Murderers

liberty student:

Spidey, perhaps unintentionally, made a positive assertion about the right of the mob to take action for a crime.

And I am happy to retract my assertion, until such time as it can be established that someone has the authority to punish a murderer.

Spideynw:

And I am happy to retract my assertion, until such time as it can be established that someone has the authority to punish a murderer.

i thought you were an anarchist?  Who provides authority?  The local government magistrate?  the individual?  true justice itself?  I really have not been able to understand this usage of "authority" Spideynw that you are using.  I don't know if I can really argue against something that seems to be of your own defining without admittance as to what the definition is.  And if it is about semantics, then it would be good to stop now, for both you and I.

wilderness:

Spideynw:

And I am happy to retract my assertion, until such time as it can be established that someone has the authority to punish a murderer.

i thought you were an anarchist?  Who provides authority?  The local government magistrate?  the individual?  true justice itself?  I really have not been able to understand this usage of "authority" Spideynw that you are using.  I don't know if I can really argue against something that seems to be of your own defining without admittance as to what the definition is.  And if it is about semantics, then it would be good to stop now, for both you and I.

Substitute "authority" with "right".  Who has the legal right to punish the murderer.

liberty student:

But in the absence of a contract, defaulting to kin is nonsensical, and in the absence of consent, no one can assume your rights, otherwise the coercive state is legitimate.

LS, would your conclusion be that no one has the legal right to punish a murderer, given the circumstances (homeless person, no will, no family, no money)?  And no, I am not saying this is what you said.  I am trying to clarify.

Spideynw:

Substitute "authority" with "right".  Who has the legal right to punish the murderer.

In my opinion, whoever can bring justice.  In whatever manner the argument is made and what is given in the argument.  Of course the conclusions as to what justice is, meaning, whoever is arguing what justice is and how they would like to see justice done will weigh upon the hearts and minds of all the people struck by the murder.

struck:  • cause (someone) to have a particular impression

Spidey:

LS, would your conclusion be that no one has the legal right to punish a murderer, given the circumstances (homeless person, no will, no family, no money)? And no, I am not saying this is what you said. I am trying to clarify.

Yes, that's probably what logically follows from LS's position whether he wants it or not.

Anybody can get a murderer judged. In libertarian society it would be easy and cheap.

Juan:

Spidey:

LS, would your conclusion be that no one has the legal right to punish a murderer, given the circumstances (homeless person, no will, no family, no money)? And no, I am not saying this is what you said. I am trying to clarify.

Yes, that's probably what logically follows from LS's position whether he wants it or not.

Anybody can get a murderer judged. In libertarian society it would be easy and cheap.

I cannot say that I can fault his logic, if that is his position.  However, regardless of how logical it may be, I think it would just result in vigilantism.  I think it is pretty apparent that society will not tolerate murderers to just run around free.  Just like I think that a parent has a right to kill his or her baby, I doubt society would tolerate it, regardless of the legality.

What do you think Juan?

liberty student:

Truth and Liberty:

So the right is transferred to: 1st - whoever it says in the will, or 2nd - a next of kin.

Why a next of kin?  That's a big leap.

A spouse would certainly inherit property, barring a contradictory will and/or prenup.  Marriage contracts generally specify or imply such things.

liberty student:

Truth and Liberty:

If there is no family at all, the right has been abandoned, so it becomes homesteadable, meaning anyone in theory can take on the right to persue justice and eventually receive the compensation.

You can't homestead rights.  Rights are not property.  Don't confuse them.

Compensation, however, is property.  That property, if unclaimed, is homesteadable, the same as any property one owns when one dies without a will or heirs.

JackCuyler:

A spouse would certainly inherit property, barring a contradictory will and/or prenup.  Marriage contracts generally specify or imply such things.

So what?  The wife does not own the husband.  So she cannot claim her property was injured, as such, she has no legal claim against the murderer.

JackCuyler:

Compensation, however, is property.  That property, if unclaimed, is homesteadable, the same as any property one owns when one dies without a will or heirs.

The claim is that someone could homestead the rights to bringing a case against the murderer, not that someone can homestead the victims goods.  And as LS explained, one cannot homestead rights.

Spideynw:

JackCuyler:

Compensation, however, is property.  That property, if unclaimed, is homesteadable, the same as any property one owns when one dies without a will or heirs.

The claim is that someone could homestead the rights to bringing a case against the murderer, not that someone can homestead the victims goods.  And as LS explained, one cannot homestead rights.

 

And as I explained, while one cannot homestead rights, compensation is property, not a right.  As property, it is homesteadable.

Spidey:

I cannot say that I can fault his logic, if that is his position.

But his argument is just a couple of links in a chain of reasoning. The fact that some of the links are logically sound doesn't mean that the whole idea is sound.

Basically, he never proved that owning X allows you do anything to defend your ownership of X.

He just pretends that from the premise "I own a candy bar" it follows "I can kill people who try to steal the candy bar and in cold blood too".

But that's just as absurd as the belief that you can shoot your neighbor's kids if they wander in your lawn. Or throw your guests overboard if you feel like, etc.

The idea that all rights are property rights is false, and even if you want to put everything in terms of self-ownership, it's never been proved that you can override the self-ownership of people who commit property rights violations, no matter how small.

Just like I think that a parent has a right to kill his or her baby, I doubt society would tolerate it, regardless of the legality.

I don't think that what's morally good and what's legal are separate concepts. The idea that parents have the right to kill their children for instace, is morally wrong and it 'should' not be legal.

Libertarianism is founded on rights to life, liberty and property. A libertarian society would have PDAs that would enforce rights to life liberty and property.

Anything else is not libertarianism. It might be called anarchy, panarchy, theocracy or what have you, but not libertarianism.

Juan:

But his argument is just a couple of links in a chain of reasoning. The fact that some of the links are logically sound doesn't mean that the whole idea is sound.

Basically, he never proved that owning X allows you do anything to defend your ownership of X.

He just pretends that from the premise "I own a candy bar" it follows "I can kill people who try to steal the candy bar and in cold blood too".

But that's just as absurd as the belief that you can shoot your neighbor's kids if they wander in your lawn. Or throw your guests overboard if you feel like, etc.

This is not about whether or not it is OK to kill someone that stole some of your property.  This thread is about whether or not it is OK to punish a murderer.  And if so, how is the right derived to do so?

Juan:

Just like I think that a parent has a right to kill his or her baby, I doubt society would tolerate it, regardless of the legality.

I don't think that what's morally good and what's legal are separate concepts. The idea that parents have the right to kill their children for instace, is morally wrong and it 'should' not be legal.

That is just an opinion, not a logical argument.

Juan:

Libertarianism is founded on rights to life, liberty and property.

Libertarianism is founded on the idea that sentient beings own their own bodies and have property, and own it.  And if that is what you are saying, than we agree.

Juan:

A libertarian society would have PDAs that would enforce rights to life liberty and property.

That is conjecture.

JackCuyler:

And as I explained, while one cannot homestead rights, compensation is property, not a right.  As property, it is homesteadable.

Semantics games.  You are just replacing "right" with "compensation".  As you said, one cannot homestead a right.

Juan:

Libertarianism is founded on rights to life, liberty and property. A libertarian society would have PDAs that would enforce rights to life liberty and property.

Look we get this. The problem is statements like these are grandoise and vague. Spidey is trying to dig into more technicalities and I for one have been waiting for someone to clearly answer him.

I like the idea of being able to inherit property through homesteading and what-not. Whats wrong with a will which grants those rights over to someone else?

Furthermore

A) Are rights and property heterogeneous?

B) Many people here espouse the ideas of anarchism. They have succesfully made a big influence on me and my beleifs. Still all of their preaching has been at a theoretical level and very few people on this forum have contemplated the practical means of how it will work. Speculating the practical installments of things like roads, I agree, is rediculous as the free market will decide such a factor.

Speculating the practical maintenance of rights however is another issue. I have always been told that murder is theft of life, and life is self ownership. Therefore murder is an extreme version of theft. The idea is that rights, property, and life, are homogeneous.

I think ultimately what Spidey is questioning, correct me if I am wrong, is how will these rights be protected and by what/who's authority? How do we keep it from becoming another majority rules situation where the mob just exploits minorities(Witch hunts anyone?). So far the answer has been evaded.

The theoretical viewpoint espoused here is that in a libertarian society everyone will miraculously share the same principles based on the non-aggresion axiom. All will be in agreement that murder is wrong. This belief is just as naive as the notion of eliminating of terrorism. The fact remains that society will have different belief structures indefinitely. How will the libertarian society govern and maintain the protection of rights and property?

filc:

I think ultimately what Spidey is questioning, correct me if I am wrong, is how will these rights be protected and by what/who's authority? How do we keep it from becoming another majority rules situation where the mob just exploits minorities(Witch hunts anyone?). So far the answer has been evaded.

I think that is just about right.  Of course, more specifically, referring to dead people.

Spideynw:

This thread is about whether or not it is OK to punish a murderer.  And if so, how is the right derived to do so?

Do you disagree with justice?  Do you think a person or persons will not be seeking justice when a murder has happened?  And it doesn't matter how justice is precisely defined, at this point, unless you honestly haven't the foggiest idea what it is.

filc:

I think ultimately what Spidey is questioning, correct me if I am wrong, is how will these rights be protected and by what/who's authority? How do we keep it from becoming another majority rules situation where the mob just exploits minorities(Witch hunts anyone?). So far the answer has been evaded.

they haven't been evaded at all.  isn't all of this about education?  of course in anarchy there could be mob rule and witch hunts - so - hopefully people will be educated enough to avoid this or avoid falling back into a statist society, etc...  I mean if somebody stepped forward right now and had the power to enforce justice I wouldn't stop such a person, would you?

I think the whole authority thing stinks like government outside of what I said - the individual authority, decided upon who agrees with whom at the time of justice to be served.  I mean if people want to ignore justice during anarchy - who's going to stop them if they have the guns to fend others off?  education is all I think of to avoid this.  the free market itself is a mechanism to evade this as well, but criminals will be lurking, the whole idea in this thread is a murder might happen - so it's cops and robbers simply.

filc:

Look we get this. The problem is statements like these are grandoise and vague.

If you think the statement was 'grandiose and vague' I daresay you don't really get it.

Spidey is trying to dig into more technicalities and I for one have been waiting for someone to clearly answer him.

I don't think so. Spidey believes at least one weird thing - that parents can kill their children - that's not a 'technicality'. And other people believe other weird things that are not 'details' either.

I like the idea of being able to inherit property through homesteading and what-not.

Inherit property through homesteading doesn't make sense. Not sure what you mean. You either homestead something, or get it as a gift (inheritance).

Whats wrong with a will which grants those rights over to someone else?

Maybe nothing. Or maybe you can transfer any rights you have while you are alive. That would make more sense...

A) Are rights and property heterogeneous ?

Yes. Not all rights are property rights.

Speculating the practical maintenance of rights however is another issue. I have always been told that murder is theft of life, and life is self ownership. Therefore murder is an extreme version of theft. The idea is that rights, property, and life, are homogeneous.

No. It seems that some people like to put things in terms that are apparently logical, but are not. Considering all rights property rights is a category error of sorts. It doesn't clear things up and it seems to lead to some absurd conclusions.

I have always been told that murder is theft of life

Well, that's nonsense, or at best a bad metaphor. If I kill you, you are dead. I didn't 'steal' your life and now I own your life as if I were a vampire or something...

The theoretical viewpoint espoused here is that in a libertarian society everyone will miraculously share the same principles based on the non-aggression axiom.

Indeed. If the majority of people believe in non-aggression there won't be aggression. If people DON'T believe in non-aggression they will act accordingly. It's a pretty basic insight...

If you don't find the answer satisfactory you are out of luck. And maybe you still cling to the statist belief that people behave in a civilized way because they fear the police (which is a false belief).

wilderness:

Spideynw:

This thread is about whether or not it is OK to punish a murderer.  And if so, how is the right derived to do so?

Do you disagree with justice?  Do you think a person or persons will not be seeking justice when a murder has happened?  And it doesn't matter how justice is precisely defined, at this point, unless you honestly haven't the foggiest idea what it is.

If I steal your car, does anyone else have the right to sue me for compensation besides you?

My thoughts are this.

If you can transfer property at death. Like if I die, I can transfer owernship of my house in my will to you than why can rights not be handled in the same way? If I die, I transfer the right to you to defend, and in this case receive compensation for my loss of property, which happened to be my life. If my body is my property, how come I cannot transfer the ownership of that body to someone else at death?

If someone runs a car into my home and cripples it I will sue him to cover my financial loss. If someone kills my wife and I inherit her body/rights on death I should then be allowed to sue the culprit in one way or another.

I think this makes the most sense in family's who work in tandem as a dual income. The wife may depend on her husband to help maintain the house. If he is murderd then somehow compensation needs to be met. If it cannot be met financially he will have to repay his dept in another manner.

I'm not saying I am right or that this is how things should be done. I am just giving an example of something more concrete other then the typical "Life, Property, freedom, WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED!?" comment.