threats which are clearly actionable upon (as in, the guy is running towards you with a knife, shouting his desire to kill you) give you the right to act in self-defense, killing him if necessary, but do not give you the right to punish him afterwards (if you emerge unscathed, of course). While “vague” death threats should be treated as nothing more than a joke, even if they could be dead-serious. You can’t punish someone for something he didn’t do, but might do, hence vague threats should bear no “legal” consequence.

Those faint-hearted who just can’t stand even vague threats could just ask anyone on their property not to make any such threat.

Re: Death threats in a libertarian society

Andrew Cain — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:03:03 GMT

The NAP is against the use of violence and also the threat of violence. So yes, death threats should be illegal.