Political Theory

Re: "Legalize Drunk Driving"

CaptainMurphy — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:09:38 GMT

PMix:

If you suscribe to a Rothbardian definition of criminal then it would be someone who agresses against you or your property. Under that definition I would argue that shooting at someone constitutes an act of agression against them whether you hit them or not. If you hit someone unintentionally then you would be liable for the damages that you have caused to them.

This makes sense, but then how you define 'aggression' is crucial, and tricky to pin down.

Re: "Legalize Drunk Driving"

Patrick — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 05:19:48 GMT

If you suscribe to a Rothbardian definition of criminal then it would be someone who agresses against you or your property. Under that definition I would argue that shooting at someone constitutes an act of agression against them whether you hit them or not. If you hit someone unintentionally then you would be liable for the damages that you have caused to them.

Re: "Legalize Drunk Driving"

CaptainMurphy — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 07:16:02 GMT

liege:
I am not equating self defense with restitution. They are two separate things. You are not a criminal if it cannot be shown to a jury of your peers (or arbitrator) that you have trespassed against someone's life/property. If you have, then you owe restitution, and in the modern state, you are a "criminal"--which means you pay the state, either in fines, prison time, or both.

If someone shoots at you and misses, have they trespassed against your life or property? Does it matter if the shooting is intentional? And for that matter, does intention matter if they do hit you?

Re: "Legalize Drunk Driving"

liege — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:44:20 GMT

CaptainMurphy:
Maybe I'm not understanding you, but if one is only a criminal based on the body/property damage he has caused, then a man has no right to self-defense unless he is first injured. If I shoot at you and miss, then I have done nothing criminal by this logic. If you shoot back at me and hit me (after making the reasonable assumtpion that I might try to shoot you again), then you are the criminal, but clearly this doesn't seem right.

I am not equating self defense with restitution. They are two separate things. You are not a criminal if it cannot be shown to a jury of your peers (or arbitrator) that you have trespassed against someone's life/property. If you have, then you owe restitution, and in the modern state, you are a "criminal"--which means you pay the state, either in fines, prison time, or both.

You always have the right to self-defense. Do you think that the rest of society would condemn you if you attacked someone who pulled a gun on you, whether it was unloaded, fake, drawn without intent to fire, a water pistol, etc? Criminal is a legal term that is applied after the fact, i.e. in a court of opionion or law, and ultimately determines who you owe restitution to. Criminality and restitution have nothing to do with justified self-defense.

Re: "Legalize Drunk Driving"

Stranger — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:42:52 GMT

ama gi:

Forget drunk driving.

Tear down the stop signs!

Traffic lights as well. What a waste to wait idle at a red light while no one is driving through the intersection.

But waste and extortion are natural outcomes of government.

Re: "Legalize Drunk Driving"

CaptainMurphy — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:37:45 GMT

liege:

CaptainMurphy:
If someone tries to shoot at you and you shoot back and kill them, then the shooter must have been committing a crime in order to justify defense against it. But if attempting to shoot someone (i.e there is a probability that you will injure them) is a crime in itself, then you can't say that the law should deal only in absolutes, or only in cases where property rights are violated.

I think a good basis for law, as far as identifying who is a criminal, would be to show what damage he/she has caused before labeling them as a criminal and then trying to exact some sort of restitution (either on behalf of a specific person, or society itself) from them. This is a case against victimless crimes, like drunk driving.

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but if one is only a criminal based on the body/property damage he has caused, then a man has no right to self-defense unless he is first injured. If I shoot at you and miss, then I have done nothing criminal by this logic. If you shoot back at me and hit me (after making the reasonable assumtpion that I might try to shoot you again), then you are the criminal, but clearly this doesn't seem right.

CaptianMurphy:
I think this reasong sets a dangerous precedent.

Maybe. But more dangerous than labeling people criminals who have actually done no damage to anyone or anything? The victimless crime seems like a far more dangerous precedent than reacting to actions by people. Victimless crimes turn mutually consenting adults into criminals in thousands of different ways.

I agree with Mr. Rockwell. The law should not deal in probabilities, only actions. To that end I agree with Frederic Bastiat as well, in that the law should be negative in nature, only reacting to injustices. Bastiat said that the law should not cause justice to reign, but only to prevent injustice from reigning.

This is why I find it interesting to think about this stuff, because I don't know where I stand.

Re: "Legalize Drunk Driving"

liege — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:19:23 GMT

CaptainMurphy:
If someone tries to shoot at you and you shoot back and kill them, then the shooter must have been committing a crime in order to justify defense against it. But if attempting to shoot someone (i.e there is a probability that you will injure them) is a crime in itself, then you can't say that the law should deal only in absolutes, or only in cases where property rights are violated.

I think a good basis for law, as far as identifying who is a criminal, would be to show what damage he/she has caused before labeling them as a criminal and then trying to exact some sort of restitution (either on behalf of a specific person, or society itself) from them. This is a case against victimless crimes, like drunk driving.

CaptianMurphy:
I think this reasong sets a dangerous precedent.

Maybe. But more dangerous than labeling people criminals who have actually done no damage to anyone or anything? The victimless crime seems like a far more dangerous precedent than reacting to actions by people. Victimless crimes turn mutually consenting adults into criminals in thousands of different ways.

I agree with Mr. Rockwell. The law should not deal in probabilities, only actions. To that end I agree with Frederic Bastiat as well, in that the law should be negative in nature, only reacting to injustices. Bastiat said that the law should not cause justice to reign, but only to prevent injustice from reigning.

Re: "Legalize Drunk Driving"

CaptainMurphy — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:00:19 GMT

liege:

liberticity:

liege:

Maybe a good test for "criminality" would be an ability to show damage to life, property, etc. The burden of proof should be on the one making the charge. Getting shot would be a crime. Getting shot at, but being missed would not be ... there was no loss of life, property, or limb. True, being shot at might be offensive to some, but nobody would have a legal right not to be offended in a future state-less society.

By that reasoning it seems that you would have no right to defend yourself if you were getting shot at, that is, until you were hit. That does not seem right. Is that how you see it?

No that is not how I see it. I was confuting the idea of "criminality" with restitution I think. I made no argument about not being able to defend yourself. What I was trying to say is that you have no basis for exacting restitution if you can't show damage. You have every right to defend yourself when getting shot at, you just don't have a claim for damages against anyone until you actually take a bullet.

If someone tries to shoot at you and you shoot back and kill them, then the shooter must have been committing a crime in order to justify defense against it. But if attempting to shoot someone (i.e there is a probability that you will injure them) is a crime in itself, then you can't say that the law should deal only in absolutes, or only in cases where property rights are violated.

Re: "Legalize Drunk Driving"

liege — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 02:27:53 GMT

liberticity:

liege:

Maybe a good test for "criminality" would be an ability to show damage to life, property, etc. The burden of proof should be on the one making the charge. Getting shot would be a crime. Getting shot at, but being missed would not be ... there was no loss of life, property, or limb. True, being shot at might be offensive to some, but nobody would have a legal right not to be offended in a future state-less society.

By that reasoning it seems that you would have no right to defend yourself if you were getting shot at, that is, until you were hit. That does not seem right. Is that how you see it?

No that is not how I see it. I was confuting the idea of "criminality" with restitution I think. I made no argument about not being able to defend yourself. What I was trying to say is that you have no basis for exacting restitution if you can't show damage. You have every right to defend yourself when getting shot at, you just don't have a claim for damages against anyone until you actually take a bullet.

The idea I think I was trying to get across is that drunk driving is illegal because the state says it damages society. Although society is not a real person, and even if it was that person isn't damaged until run over by a drunk driver, thats the rationale behind this and all victimless crimes. I don't think this is a good basis for law.

GilesStratton:
To borrow an example from Hoppe (I think) if I calculate that lighting will strike in 10 seconds at a certain location, and tell you to walk there, at which point you are hit by the lighting and die, do you really believe that I am not responsible?

This is kind of an absurd argument. Yes, you are responsible. But so is the guy whom you told to walk into lightning. Why did he just take your advice? Were you a complete stranger to him? Was he your friend? Did he trust you? Did you have a conversation about this? What was said? There are so many unknowns here that its difficult to say who is responsible. I can't remember the last time someone walked to the exact location I told them to within the exact timeframe I had planned. Come to think of it, I can't remember the last time I accurately calculated the precise time and location of a lightning strike. Does Hoppe have a more realistic scenario in mind when dealing with difficult subjects like this? I hope this isn't taken personally, but I'm not going to consider my position refuted by a ridiculous scenario whose probability of occuring is next to nothing.

Re: "Legalize Drunk Driving"

PeterWellington — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:12:57 GMT

Issues like these can be really tough. On one hand drunk driving in and of itself leaves no victims. In this sense it's compatible with libertarian ethics. On the other hand, envision a stateless society where roads are private. Would you be comfortable on a road at night where people could be driving around with a blood alcohol level of 0.2? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't, but is it far-fetched to say a lot people wouldn't be comfortable driving on such a road? And if those people are willing to pay for its enforcement, then private road owners will accomodate. This could come in the form of an explicit blood alcohol limit or fall under the blanket of a more general policy against reckless driving. It's for this reason I don't champion articles like this, even though I agree with it. I think it reinforces the notion that anarchy is lawlessness. All my subjective opinion of course.

Re: "Legalize Drunk Driving"

Patrick — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:53:59 GMT

The answer is in your Rockwell quote: "The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property." Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is an action. Having alcohol in your bloodstream is not.

Re: "Legalize Drunk Driving"

ama gi — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:31:59 GMT

Forget drunk driving.

Tear down the stop signs!

Re: "Legalize Drunk Driving"

Rytz — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:00:30 GMT

CaptainMurphy:
I agree that privatization would solve this situation easily, but I still think it's an interesting problem to look at given the constraints we live under.

I don't agree. It's not a solution to the underlying moral issue. Private/public/whatever, it is still a question of rational self-governance. As a road-owner would you allow or disallow drunk driving? That's the question.

Far too often in these debates the "private" card is played as if it helps us one bit as human beings in productive communities ... "Problem solved", we say. "The solution is that any solution goes ... because of freedom." To my mind, libertarianism is a highly moral doctrine - libertarians (well, me) do not live in a vacuum. We are functional human beings in communities. I mean, we're a flock animal, for goodness sake. I want to coorporate on free and equal terms with my fellow man. My point is that rational moral considerations are even more needed in a free world of autonomous agents.

So ... the question should be: Is drunk driving, by a reasonable ethical principle, immoral? (And this is the question I submit to you ... I don't have the answer).

- And don't give me the "anything goes"-line. Libertarianism, Austrian economics, the ideas of Ayn Rand concerning capitalism etc. are highly moral considerations with a clear altruistic bend (even if it does not require of the individual to act altruistically, the argument for, lets say, free and unhindered exchange of services, goods, and ideas, is clearly that not just one individual would prosper, but all individuals would prosper). -

Or lets discuss something related: Why do you feel that privatization is the answer? To me, privatization is the beginning of a free, moral society ... not the end.

Re: "Legalize Drunk Driving"

hayekianxyz — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:42:58 GMT

liege:
Maybe a good test for "criminality" would be an ability to show damage to life, property, etc. The burden of proof should be on the one making the charge. Getting shot would be a crime. Getting shot at, but being missed would not be ... there was no loss of life, property, or limb. True, being shot at might be offensive to some, but nobody would have a legal right not to be offended in a future state-less society.

You're wrong. Praxeology teaches us that all action has a subjective aspect, you can't merely analyse it in terms of it's physical consequences. To do so would be absurd. To borrow an example from Hoppe (I think) if I calculate that lighting will strike in 10 seconds at a certain location, and tell you to walk there, at which point you are hit by the lighting and die, do you really believe that I am not responsible?

Re: "Legalize Drunk Driving"

liberticity — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:35:40 GMT

liege:

Maybe a good test for "criminality" would be an ability to show damage to life, property, etc. The burden of proof should be on the one making the charge. Getting shot would be a crime. Getting shot at, but being missed would not be ... there was no loss of life, property, or limb. True, being shot at might be offensive to some, but nobody would have a legal right not to be offended in a future state-less society.

By that reasoning it seems that you would have no right to defend yourself if you were getting shot at, that is, until you were hit. That does not seem right. Is that how you see it?