Political Theory

Re: Punishing non-violent actions with violence

Eugene — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:39:31 GMT

A man who doesn't save a drowing man did not act, so you can't talk about his actions. However I don't remember the exact phrasing of Kinsella. But I think you understand the point.

Re: Punishing non-violent actions with violence

ladyphoenix — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:33:43 GMT

Eugene:
...if an individual reasonably believes that his actions will lead to a murder of another individual that individual should be liable for murder...

I'm curious... What moral judgement do you place on a man who fails to save another from drowning? Not really related to this discussion so much as I'm trying to nail down your position, overall... Thanks.

Re: Punishing non-violent actions with violence

Eugene — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:53:10 GMT

I accept Kinsella's thesis that if an individual reasonably believes that his actions will lead to a murder of another individual that individual should be liable for murder regardless of the weapon used, whether it is a gun or a hit man.

Regarding fraud. I see it more clearly now. If you give an object to another individual you give it under some conditions. If these conditions are not fulfilled this object is still yours, even if it is physically located in the possession of that individual. So its not a matter of lying or of fraud, its just a matter of who is the legitimate owner regardless of the physical location of the property.

Re: Punishing non-violent actions with violence

ladyphoenix — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:28:27 GMT

Eugene:
Fraud also merely involves words, not a physical action.

I disagree. Fraud involves the accepting of transfer of title of property (a physical act) under false pretenses. The party transferring the title to his property is directly injured by the transaction. Such is not the case with murder for hire. In the case of murder for hire, neither party is injured. The injured party is not a party to the transaction.

I may be misunderstanding something here, but this is nothing like fraud in my opinion.

If this is like ANYTHING, it is like bribery. One man paying another to commit an act... the man doing the paying commits no crime. It is the man accepting the payment, if he acts, who is committing the crime by breaking a contract... a contract for which he is liable. The only difference between this and murder for hire is that the murderer isn't breaking a contract, per se. The result is still liability only for the person who accepted payment, but only because he actually and directly violated the property of another (i.e. the murder victim in the case of murder-for-hire).

Re: Punishing non-violent actions with violence

ladyphoenix — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:11:56 GMT

Micah71381:
I would also like some elaboration on why you believe that fraud breaks down to liability. I don't see the connection.

Sure.

I tend to view fraud as an attempt to deprive a man of property under circumstances which, were he aware, he would not have consented. Fraud is not the same as omisison, in my opinion either. If I omitted that I intended to sell the property I am buying from you today for 1000x what I'm paying you, that's not "fraud." It is an intentional misrepresentation, a lie. Fraud is not morally unacceptable becuase it is a "lie," however. It is morally unacceptable because it is "theft."

Re: Punishing non-violent actions with violence

Eugene — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:54:20 GMT

Just out of curiosity, why would the theater owner be satisfied with corporal punishment should the performer not show? This doesn't get his lost money back (lost customers, having to refund all patrons, etc.). I don't have a problem with the contract specifying this if that is what both parties want, I just can't see why they would want this.

I do believe that such a contract would be enforcable unless there was an alternative exit clause. That is, there could be a clause that states something like, "should the performer desire to exit the contract without performing and without physical punishment he must pay the theater owner $X". Without such a clause then the theater owner has the right to execute physical punishment on the performer.

The theater owner wants to be sure the poor performer appears. He then creates an incentive for the performer to appear by stipulating in the contract physical punishment if he doesn't appear. Such contract might be useful. Although according to Rothbard it will not be enforceable since only exchange of property can be enforced, nothing else.

Regarding incitement. I believe if person A told B to kill C, or worse payed him to do it, the heirs of C have every right to punish A. I believe it wouldn't be just to let A go.

Re: Punishing non-violent actions with violence

Micah71381 — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 09:05:34 GMT

Eugene:

Nevertheless, these are still words. Just like incitement.

I believe that contracts are key to a functioning libertarian society. Without enforceable contracts everything else breaks down. How they are enforced is a matter for the market to decide but the key is that they are enforceable, just like no initiation of force is enforceable.

Usually when people refer to the non-aggression principle they tack fraud on the end of it because contract law is so vitally important. No initiation of aggression and no fraud. They are unrelated but both necessary.

Re: Punishing non-violent actions with violence

Eugene — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 09:00:34 GMT

Nevertheless, these are still words. Just like incitement.

Re: Punishing non-violent actions with violence

Micah71381 — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 08:50:11 GMT

Eugene:

I'll elaborate.If A tells B to murder C and you think A is not liable it means you see aggression only in physical actions, not in words, so how then can you think that fraud is a criminal act? Fraud also merely involves words, not a physical action. Moreover while in the first case a person actually died, in the second case we are only talking about lost property. So surely if you think that incitement to murder is legal you must think fraud is legal as well.

Ah, it seems to be a difference in the definition of fraud then. I believe that a truthful con artist is not engaging in criminal behavior. It's only if the con artists directly lies that it is a criminal act. So someone who is able to convince someone else to give them their money without lying to them is not committing fraud, they are just a smooth talker. Someone who convinces another person to give them money by lying to them though is fraudulent.

For example, if I say, "All profits go to charity." that is not fraud even though the operating cost of my business eats 99% of what you pay me and the charity only gets the 1% "profit". On the other hand, if I tell you, "Give me $10 and I'll donate it to charity." then $10 needs to be donated to charity or else it would be fraud.

Re: Punishing non-violent actions with violence

Eugene — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 08:36:49 GMT

I think people who are opposed to liability of those who ordered a hitman have to oppose fraud law as well. The explanation would be as following. So what if he lied to you? Why did you give your property to someone who you don't completely trust? That's your fault. There was no aggression here, only a bad decision on your part.

I'll elaborate.If A tells B to murder C and you think A is not liable it means you see aggression only in physical actions, not in words, so how then can you think that fraud is a criminal act? Fraud also merely involves words, not a physical action. Moreover while in the first case a person actually died, in the second case we are only talking about lost property. So surely if you think that incitement to murder is legal you must think fraud is legal as well.

Re: Punishing non-violent actions with violence

Micah71381 — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 03:22:42 GMT

ladyphoenix:

Eugene:

I think people who are opposed to liability of those who ordered a hitman have to oppose fraud law as well. The explanation would be as following. So what if he lied to you? Why did you give your property to someone who you don't completely trust? That's your fault. There was no aggression here, only a bad decision on your part.

That's an interesting theory. I oppose liability (simply because I'm as yet unconvinced that there should be some liability) for a man who hires a hitman and I support a liability for those who commit fraud. Your explanation here doesn't do much in the way of explaining how those things are in any way related... Care to elaborate?

I would also like some elaboration on why you believe that fraud breaks down to liability. I don't see the connection.

Re: Punishing non-violent actions with violence

Micah71381 — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 03:21:38 GMT

Eugene:

James, thank you for the long reply. Why does the babysitter have responsibility to take care of the child? It is only true if the babysitter has an implicit contract. But what if she breaks the contract? Will she only be fined if she was negligent and that resulted in the death of the child?

There are two types of contracts, those that would hold up in "court" and those that wouldn't. In the case of the babysitter, most people assume that their babysitter will do a good job and maybe they will buy a nanycam to make sure. However, if the babysitter doesn't perform they have no recourse. On the other hand, if you are hiring a full time nanny chances are you are going to draft up a more complex and thorough contract that will specify exactly what is and what is not expected of the nanny and what will happen if the nanny fails to deliver on this contract.

The babysitter contract (just a verbal agreement to babysit) above wouldn't get you very far in court. Most likely you would just fire the babysitter and say bad things to your other parent friends about them if they didn't perform. The nanny contrtact on the other hand would allow you to seek reparations in court if they babysitter didn't perform their duties (such as keeping the baby alive).

Sometimes it's just not worth the risk to draft up a formal agreement. Time is valuable and if the risk of your highly-recommended babysitter killing your baby are low during her one night babysitting then drafting up a contract just isn't worth the time. Other times the risks are worth drafting up a contract. In the case of a nanny, you are going to be using them for a long period of time so the costs associated with drafting up the contract are more likely to be worth it since the contract will cover all future babysitting.

Eugene:

Another example. A poor but very talented performer wants to perform in a theater. The theater owner wants to be sure that the performer appears, but the performer can't sign a contract specifying a performance bond for his appearance due ot lack of funds. The performer would be happy to sign a contract that specifies a performance bond in the form of slight physical punishment for himself. This would satisfy the theater owner. However the court can't enforce this kind of agreement. In my opinion this limits the freedom of association and contract.

Further, I'd like to understand the difference. The performance bond, in case it is financial, can be extremely large, and the performer, in case he breaks the contract, may not have the required money. So in reality the court will require the performer to labor until he has enough money to repay the theater, which can actually translate to years of slave labor. How is that better than a short corporate punishment or just demanding that the performer performs the required work?

Just out of curiosity, why would the theater owner be satisfied with corporal punishment should the performer not show? This doesn't get his lost money back (lost customers, having to refund all patrons, etc.). I don't have a problem with the contract specifying this if that is what both parties want, I just can't see why they would want this.

I do believe that such a contract would be enforcable unless there was an alternative exit clause. That is, there could be a clause that states something like, "should the performer desire to exit the contract without performing and without physical punishment he must pay the theater owner $X". Without such a clause then the theater owner has the right to execute physical punishment on the performer.

Re: Punishing non-violent actions with violence

ladyphoenix — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 01:28:01 GMT

Eugene:
I think people who are opposed to liability of those who ordered a hitman have to oppose fraud law as well. The explanation would be as following. So what if he lied to you? Why did you give your property to someone who you don't completely trust? That's your fault. There was no aggression here, only a bad decision on your part.

That's an interesting theory. I oppose liability (simply because I'm as yet unconvinced that there should be some liability) for a man who hires a hitman and I support a liability for those who commit fraud. Your explanation here doesn't do much in the way of explaining how those things are in any way related... Care to elaborate?

Re: Punishing non-violent actions with violence

Merlin — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 00:24:52 GMT

Eugene:

I think people who are opposed to liability of those who ordered a hitman have to oppose fraud law as well. The explanation would be as following. So what if he lied to you? Why did you give your property to someone who you don't completely trust? That's your fault. There was no aggression here, only a bad decision on your part.

My fault or the fault of the con man?

Re: Punishing non-violent actions with violence

Eugene — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:49:13 GMT

I think people who are opposed to liability of those who ordered a hitman have to oppose fraud law as well. The explanation would be as following. So what if he lied to you? Why did you give your property to someone who you don't completely trust? That's your fault. There was no aggression here, only a bad decision on your part.