Political Theory

Re: In a libertarian society how would someone who is self-sufficient like a Siberian Old Believer or a mountain man be handled?

Clayton — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:44:09 GMT

Imprecision of language, certainly but you would think from the context it was obvious what I meant.

Nowhere is precision of language more highly demanded than in this particular area. It is amazingly difficult to meaningfully criticize the status quo legal order; to do so, you must fix your language very carefully, and stick to your conventions with discipline. Otherwise, you just end up with a morass of unjustified opinion no different from everybody else's unjustified opinions.

Clayton -

Re: In a libertarian society how would someone who is self-sufficient like a Siberian Old Believer or a mountain man be handled?

Clayton — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:41:12 GMT

I think it's actually impossible for the State to act justly for the same reason the State cannot calculate economically: because it is an institution of monopolized aggression, it has no idea whether what it is doing is just an expression of its own interests or is actually just. To the extent it has succeeded in monopolizing the courts, it has squashed all possibility of knowing what is or is not just. I call it the "hot air theory of justice"... as if so much talking and debating could establish civil right and wrong any more than it can establish the correct price of oranges in downtown Mobile.

Clayton -

Re: In a libertarian society how would someone who is self-sufficient like a Siberian Old Believer or a mountain man be handled?

gotlucky — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:26:01 GMT

Murder seems to have two common meanings:

1) Criminal homicide (what Clayton said)

2) Immoral killing

As long as you know what the other person means, then you can communicate effectively. As to this:

Meistro:

Still, can we not say, for example, that the state murders me if I am killed unjustly by an agent of the state? Even though all state killings will likely be 'legal', since of course that is determined by the state.

If you realize that the state's rules are based on might makes right, then it would be murder if an agent of the state unjustly killed you. After all, if it's murder for a mugger or the mob to kill you, then it's murder for the state to do it too.

Re: In a libertarian society how would someone who is self-sufficient like a Siberian Old Believer or a mountain man be handled?

Meistro — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:21:00 GMT

Still, can we not say, for example, that the state murders me if I am killed unjustly by an agent of the state? Even though all state killings will likely be 'legal', since of course that is determined by the state.

Re: In a libertarian society how would someone who is self-sufficient like a Siberian Old Believer or a mountain man be handled?

Meistro — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:19:47 GMT

That's true, I used murder in some places in that sentence where I should have used kill. Imprecision of language, certainly but you would think from the context it was obvious what I meant.

Re: In a libertarian society how would someone who is self-sufficient like a Siberian Old Believer or a mountain man be handled?

Clayton — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:35:43 GMT

@Meistro: You do understand that the word "murder" means criminal homicide? If someone kills your brother, and you "kill him back" in retribution, if the law does not view your actions as criminal, then it's not murder.

Clayton -

Re: In a libertarian society how would someone who is self-sufficient like a Siberian Old Believer or a mountain man be handled?

Meistro — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:07:57 GMT

essentially the point being, you do not have to wait for a guilty verdict to punish a criminal (for example murdering a murderer) or to use force to aprehend a criminal (perhaps to bring him to trial) BUT if you do use force against someone on the assumption of guilt, or to punish a criminal and they are later exonerated or there is not enough evidence against them, then you yourself are not exempt from prosecution.

Re: In a libertarian society how would someone who is self-sufficient like a Siberian Old Believer or a mountain man be handled?

Meistro — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:03:18 GMT

although i don't think that's the passage i'm thinking of and it contradicts me by saying or implying that only the heirs can murder / have the murderer murdered

edit : page 90 I think

Re: In a libertarian society how would someone who is self-sufficient like a Siberian Old Believer or a mountain man be handled?

Meistro — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:59:42 GMT

see chapters 12 and 13 of ethics of liberty

Re: In a libertarian society how would someone who is self-sufficient like a Siberian Old Believer or a mountain man be handled?

Johnny Doe — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:28:14 GMT

Bogart:
Furthermore, prevention is cheap and clean up is expensive so unlike law enforcement these institutions would have huge incentives to predict who would be a security risk and to deal with this before there is an incident.

How would they go about doing this, i.e. being proactive, like the government does today?

Re: In a libertarian society how would someone who is self-sufficient like a Siberian Old Believer or a mountain man be handled?

Malachi — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:41:53 GMT

I think he means like in a Murder Nebulae.

Re: In a libertarian society how would someone who is self-sufficient like a Siberian Old Believer or a mountain man be handled?

Clayton — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:32:19 GMT

You don't need the murderers consent to bring him to trial. Anyone can murder a murderer, or detain him and bring him to trial. Of course if you falsely murder a murderer who wasn't really a murderer then you yourself are a murderer and anyone can murder you; this way there will be a great incentive to make sure vigallantee justice is used only when the evidence is compelling.

O.o
-

WTF?

Clayton -

Re: In a libertarian society how would someone who is self-sufficient like a Siberian Old Believer or a mountain man be handled?

Meistro — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 10:08:12 GMT

You don't need the murderers consent to bring him to trial. Anyone can murder a murderer, or detain him and bring him to trial. Of course if you falsely murder a murderer who wasn't really a murderer then you yourself are a murderer and anyone can murder you; this way there will be a great incentive to make sure vigallantee justice is used only when the evidence is compelling.

Re: In a libertarian society how would someone who is self-sufficient like a Siberian Old Believer or a mountain man be handled?

Clayton — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 08:31:39 GMT

I don't understand why the family of the murdered can't just go kill him in retribution. The scenario posited that the mountain man is completely disconnected from society. If so, then he is the one who is at risk, not us. We're connected. If he ventures down out of his hideout and commits a murder, he's the one who can be killed without repercussions precisely because he is unconnected. How can you get this backwards?

Clayton -

Re: In a libertarian society how would someone who is self-sufficient like a Siberian Old Believer or a mountain man be handled?

myhumangetsme — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 08:27:18 GMT

Atreides99:
Say this mountain man who doesn't trade with anybody, does not receive any charity, and does not have any protection agency that he patronizes and then he goes out and murders someone. How is consent maintain while bringing this man to justice?

If this mountain man doesn't trade with anybody and apparently wishes to be alone, why would he suddenly decide to kill someone (assuming that all they've done is left him alone in kind)? And even if we assume that there's a good explanation for that, how would this man have just happened upon someone to kill without first encountering their property rights in some way? A protection agency would most certainly be aware of someone who doesn't have any agreements in place and has no intention of entering into any.

Now, accepting that everything to this point somehow makes sense, let's think about this a different way: You happen upon a burglar in your home, and when you point your gun at him and tell him to stay where he is and put his hands up, he refuses and starts walking towards you. Are you obligated to let him do as he pleases based on the fact that he did not consent to your proposed action?