Political Theory

Re: Retribution vs. Self defense

Marko — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:21:02 GMT

What issue do you think I'm skirting?

More than anything I wanted you to give me a straightforward answer to the question posed in my example, and you finally did that below so we're fine.

While I agree that incapacitating force can turn out (i.e. ex post facto) to be lethal force, there is a fact about whether the victim's intent was to kill or just to incapacitate. Strictly speaking, that intent is unknowable to anyone else, and I imagine in many (if not most) cases there wouldn't be sufficient evidence to entertain the notion that the victim intended to kill. I guess my point is that, in my opinion, intentionally killing a rapist while engaging in the act of rape constitutes murder, and thus aggression, and is therefore morally wrong.

You seem to use the word 'intent' in its broad meaning that is not synonymous with 'purpose in action' but is synonymous with 'purpose in action' plus 'all consequences of action known in advance'.

What if the victim being raped is armed with a magic device that is only capable of dealing out lethal force? (I should have thought of this earlier.) If she terminates the rape by using it on the rapist it is impossible for her to say she did not intend for the rapist to die. She may only say killing him was not her purpose in dishing out lethal force, that her purpose in firing was to terminate the rape.

I don't think 'intent' in its broad meaning is relevant, 'purpose of action' is a term that isolates the relevant part better.

On the other hand, I think Rothbard rejected the concept of retaliation and focused entirely on defense and restitution. (I don't have any of his works right here with me, so please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Rothbard's writing on this is less than perfect. As said he even writes about retaliation in the chapter on defense, so it doesn't seem as if he had the most organized thoughts on this. I think Kinsella represents the present libertarian cutting edge on this and he very much bases himself off retalliation.

The notion that one is justified to repel any and all aggression with lethal force and lethal intent strikes me as letting trespassers be shot and killed outright.

Please don't misrepresent where I stand. Any type of aggression may be responded to with lethal force, but only under very specific circumstances so it is not the case all aggression may be defended against in such a way.

Reading what I wrote again, I think I was a bit sloppy. What I meant was that, in a rape situation where the victim has been (or feels) completely overpowered by the rapist, it seems reasonable to me for the victim to assume that her life is indeed in danger, as she has no real way of knowing whether the rapist will murder her after raping her.

I understood that perfectly, but I was trying to isolate the gist of the problem better by removing this and other extra factors from my scenario whereas they kept being brought back in anyway leading to frustration.

But if a rape victim knew for a fact that her life was not in danger, then I think it would be immoral for her to kill or to try to kill the rapist while engaged in the act.

Thank you for the answer. That makes you coherent and willing to see your position out to its logical conclusions. This means it leaves very little room for me to show where you are wrong. I can only ask you to reconsider this, as it would appear your position is rather inhumane.

It means that under certain (admittedly very specific and very unlikely) circumstances you would demand of a rape victim to continue to endure being raped.

To my mind a Tolstoyan who is willing to see his position to its logical conclusions has to insist that a father has no right to stop a rape of his daughter, when the only way to do so would involve using force on his part. A consistent Tolstoyan must demand of the father to remain pacific and not interfere.

Your position is different in degree only. You recognize the right of a rape victim to defend herself, but only up to a certain point. Once her attempts at defense reach a certain point of forcefulness you insist she is not allowed to attempt stil greater force. Instead reduced to ineffective methods she must effectively submit to continue being raped.

Also the treshold you use to determine up to which point escalation in defense is permissible is by necessity arbitrary. You invoke proportionality as your objective yard stick, but you are forgetting there is no such thing as objective value. Being victim of assault may fall harder upon a ballerina than upon a street hoodlum. Likewise rape may fall harder upon some victim than if she were tortured to death instead. You would allow a victim to use lethal force to defend from attempted murder (once all other options were exhausted and proved ineffective because of the would be-murderer), but not against rape that to her is worse than death? Who are you to set the values for the victim like this?

If damage on the victim is being imposed that the victim truly and sincerely deems is catasthrophic and irreperable then the victim may ultimately use whatever force proves the minimum necessary for a successful defense, lethal force included. The victim is not required to suffer irreperable damage for the sake of the criminal. A rapist who wants to preclude being killed in the act of rape must be willing to be thwarted with lesser force, such as a threat, otherwise if it comes to his death it is his own fault - it was he who brought the situation to that.

Indeed why would you reward ruthlessnes, effectivness and persistance in criminals like this? According to your thinking once the criminal is sufficiently immune to efforts at thwarting him, the victim must now submit to it. What the hell kind of system is that?

Does the victim have inalianable rights or not? Does a rape victim loses her rights not to be raped if she is being raped by someone strong enough she can not stop, short of killing him (with the afforementioned magical device)?

(Whereas what rights the criminal has is irrelevant, since by creating the situation he effectively kills himself, so no violation of rights could have taken place. It is effectively a hostage/extortion situation where the criminal demands of the victim to either suffer permanent damage (which he has no right to demand) or to kill him.)

Re: Retribution vs. Self defense

Autolykos — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:18:23 GMT

Marko:
The fact I am able to agree with everything here, makes me feel this response skirts the issue.

What issue do you think I'm skirting? Keep in mind that the post of yours that I was responding to wasn't addressed to me at all.

Marko:
Jet the agent of the victim may use force that is not intended to kill the rapist, but to incapacitate him, if possible without killing him, and jet have this incapacitating force end up killing the rapist as well as incapacitating him. In this case the agent has in fact used lethal force.

I agree the agent of the victim has for the purposes of defense only the right to shoot for the purpose of incapacitating the aggressor, and not for the purpose of killing him. However, intention of the shooter do not determine what kind of force will his shooting turn out to be, merely incapacitating force, or both incapacitating and lethal force. This is instead determined by circumstances beyond his control, circumstances controlled by the aggressor. If the rapist makes himself difficult for the agent to incapacitate without risking the rapists' life then that is his own problem. The victim shouldn't suffer for that.

The amount of force used by the victim in defense is entirely up to the victim. The amount of force necessary to incapacitate the rapist is not. While I agree that incapacitating force can turn out (i.e. ex post facto) to be lethal force, there is a fact about whether the victim's intent was to kill or just to incapacitate. Strictly speaking, that intent is unknowable to anyone else, and I imagine in many (if not most) cases there wouldn't be sufficient evidence to entertain the notion that the victim intended to kill. I guess my point is that, in my opinion, intentionally killing a rapist while engaging in the act of rape constitutes murder, and thus aggression, and is therefore morally wrong.

Marko:
The latter is not a counter-argument to the first. To think so entails conflating retaliation and defense. In the second case the rapist would not be killed for the rape he committed. He would be killed (read dealt an incapacitating wound which would also turn out to be mortal though it was intention of the shooter in firing to deal a wound which would be incapacitating but if possible not mortal) because that was the only way to stop further irreparable harm to the victim.

I see what you mean. Thanks for pointing that out. Since I posted that a while ago, I can't remember why I wrote it the way I did. IIRC, I actually meant to refer to the notion of the rapist being killed in the act of rape (i.e. simply for the act he's committing, not the one he already committed) would be a violation of his rights. That's the only way my subsequent sentence about the counter-argument makes sense.

On the other hand, I think Rothbard rejected the concept of retaliation and focused entirely on defense and restitution. (I don't have any of his works right here with me, so please correct me if I'm wrong.) The notion that one is justified to repel any and all aggression with lethal force and lethal intent strikes me as letting trespassers be shot and killed outright. I think that's why Rothbard focuses not only on proportionate restitution, but also on proportionate defense.

Marko:
In absolutely every instance of rape ever to occur?? You're sure of that? You don't think in countless cases of rape that have taken place in the history of time there could not have been one or two where this was not the case, where the victim or its agent in fact knew for a fact the victim's bare life was not in danger?

Reading what I wrote again, I think I was a bit sloppy. What I meant was that, in a rape situation where the victim has been (or feels) completely overpowered by the rapist, it seems reasonable to me for the victim to assume that her life is indeed in danger, as she has no real way of knowing whether the rapist will murder her after raping her. But if a rape victim knew for a fact that her life was not in danger, then I think it would be immoral for her to kill or to try to kill the rapist while engaged in the act.

Marko:
I don't know where the problem is, maybe it's me, but I have grown frustrated that you can't seem to just give me a straigth answer.

Well it's certainly not my intention to frustrate you. However, I don't think I have a straight answer yet, because I think this subject is very complex and nuanced.

Re: Retribution vs. Self defense

Anenome — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:21:09 GMT

Marko:

In absolutely every instance of rape ever to occur?? You're sure of that? You don't think in countless cases of rape that have taken place in the history of time there could not have been one or two where this was not the case, where the victim or its agent in fact knew for a fact the victim's bare life was not in danger?

If you overpower someone, you have the power of life and death over them. The overpowered may morally use all means necessary to get out from that state of total and defenseless coercion. And if the aggressor attempts to prevent this they may use all means necessary to prevent them from stopping them attaining the natural state of freedom again. Thus, the slave may morally attempt escape, and if prevented from escaping, may use force to ensure his escape, including attacking the aggressor to ensure escape. And that can mean bodily harm if the coerced has no other choice.

The line of morality lays in how much force the aggressor uses to prevent escape. If the aggressor escalates to threat of serious bodily and/or lethal threat, the "defensor" may respond in kind.

So, if a slave or someone threatened with being raped or overpowered, were to simply kill an aggressor offering no resistance, of course that would be crossing the line and they'd be committing a crime themselves.

Re: Retribution vs. Self defense

Marko — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:29:06 GMT

What I don't get, and perhaps I missed something trying to read this thick thread, is how any of this applies to the real world?

One application is that if I authorize you only to perform those acts against an invader of my property that stem from my right to defense, and I authorize Autolykos only to perform those acts against an invader that stem from my right to enact retribution, I may be authorizing you to bring to be bear wildly different levels of force on my behalf.

Depending on the crime and the circumstances of thereof you may be liable for bringing force to bear which did not exceed that which I as the victim had the right to inflict for the purpose of retribution, but which was in excess of that sufficient for a successful defense. Likewise, in different circumstances, Autolykos may be liable for bringing force to bear against the aggressor of a kind which I as the victim had the right to resort to to stop irreparable damage to my person or property while that damage was being inflicted, but which was not actually brought to bear against me.

In RL examples this means that if I am toiling under a foreign military occupation it is OK for you to plant roadside bombs aiming to inflict severe wounds against the occupying troops as part of my bid at defense against determined trespass, but it is not permissible for Autolykos to seek out former occupying soldiers and plant roadside bombs against them in their own countries for punishment of trespass long past. This means that if I am murdered and the perpetrator turns himself in of his own accord Autolykos may stil execute him to enact retribution, but you on the other hand may not lay a finger on him.

Re: Retribution vs. Self defense

Marko — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:45:33 GMT

I think it's morally permissible to incapacitate the rapist, as that renders him unable to continue the aggression. But rape per se does not typically lead to loss of life, so killing a rapist simply for the rape he committed would be a violation of his rights IMHO. The counter-argument to that is rape typically involves the rapist completely overpowering his victim, so the victim has no way of knowing whether the rapist will then murder her after the rape. It seems reasonable to me for the victim to assume that her life is indeed in danger.

The fact I am able to agree with everything here, makes me feel this response skirts the issue.

When it comes to lethal force, I prefer incapacitating force over that, as incapacitating force is not necessarily lethal.

Jet the agent of the victim may use force that is not intended to kill the rapist, but to incapacitate him, if possible without killing him, and jet have this incapacitating force end up killing the rapist as well as incapacitating him. In this case the agent has in fact used lethal force.

I agree the agent of the victim has for the purposes of defense only the right to shoot for the purpose of incapacitating the aggressor, and not for the purpose of killing him. However, intention of the shooter do not determine what kind of force will his shooting turn out to be, merely incapacitating force, or both incapacitating and lethal force. This is instead determined by circumstances beyond his control, circumstances controlled by the aggressor. If the rapist makes himself difficult for the agent to incapacitate without risking the rapists' life then that is his own problem. The victim shouldn't suffer for that.

But rape per se does not typically lead to loss of life, so killing a rapist simply for the rape he committed would be a violation of his rights IMHO. The counter-argument to that is rape typically involves the rapist completely overpowering his victim, so the victim has no way of knowing whether the rapist will then murder her after the rape.

The latter is not a counter-argument to the first. To think so entails conflating retaliation and defense. In the second case the rapist would not be killed for the rape he committed. He would be killed (read dealt an incapacitating wound which would also turn out to be mortal though it was intention of the shooter in firing to deal a wound which would be incapacitating but if possible not mortal) because that was the only way to stop further irreparable harm to the victim.

...rape typically involves the rapist completely overpowering his victim, so the victim has no way of knowing whether the rapist will then murder her after the rape. It seems reasonable to me for the victim to assume that her life is indeed in danger.

In absolutely every instance of rape ever to occur?? You're sure of that? You don't think in countless cases of rape that have taken place in the history of time there could not have been one or two where this was not the case, where the victim or its agent in fact knew for a fact the victim's bare life was not in danger?

I don't know where the problem is, maybe it's me, but I have grown frustrated that you can't seem to just give me a straigth answer.

Re: Retribution vs. Self defense

Greg — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:24:15 GMT

Ya I certainly hope so too, guess theres no way to turn that "hope" into an "will be" since we can't tell the future. I keep telling myself to go back to the economics and this is why. Moral dilemmas suck me in and I can't ever get out lol...

Re: Retribution vs. Self defense

Autolykos — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:56:27 GMT

Well, I certainly hope that, in a real-world "Ancapistan", a person would be held liable for murder if he blows away his wife's lover (and possibly also his wife herself).

Re: Retribution vs. Self defense

Greg — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:34:44 GMT

What I don't get, and perhaps I missed something trying to read this thick thread, is how any of this applies to the real world? I have to agree with what Marko says here on a "gut morality" level, if that makes any sense. Using the least amount of force necessary even up to killing to protect yourself definitely but also your property feels like the right thing to do to me. But is anyone here trying to say their preferred outcome will happen in Ancapistan? (love that word)

In Marko's rape scenario I think murder is worse than rape (I can't prove that one is objectively "worse" though,) but I think one is still justified to kill under direct threat of rape if that is what it takes to end it - they have plain risked their life to get a poke at this and they're gonna die if I had a choice. So what? Turning things to a lesser scenario makes things more fuzzy, what if you walked in on some dude and your wife getting it on? Now she is not your property, but every guy I've ever heard think of this happening would be O.K. with blowing that guy away (sometimes her too) but I actually think that action would still be legitimately punishable murder. So what?

Sorry if I make no sense here, how can any of this libertarian stuff actually translate to the outcome of private law?

Re: Retribution vs. Self defense

Autolykos — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:29:40 GMT

Marko:
I'm being asked to explain myself more a lot here. I try, but it doesn't seem to do a lot of good. Why don't you do me a favor and give me your anwser to the earlier stated rapist-who-shuns-threat-of-lethal-force scenario first? Is it OK to shoot a rapist thus potentially killing them in order to stop an ongoing rape when the rapist leaves you with no other choice? (Lets say that you are a bystander rather than the victim and the rapist is unresponsive to your warnings that you will shoot, lets say he is also on some platform you can not reach thus eliminating the possibility of you restraining him without the gun, and eliminating the possibility of a shot you could be certain of would incapacitate the rapist but not result in his death.)

I'll remind you the victim is not herself in immediate mortal danger from the rapist. So, if proportionality in defense is valid then the only way you can be certain of not breaking any rights is by letting the rape finish. Or am I wrong?

You're not addressing me directly here, but I hope you don't mind if I offer a response. I think it's morally permissible to incapacitate the rapist, as that renders him unable to continue the aggression. But rape per se does not typically lead to loss of life, so killing a rapist simply for the rape he committed would be a violation of his rights IMHO. The counter-argument to that is rape typically involves the rapist completely overpowering his victim, so the victim has no way of knowing whether the rapist will then murder her after the rape. It seems reasonable to me for the victim to assume that her life is indeed in danger.

Re: Retribution vs. Self defense

Marko — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 06:37:41 GMT

What do you mean by "take a beating"? Nobody said they have to fight you.

It is a little bit silly for you to define things about my examples. Nobody said *they* have to fight, but I said they have to take a beating or shoot me. As the person creating this hypothetical scenario I probably have the power to construct it in the way this will in fact be true. Maybe I'm a big guy and have them in a corner and they have a busted leg. Also I won't respond to warning shots and actually since they wasted time on warnings I'm already on them so they may not shoot me in the leg for fear I will succeed in wrestling the gun from their hands if they don't put one in my chest at this very moment.

I agree this is an extremely unlikely scenario. Just what sort of an imbecile would it take to gamble with their life for the privilege of dishing out a severe beating? I think this is why there is so much resistance to what I am trying to say. It takes some very unexpected and downright unexplainable behavior for someone who is interested only in as relatively minor infringement of rights as beating someone up or stealing from them, to be ready to put their life on the line to do it.

That this is downright absurd scenario does not, however, mean that it does not happen regularly in a different setting. Think of non-combat, non-command military personel part of an occupying force. It is probably fair to say the only infringement of rights they are involved in is trespassing. Despite that, however, it is almost impossible to make them leave. They will not respond even to warnings that they may be shot. The only way to get them out of the country is to actually shoot them, and even then they won't leave if it is only a light wound. Only a severe wound that requires medevac or kills them will do.

Stealing a bike and running away isn't a threat to your life, but an escalating physical fight could be construed as such. So the act of stealing and running, I believe, doesn't require lethal force.

Well I agree, but whether your life is threatened has nothing to do with it. The bike may be a unique artifact or hold great emotional value to you and therefore represent a greater value to you than your life. It may be your life is worth nothing to you without the bike. As we know valuation is subjective and can not be argued with.

The reason this act probably does not require lethal force is that even if the bike itself should be lost the owner can probably be compensated for both the bike itself and the time he was without the bike. So even if there is no other way of stopping the thief in the act than shooting and potentially killing them, there is no real harm done by letting the thief escape for the moment. But if we are talking about someone running away with a dialysis machine, or a bike that holds great emotional value and whose loss, even temporary loss, would bring pain to the owner worse than death then maybe lethal force is required. You can't make sweeping statements like that. You can say, however, that in practice it would be then up to the shooter to prove he couldn't live without the bike, which is again a ridiculous, but not theorethically impossible preposition.

Re: Retribution vs. Self defense

Marko — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 05:48:49 GMT

I think Rothbard should have been clearer in that chapter. But I think his views come out to this:

1) There must be proportion in self-defense

I think this is something Rothbard would say, but at a close reading he actually does not write so in the Self-Defense EoL chapter. Ergo why I think he did not sufficiently refine his position.

The part you quoted "How extensive is a man's right of self-defense of person and property? The basic answer must be: up to the point at which he begins to infringe on the property rights of someone else." is not an argument against what I am talking about. Since it is the assailant who forced the choice and since he has the right to shoot himself no infringing of property rights took place. My scenario is little different from one where somebody tries to "extort" something by threatening to off themselves otherwise. It is fine to hold your own rights hostage, it is holding other people's rights hostage that involves infringement of property rights.

Rothbard prefaces his own bubblegum thief scenario with "Secondly, we may ask: must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubblegum?" The title of the chapter may be Self-Defense, but Rothbard is in fact here talking about punishment instead, so there is only superficial similarity but in fact this does not tackle what I am talking about. This too is perfectly compatible with what I am saying and I in fact wholeheartedly agree. My whole point is that prescription for what force is justified in defense, the "minimal amount of force needed" prescription, may in a certain cases involve greater amount of force than the one prescribed by principle of proportionality we use for deciding on appropriate punishment. There are two different caps on maximum justified force involved and it is not always the case that one and the same is always higher. Either of them may be higher.

"I propose another fundamental rule regarding crime: the criminal, or invader, loses his own right to the extent that he has deprived another man of his. If a man deprives another man of some of his self-ownership or its extension in physical property, to that extent does he lose his own rights." Again true, but not relevant to self-defense. Rights being absolute you can defend them with that force which will let you preserve them. As long as you're using the minimum amount of force needed to defend yourself you really have no need to worry about what rights the assailant has. But if you really wanted to construct a similar rule for self-defense I suppose you could say "For the duration of the aggression the criminal, or invader, loses his own right to the extent needed to thwart his aggression or repair the consequences of thereof."

If I understand you correctly, it would seem that you are arguing for a maximalist or propertarian position, which is something Rothbard was dead against

No that isn't the case. I'm in agreement with everything Rothbard put in there, it is rather the case there is one thing he didn't tackle in there.

Could you explain that a little more?

I'm being asked to explain myself more a lot here. I try, but it doesn't seem to do a lot of good. Why don't you do me a favor and give me your anwser to the earlier stated rapist-who-shuns-threat-of-lethal-force scenario first? Is it OK to shoot a rapist thus potentially killing them in order to stop an ongoing rape when the rapist leaves you with no other choice? (Lets say that you are a bystander rather than the victim and the rapist is unresponsive to your warnings that you will shoot, lets say he is also on some platform you can not reach thus eliminating the possibility of you restraining him without the gun, and eliminating the possibility of a shot you could be certain of would incapacitate the rapist but not result in his death.)

I'll remind you the victim is not herself in immediate mortal danger from the rapist. So, if proportionality in defense is valid then the only way you can be certain of not breaking any rights is by letting the rape finish. Or am I wrong?

Re: Retribution vs. Self defense

Eric080 — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:04:56 GMT

What do you mean by "take a beating"? Nobody said they have to fight you. If you steal the gum/bike/whatever and then resist the person trying to take the gum back, then they would have a right to violently defend themselves since you're committing battery. Stealing a bike and running away isn't a threat to your life, but an escalating physical fight could be construed as such. So the act of stealing and running, I believe, doesn't require lethal force.

Re: Retribution vs. Self defense

gotlucky — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:03:32 GMT

I think Rothbard should have been clearer in that chapter. But I think his views come out to this:

1) There must be proportion in self-defense

2) There must be proportion in punishment

So, for lethal force to be used, the situation must escalate to a point where it would be justified. Rothbard lays out what he thinks the criteria should be in that chapter as well.

Marko:

In fact I can not demand any sacrifice from you on my behalf. And so I can not complain even if you shoot me over the tiniest thing you have a right to, if it was in fact me who created the situation where you either shot me, or forsake your rights to a tiny extent.

Could you explain that a little more? If I understand you correctly, it would seem that you are arguing for a maximalist or propertarian position, which is something Rothbard was dead against (also stated in chapter 12, maybe chapter 13 if not 12).

Re: Retribution vs. Self defense

Marko — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:12:51 GMT

I think that ultimately the best explanation is hidden in the question of who created the situation in question. If I create a situation where you may either take a beating or shoot me in the chest, I can not complain when you opt to shoot me.

In reality I effectively shot myself because I as an aggressor have no ground to demand you take a beating to spare me a bullet to the chest.

In fact I can not demand any sacrifice from you on my behalf. And so I can not complain even if you shoot me over the tiniest thing you have a right to, if it was in fact me who created the situation where you either shot me, or forsake your rights to a tiny extent.

There can be no obligation to let go of your property in favor of an aggressor, ever.

Re: Retribution vs. Self defense

Marko — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 17:44:38 GMT

Thanks. I stand corrected.

I actually must have known this seeing I used the exact same example here but somehow forgot about it over time.

Mind you I don't so much think there is contradiction as I think Rothbard didn't pan out his views in great enough detail, he didn't envision or tackle situations I talk about.