nirgrahamUK:did the slave breach an innocent's property rights? yes or no?
The answer is yes. A slave is one human owned by another as property. Once you initiate force against someone, you are effectivly claiming them as your property for the duration of your transgressions.
Yes, he killed. He was acting in a forced situation. He is guilty of the deed, but will not be punished. The environments the slave is operating in are environments where might makes right. All of the slaves actions can be considered self defense in these environments. The slave can choose to kill, be killed, attempt an active defense, or a calculated subjugation of power after choosing to kill, each action the slave takes is the result of the force imposed upon him. This does not mean that the slave is not guilty of murder should he choose to kill. He is still guilty the only difference is the legal consequence of his action.
The situations given from the OP all clearly demonstrate the position you are in is that of a slave. This is not an "I was just folowing orders"defense. I am not defending the hypothetical slave's actions should he choose to kill, only trying to point out that slave is not liable for damages when/if coercion is replaced with liberty. However, the slave may feel liable and attempt to repair the damages out of good will, but no legitimate legal order will ever punish him. Enslave yourself to the State and you will enjoy this malady.
"...The post-totalitarian system contrives to force life into its most probable states...This system serves people only to the extent necessary to ensure that people will serve it
Vaclav Havel
The situations given from the OP all clearly demonstrate that the position you are in is that of a slave. This is not an "I was just folowing orders"defense. I am not defending the hypothetical slave's actions should he choose to kill, only trying to point out that slave is not liable for damages. The owner is.
sorry somehow the unrevised post got out there
Saan: The answer is yes. A slave is one human owned by another as property. Once you initiate force against someone, you are effectivly claiming them as your property for the duration of your transgressions.
It might well be that you claim them but that does not mean you somehow achieve a magical power over the actions of someone else.
Saan:This does not mean that the slave is not guilty of murder should he choose to kill. He is still guilty the only difference is the legal consequence of his action.
This is exactly where the rubber hits the road. No one can make another one act. I can not even make you raise your hand. All I can do is to threaten you with consequences. You need to choose. There is no "I was forced so I am not guilty". You are always responsible for your actions.
Speaking of legal consequences makes only sense in so far as your criminal actions gives the victim the right to indemnification. No one else has that right but the victim. So no one else can determine what the "legal" consequences ought to be, but the victim. No group, no nothing.
And you can turn it as you like, it is, at the bottom the old "I was just following orders" defense.
Responsibility is not a legal construct but in the nature of a human being. Unless you are dead you are always responsible for anything you do.
The actions you take, or the slave takes, are always a result of your real or believed situation. Denying the full responsibility is denying the control over ones self. Collectivism starts here.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
I agree with you I don't justify it. The individual is free to act as he will, the consequences of his actions will be known to him, I am saying that in this environment the consequences are going to be different than in an environment based upon morality and liberty. I am a soldier. I killed. I am free. Go figure. That is all I am saying.
AJ: Saan:When you are under the threat of death the violator of morality is the coercer, not the slave. This is interesting. I'm inclined to agree. I would like to hear someone defend the opposing side.
Saan:When you are under the threat of death the violator of morality is the coercer, not the slave.
This is interesting. I'm inclined to agree. I would like to hear someone defend the opposing side.
If someone under threat of death killed my daughter, I would feel completely justified in violently retaliating against the slave. Although, the extreme circumstances would mitigate my vengeance.
However, if someone under threat of death gave money to someone who killed my daughter, I would not blame him, unless he played a role in DIRECTING those funds toward her murder.
Similarly, I don't blame every single taxpaying Californian for funding, and thereby enabling, the DMV which mugs me every year for owning a car. I do blame the DMV bureaucrats themselves, because they do the mugging.
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
Lilburne:If someone under threat of death killed my daughter, I would feel completely justified in violently retaliating against the slave. Although, the extreme circumstances would mitigate my vengeance.
It would mitigate my vengeance a whole lot, maybe down to nothing if I were somehow 100% certain of the circumstances and able to think clearly in spite of the tragedy.
For instance, say a friend of mine killed someone close to me (but a stranger to him) under threat of certain death, and I knew he really was under threat of certain death and that he didn't know the victim was someone close to me. I would be very sad for the one that died, but as far as my friend's action I would shrug it off and we would still be friends. Or if I was too crushed to ignore it, I would be cursing my weakness in that regard.
If the person were not my friend, but I still knew he was truly under threat of certain death if he did not kill, I might take retaliatory action but I would consider that a personal weakness (selfishness?) on my part - how could I truly blame someone for choosing their own life over that of a perfect stranger? I would feel justified only in the sense that I think many people (and maybe prevailing law) would sympathize with me if I took vengeance, or if I had something else against the slayer, but that's all.
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
AJ:If the person were not my friend, but I still knew he was truly under threat of certain death if he did not kill, I might take retaliatory action but I would consider that a personal weakness (selfishness?) on my part - how could I truly blame someone for choosing their own life over that of a perfect stranger? I would feel justified only in the sense that I think many people (and maybe prevailing law) would sympathize with me if I took vengeance, or if I had something else against the slayer, but that's all.
If I took a mitigated degree of vengeance on the murdering slave, and the slave happened to be a relative of yours, would you feel I had done your kinsman wrong by laying hands on him at all? Would you feel justified in then demanding restitution from me?
This is OT, but I saw the word vengeance, and wanted to offer this line from a Frank Herbert novel,
Revenge is for children and the emotionally retarded.
As libertarians, I think it is important for us to remember what justice is and is not. Again, this is OT and not specific to anything written in this thread.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Thanks for raising an interesting question, LS.
Let's explore this question in a new thread: Vengeance and Justice
AJ:how could I truly blame someone for choosing their own life over that of a perfect stranger?
This is where I'm at. Forced choices result in forced consequences.
Lilburne:If I took a mitigated degree of vengeance on the murdering slave, and the slave happened to be a relative of yours, would you feel I had done your kinsman wrong by laying hands on him at all? Would you feel justified in then demanding restitution from me?
I couldn't really blame you for taking vengeance on my relative. But by the same token, I couldn't really blame you for taking vengeance on my relative even if he or she was actually innocent but I knew you had - by some freak coincidence - essentially perfect certainty my relative was the murderer (whether slave or not). It would just be a tragedy. On restitution I'm not sure.
No, it is not moral, because it funds an illegal (by natural law) organization that oppresses the rights of others. Paying taxes should be avoided if at all possible (ie, making your own beer, buy things informally, etc.)
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Cam Nedland: No, it is not moral, because it funds an illegal (by natural law) organization that oppresses the rights of others. Paying taxes should be avoided if at all possible (ie, making your own beer, buy things informally, etc.)
Martyrdom is what libertarianism needs right now.
Hell, I don't want to die. I may be fine with all those option's, then again I have never been put in those situations. I see no way to really predicite or know what I would consider moral in such extreme scenarios and in a vacuum. I can tell you one thing though, the last thing I would worry about is upsetting the great Libertaian Omniscient Rights Decree.
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
Just to clarify, you do mean that anytime *you* pay taxes *you* are acting immorally? Why don't you stop paying RIGHT NOW?
Fortunately for me that isn't a problem. It is only immoral if you gladly pay. But consider that you are being forced to pay. The one doing the forcing is morally responsible for the consequences of his force.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap