Wheylous: I'm really sure intentions matter. I'm sure that some statists have the best of intentions with their programs, but we know better. Causation, not intention, matters. Of course, if the victim decides that intention is important as well, then good for them. But for the purposes of ceteris paribus justice, causation.
Causation, not intention, matters. Of course, if the victim decides that intention is important as well, then good for them. But for the purposes of ceteris paribus justice, causation.
Yeah, but there were many people who didn't know there was any other way besides statism and it seems to counter our intutions that someone should be held responsible for something that "determined" them from the outside (like a statist culture) or else Bastiat would be guilty.
I mean, a person's choices and decisions are most imputable to them when they choose freely. But freedom is both prior to the act and posterior to it. For instance, one wouldn't be held responsible for trying to learn that fire is the substance of the mind, when that is the common teaching. And even though one freely chooses to act in accord waith what you learn, this action is itself cropped by the prior irresponsibility. So I figured, Hitler was in many ways just a product of his time nd what his time considered appropriate and this, at least partly, excuses.
Intention, seems to be a necessary condition for morality, not the only one surely, but it is one.
I think John James gave a very good example of why mere words cannot constitute murder. Remember the preacher who said he would burn Quaran books, and then 20 Muslims were killed in demonstrations in the middle east? He certainly could have anticipated that saying he would burn those books would lead to riots and deaths. And he certainly wanted that to happen, since the whole point was to show how dangerous Muslims are. But surely he cannot be held responsible for something evil people do because of how they interpreted his words (despite the fact he wanted them to interpret these words that way)
The State, unfortunately, is beyond questions of legality because it monopolizes the courts, thus paralyzing the natural means for assessing the legitimacy of actions. Hitler was clearly morally responsible for a great deal of evil but I think the narrative that turns him into a cartoonish super-villain is dangerous at best. Even Steven Pinker, one of my intellectual heroes, has fallen into this trap, describing Hitler as a sociopathic narcissist who is almost single-handedly responsible for all the war crimes commited in Europe during World War II.
George Bush is responsible for nearly as much villainy as Hitler. The comic-book style magnification of Hitler's villainy to impossible proportions unwittingly dwarfs the very real villainy of modern political leaders which attains to magnitudes just as great, maybe even greater.
In a private law society, I think legal causality would be strict... meaning, causality nearly in its physical sense. If your finger did not pull the trigger that caused the bullet to go into someone's head, then you did not commit homicide and you cannot be held liable for homicide. Whoever did pull the trigger is liable for homicide. This might seem limp-wristed on first glance... "you're letting the kingpin off scot-free on a technicality!" However, on reflection, I do not think that it is limp-wristed at all. With strict liability for the trigger-puller, the price the kingpin will have to pay to find willing trigger-men will be prohibitive. Furthermore, since in a private law society no one would ever "relinquish their rights" - as in the present system where criminals essentially become caged animals with zero remaining civil rights - the trigger-men could always sue the kingpin on whatever grounds by which he had manipulated them into performing unlawful strongman work.
You might object that the kind of people who become trigger-men would never bother to sue - particularly out of fear of reprisal - but this is a mistake. The possibility of lawsuit creates its own supply in the form of tort lawyers trolling for someone to be the plaintiff in a lawsuit against a juicy target like a kingpin. The potential revenues would attract investment which would be used to purchase protection against the kingpin. As soon as Vinny Valentine gets nailed for murdering some innocent person, he will be mobbed by lawyers looking to represent him in a suit against the Don.
Clayton -
I've got some thoughts on this. Folks here may not like them, but eh.
Hitler was not innocent, but this does not imply that Hitler acted alone. The problem you'll have dealing with things on the level of the individual all the time is exactly the debate that's happening here. Those who say Hitler was innocent sound insane, but those who say he wasn't can't quite think up a reason other than, "well, it was the state and the state is bad."
The point is that Hitler was an actor (a central actor) in a larger collective system of hierarchy and domination. He gave the commands and made the plans, and those who followed are just as much to blame. The chain of command is not considered a sufficient aliby in international law. This problem goes beyond what one individual did wrong. There is plenty of blame to go around for Nazi Germany, and even without Hitler, fascism probably would have arose in Germany anyway.
The solution isn't to just individually drop out. There was plenty of individual dissent, and many people were executed because of it. And the problem isn't an individual's actions. It was a matter of collective action, and on the flip side collective action against Fascism or the state can be empowering.
And before someone comes in with "there is no collective, only individuals" I give you this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVygqjyS4CA
It was the actions of many individuals within a collectivist framework. In any case, I'm pretty sure that in a stateless society Hitler would have been dealt with extremely harshly (if we assume somehow he could do such thigs in such a society). I think he was a bad dude who deserved what he got because I am repulsed by his actions. Probably so do most people; that's why he would've gotten harsh treatment in a stateless legal system.
Why anarchy fails
What I'm saying is that "stateless society" (at least as used here) already implies a certain (anti-)political culture that does not already exist. Simply saying that individuals will all come to the same conclusion without any type of collective consciousness is pretty much like all the people in life of Brian chanting "yes! We are all individuals!"
The fact that people like to conform doesn't mean they aren't acting as individuals. We could zoom out and analyze the situation from an institutional/establishment perspective, with some loss of clarity of course, but when we zoom back in we are only going to see individuals making choices in an effort to improve their respective situations.
...which is to say, removing the state doesn't remove culture, nor would it likely eradicate conformism.
Cool.
So if you want to address anything I said feel free.
See my second response, which was an edit that probably got in just before you replied (can't edit posts on my phone).
Right.
So basically I'm saying Hitler was not innocent, but that an atomistic look at him as an individual probably won't suffice for proof and you're saying getting rid of the state doesn't get rid of culture.
There's a lot of missed steps in there.
This is either a grammer question - which would just be answerd by looking at the words and sentence structure in the language you prefer, or a question referring to some form of specific customary law. In which case simply check the court / relevant power in question and see how they judged him (or anyone else for that matter)
Any other speculation is probably going to be focusing on "words in themselves" (and not as utilizable currency), or heavy ideals that can somehow calculate and are "things" and can somehow form something of a hierarchy of propositions, or some type of stagnant unevolving world - either way that's Platonism which is a giant no no.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Only the first sentence addressed at yours, the rest was to the OP. I would've inserted a line break but I can't figure out how to do that from this phone. Sorry for the confusion.
+1 vive
Those who think Hitler should be liable, implicitly assume that Hitler is so charismatic that by his words alone, he could persuade people to kill. You basically elevate some people to a higher standing that others. By saying that persuation alone (or at most some property exchange) can lead to murder, and by saying such things as "he used that person as a weapon", you basically create two classes of people, the "special" people who can by their own words make someone kill someone else, and "second class" people who are so gullible that they cannot think for themselves, but were in fact influenced by some higher power individuals. This doesn't seem quite libertarian to me.
Besides you didn't comment on the pastor example. I think its crucial.
"Those who think Hitler should be liable, implicitly assume that Hitler is so charismatic that by his words alone, he could persuade people to kill."
Of course people can convince others to kill, what exactly is the issue here? People are so strong that they can pull a trigger, are they not?
Please tell me what the difference is between using a muder weapon and using someone to murder someone else is.
"You basically elevate some people to a higher standing that others."
First of all men are inherently equal, so of course you do, however this can be answered simply, you split the world into those who performed a crime and those who did not, those who used a weapon and those who did not. It's not about those who can and can't, it's about those who can and did.
"Besides you didn't comment on the pastor example. I think its crucial."
I'm pretty sure that I did, but I did not then I'm sorry. The simple answer there is that the pastor could not have known that his words would result in someone killing someone else, he did not use them as a weapon, they merely reacted against what he said.
For an analogy:
If a man is walking along a mountain edge and he accidentally causes a stone to tumble down the mountain and it results in a viscious rockslide that kills several people and causes significant property damage then is he guilty? Assuming he had no practical way of knowing this would happen then should he be liable?
If, on the other hand he pushed a large boulder down the mountain in an attempt to start a rockslide, would you consider him guilty?
The two situations are equivocable.
I told you Eugene. Assume he's not liable. Then I'm also not liable if I order him to be executed. Problem solved. Period.
Neodoxy:it's pretty straightforward to know when someone does and does not know whether or not their actions will directly result in force being used
Really. What other future events can you tell me if someone knows or does not know will happen?
In a free society it's hard to see a situation where people would lean to the point of 'oh well he should have known' rather than 'we don't know whether he could have known' for obvious reasons.
WHAT? You're sounding like Herman Cain. Go up. Right to the top of this post. That's you saying that it's "pretty straightforward to know" if someone can tell the future, which was your way of saying it is easy to tell when someone "should have known" if their words would lead to someone else acting out aggression. Now you're telling me it's hard to see a situation where people would lean to a "should have known" position?
You're grasping for an answer which does not exist. Right now you're reminding me of the statist who, when told that, say, there is no 'just' price for labor, continually asks what the right price is. The answer is, I don't know, that can't be said beforehand, that depends upon the situation just as all things do, nothing is entirely black and white. EVER. We can give general guidelines but we can't know for sure without more details.
All I'm grasping for is for you to be as straightforward as you claim the situation is. You're not even giving these "general guidelines" you speak of, let alone any explanation as to how you read the mind of someone who can tell the future. Not to mention, as shown above, you're now contradicting yourself between paragraphs.
Wheylous:I ascribe to the idea that causation is as bad as the crime, and hence whatever the punishment for the actual action is is the same punishment for directly inciting that action. In this case, I might suggest lifelong servitude.
Now you're sounding like Neodoxy with his "they would not have died" thing. Again, if you go by that logic, the preacher "caused" the death of those people at the UN...so he's just as bad as the Muslims who beheaded them.
Doesn't sound like a world I'd want to live in.
Then what do you propose?
Actually hadn't thought about it much. But I certainly don't think that preacher should be condemned to a life of servitude because a group of psychos halfway around the world cut off the heads of living human beings and simply blamed the preacher for making them angry enough to do it.
And I definitely don't think "they would not have died" is a very good litmus test.
If he is higher up in a chain of command and he issues the order, he should be punished. Disagree?
"Really. What other future events can you tell me if someone knows or does not know will happen?"
A few thoughts:
I think you have to look at it from an institutional standpoint. If you interpret Hitler's actions in the context of the institution he was involved in - the state - his actions violate the NAP; he utilized stolen materials, and utilized labor payed for by conterfieted and stolen money.
Now, one might observe that an individual using medicare or what have you is "utilizing stolen materials." However, I think there is a difference in being a beneficiary of stolen goods (moreover, a significantly smaller sum of stolen goods), and being a beneficiary of stolen goods while being at the forefront (in terms of decision making especially) of the institution which steals the goods.
Now, interpreting Hitler's actions as if he were a private individual is a bit more difficult. Assume there is a fictional group - one predicated on the idea that blacks are a sub-human species and need to be erradicated (why they don't feel the need to erradicate other "sub-human species" is a mystery).
In one instance, say the group is peaceful. They boycott black stores; perhaps they completely disassociate themselves with blacks to the fullest extent. Being non-violent, no one, including the leader, is violating the NAP.
Now, assume they are a violent organization. They commonly lynch and commit other violent, heinous acts against blacks. Obviously the specific individuals commiting the acts are violating the NAP.
However, what about the leader (assuming he does nothing more than encite hatred, promote, and plan the use of violence). Is he not merely engaging in pursasion, and thus complying with the NAP? I say no. [Deleted stupid thoughts]
Revision: I say it depends.. Kinda..
The relevant question is, when does a threat begin. I think if someone marches around, promoting the use of violence against a particular group, this is on the edge of violating, but still is complying with the NAP; it is merely pursuasion absent a backing of force (compared to a threat i.e. pursuasion backed by force). However, as soon as one enters into an organization, insitution, or some form of arrangement that violates the NAP, he too is partaking in a violation of the NAP
EDIT:
Nevermind, the above is all wrong. The answer is actually pretty simple.
Someone here said that other autonomous individuals can not be used as means to an end. Of course they can. When I buy a piece of fruit from a fruit stand, I'm using the individual running it as a means to an end (the end being my hunger).
Now, when an individual hires a hitman or leads a violent hate-group, they are simply using other individuals as a means to an end. That does not take away the responsibility from the individual commiting the act (I hesitate to use the word "commiting," because my point is that planning an act is part of commiting it). It also does not mean the invidivual "commiting" the act is soley the one responsible.
So in summary, if I were to do nothing but lead a rampage against a Jewish neighborhood, pillaging their property and what not, I would be violating the NAP, because an equally important part of the aggression is the planning (or leading; just some matter of involvment where I'm using others as a mean to an end) of the aggression. However, if I were just to cheer on the pillaging, I think I'd be innocent of agression.
Scratch that. That was stupid. If I cheer it on, I could still be using others as a mean to my end.. If my end were to have the Jews pillaged. But that doesn't seem right. So basically, I have no idea how to draw a distinction between participating or not participating in an aggressive act.
Maybe merely joining a hate-group that commits acts of violence is akin to taking responsibility for the violence? But that seems more like collectivism than libertarianism.
But does anyone agree that hiring a hitman seems obviously to be engaing in the aggressive act.. As does creating an attack strategy on innocent civilians or something? But where is the line drawn?
Anyways, this is more a problem for NAP than a stateless society (it doesn't seem like a problem at all for the latter).
I still think that when you tell someone to kill someone else, its only your wishful thinking. You just use persuation to make someone else commit a terribly immoral act. But you can't compare words to actual deeds.
Besidse, what are you so worried about, its not that mafia bosses wouldn't be punished. PDA can hire a hitman to kill them for instance.
Is setting up a trap at my front door to drop an anvil on anyone who rings the doorbell also "only my wishful thinking." I've already established that I can use people, not just inanimate objects, as a means to an end. What I'm still trying to think through, however, is when my using of another to commit aggression becomes aggression in itself, if ever. I'm kinda stumped.
Just skimmed this.. Seems pretty relevant to this discussion.
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_4_7.pdf
Besidse, what are you so worried about, its not that mafia bosses wouldn't be punished. PDA can hire a hitman to kill them for instance
Of course that hitman would then go to jail as he is the killer of someone who is not guilty of any crime.
Bebob: Besidse, what are you so worried about, its not that mafia bosses wouldn't be punished. PDA can hire a hitman to kill them for instance Of course that hitman would then go to jail as he is the killer of someone who is not guilty of any crime.
and who would put him in jail? There is no state, remember? If everyone is happy, then there is no crime. :D
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Are we starting from the assumption that people who commit crimes would not go to jail? I imagine the family of the guy who was killed would like compensation.
What if you use a hitman mentally incapable of telling right from wrong?
For example, you strap a bombbelt around a child and you till the child to go hug the nice man? It seems that in that case, you are using the child as a weapon. A gun is not capable of making a moral judgement, so when you pull the trigger, the moral decision has been made by you. You are guilty and not the gun. I think the same reasoning would go for the child. The child makes no moral decision, it is incapable of that, so you instead make a decision instead of a child. And you are responsible.
If you would convince an adult to kill someone, the adult makes the final moral decision.
If this still seems like a sticky issue, that's because it is. However it's not really one anti-statists need to address. Judges on the market who are masters at this sort of thing will make such determinations. A libertarian needn't play the role of King Solomon, needn't be a masterful arbiter of right and wrong, needn't come up with a solution for hard question like this. Or even easy questions like this. If we believe in the division of labor, we'll let a judge chosen to be wise and fair by the free market handle it.
I completely agree, AJ. But in terms of the non-aggression principle, I think this is an important scenario.
True, however, in reality this "decision" is usually backstopped by an implicit death threat... fail to carry out orders, and you will be killed. This death-threat is tortious (assault) but it's a tort against the trigger-man (with whom we have little, if any, sympathy). Everyone keeps overlooking the trigger-man's right to sue the drug lord/kingpin/Hitler/whoever. Of course, in the case of a Leviathan state this is all wishful thinking because it will have monopolized the very law services which could be used to prosecute the kingpin/drug lord/Hitler on the trigger-man's behalf.
The chain of torts mirrors the chain of causality.
Actually he wouldn't be able to sue Hitler because Hitler by himself did not threaten anyone. No one could credibly believe that Hitler himself would come and kill you.
What the hell are you talking about? No one could believe that Hitler himself would come and kill you? The absolute ruler of Nazi Germany had no power to kill? As I said in my previous post: the chain of torts mirrors the chain of causality. If Hitler's executioner is held liable, he will not want to execute. If the Gestapo man who is ordered to kill the executioner for refusing to obey orders is held liable, he will not want to murder the executioner. If Hitler's bodyguard who will shoot the Gestapo man for refusing to kill the exeuctioner is held liable, he will not want to murder the Gestapo man. This leaves Hiter himself responsible to grab a pistol and execute the bodyguard for refusing to obey orders, at which point, Hitler is responsible for murder/assault/whatever.
Are you just being intentionally obtuse? Everyone knows that "Nazi" threads are a waste of time... I had hoped to redeem this thread by shifting the line of discussion onto a path that had at least a remote possibility of being useful. Why do you keep posting these kinds of threads? Are you just trying to suck up oxygen and impede, as best as one user can, the fruitful discussion of economics, politics and law from an Austrian perspective, which is the stated purpose of these forums? You've attempted to bait anti-semitism on more than one occasion. I don't understand your fixation with attempting to elicit anti-semitism on this forum.
Are you just being intentionally obtuse? Everyone knows that "Nazi" threads are a waste of time
Yeah, I can't believe this thread is still going on either - it's mind boggling. But I think this is a symptom of somthing in liberterianism. Unlike left wingers we don't really have a "priestly language" support system that is ingrained in the gereral psyche and the fact that we disagree (rightly so in my opinion) with much of the left leaves us a bit isolated. I think it tends to lead some to rather crazy reactionary views like "Hitler was whatever" - or "Rape is not all that bad", etc, etc.
I think this may compound itself more when people cling to these ethical questions, and NAP things - as that seems to be the only guiding light they have. I don't know how to really shift the focus of liberterians - but to focus on things like this is flat out catastrophic, both socially and probably existentially and psychologically as well.
It is just a fact of life that unfashionable asocial agressive behavior will be eradicated if it can. There is no way around it, or no ethical system that can neatly tie this up. This may cause one to be pissy to the fact that Stalin can get his semi-relevant apologists to this day, or have a longer lasting tolerated regime, etc while Hitler can not - but that is of minor importance.
Your accusations are absolutely baseless. I do not want to provoce anti-semitism or anything else, I am just trying to figure out some issues with regards to ethics. I am sorry that you find my choice of arguments or words offensive.
Now regarding the main topic of the thread, I think I am now more convinced than before that only the physical act itself can be considered a crime.
I'll give you two examples, both of which I already mentioned in this and in other threads.
1.
A private investigator investigates a murder that occured in the midst of a very dangerous gang. He hides his identity. His wife found that he cheated on her, so she wants her husband dead. Therefore fully knowing that he will most likely be murdered if his identity becomes known, she posts this information in a newspaper. The gang members read the newspaper and murder the investigator. Should the wife be liable for murder? I don't think so. I would be very uncomfortable if people would be liable for muder just for writing in a newspaper.
2.
Now this is a real world example. Terry Jones, an American pastor threatens to burn Quaran books. His goal is to create massive riots in which Muslims will be killed, and in this way show the world how dangerous and barbaric Muslims are. Indeed riots break and Muslims get killed. Should Terry Jones be liable for murder? Again I don't think so.
These cases show to what ambiguity and murkiness can lead laws that prohibit speech that might lead to crimes. I wouldn't want the society to be like this. Would you?
Here is your answer:
Start a court, call yourself a judge, start administering your justice as best you see fit and see how that works out.
You are asking questions as to what law/justice is. These can be brought up without sensationalist topics - and when done so, will not lead people into the rabbit hole in fantasy lands where people talk nonsense after nonsense to and past each other. You will never be satisfied with this line of inquiry unless you wish to create an echo chamber.