Is Hiring a Hitman a Crime?

Reply

Jeremiah Dyke replied on Wed, Aug 4 2010 10:10 PM

rated by 0 users

I understand the extension of you argument and i'm not trying to cop-out or call upon some polylogism when i say that with the chain of government it becomes problematic. Yet, even though I hate the bastards in command I don’t know if saying they are innocent is that far removed from what I believe to be true.  It is simply an extension of the incite-argument that Rothbards argues.  At the very minimum I would hold the individual who pulls the trigger to a higher degree than the individual who gives the order to shoot.

Again, I don’t mean to break from libertarian ethics about something I know to be wrong, I just haven’t been able to systematically arrange threat and aggression in a way that is consistent throughout applications and I am too skeptical to subscribe to the default position that is exposed in this thread.  

Reply

AdrianHealey replied on Wed, Aug 4 2010 10:21 PM

rated by 0 users

I would argue that your problem is caused by ignoring the praxeological contribution: actions aren't mechanistic cause and effect: actions have meanings. People act because they want to achieve ends. If the ends are unjustifiable, i.e. killing someone, then pursuing this plan in a meaningful way is injustice. I'm not talking about standing in a bar and saying 'I'm gonna kill him!'; I'm talking about meaningful trying to achieve the goal of killing someone, in this case: by using an hitman. 

You are correct in saying that determining this could be difficult in certain situations; but that shouldn't be a rebuttal of the theoretical argument for it. 

Justice and injustice isn't about objective movements; it's about actions that people perform. Actions have meanings, i.e. we can 'verstehen' their meaning. That's why Obama and Bush are as much criminals as the IRS. That's why the janitor probably isn't. 

Similarly: when there is an accident, people could be liable when they weren't careful enough, i.e. they didn't consider other peoples legitimate claims in their actions. 

On the incite-argument: Rothbard is wrong in the way he approaches it: incitement could and should be considered a crime, if there is a causal connection - with reference to the actors and their meaningful actions - between the actions of the inciter and the actions of the crowd, just as their is a meaningful causal connection between the mafiabos and his minions. This doesn't mean that all inciters should be prosecuted, but it does mean that inciters don't go off the hook a priori. Rothbard was wrong in thinking that he had to mix a theoretical framework - 'what judges should use in their guidance of the decisions' - with practical applications - 'what judges should decide'. Those are 2 different ball games and Rothbard confused those two. 

Reply

AdrianHealey replied on Wed, Aug 4 2010 10:31 PM

rated by 0 users

I would also add to anyone who wants to hear it:

If you are engaging into (political) philosophy, you have to understand that Rothbard's 'The Ethics of Liberty' relates to libertarian philosophy as 'Economics in One Lesson' (or 'Economics for Real People') relate to Philosophy. Rothbard was a brilliant economist (especially and foremost in MES), a sort of mediocre philosopher and a very ideological commited historian. (But that's just my personal opinion; if you don't like it, I'm fine with that.) 

If you want to seriously engage in economics (and be relevant now a days); you have to get acquainted with everyone from Hulsmann and Garrison to Boettke and Leesson within the Austrian School and outside the Austrian school with people like Coase, Buchanan, Ostrom, Williamson and all the others; depending on the subject you seriously want to engage in. Don't think that just because you read the daily articles and MES; that you *know* the Austrian school. 

If you want to seriously engage in (political) philosophy; it's relevant to know what people like Nozick, De Jasay, Hoppe, Narveson, Lomansky, Schmitdz, Otteson, Long, Rasmussen & Den Uyl within the libertarian philosophy and people like Hart, Sen, Rawls and the others wrote outside it. (I would, however, argue that it's not that important to know 'the non-libertarians' if you want to engage in defining your libertarian views in general.) 

Rothbard did a lot; but he isn't the alpha, nor the omega; but sure as hell was his own letter in libertarian history.

Reply

Jeremiah Dyke replied on Wed, Aug 4 2010 10:53 PM

rated by 0 users

The inciter is obviously too far removed from the actual crime to be considered guilty of the crime he incited: murder. Yet, I would also assume that the actual desire for murder is far from criminal. By that I mean there is no thought crime involved with such desire. As you have alluded to, the mere mention of such desire (like that of the bar patron) is also removed from such crime. Therefore, it would come into question as to when such inciting does in fact become criminal (obviously such a decision would be outsourced to an arbitrator) but you see how such skepticism could be built.

Such a threat is much more apparent if, for example, you found a bomb on a plane. Here would be an obvious breach or property. Yet, I’m not sure about a scenario where a bomb was found on your plane the same way I’m not sure about a scenario where you incite someone from your property to commit a crime upon someone else’s property.

The point is simply that I’m not sure if a threat is anything but an arbitrary value judgment, it is an action in that it is purposeful behavior but it is not a definitive act.

Reply

AdrianHealey replied on Wed, Aug 4 2010 11:07 PM

rated by 0 users

'Desire', in the praxeological sense of the word, is irrelevant. What is relevant for praexeology, for economics and philosophy is actions. Actions have meanings - people act because they have ends, employ means and they act because they see a causal connection in the world; one they want to 'create' to see the ends they had in mind achieved. 

The problem you see - 'when' - is, actually, completely _irrelevant_ for the philosopher and the reason is really clear: there are always margins and some people have to decide on the margin. What (political) philosophy does is explaining which _principles_ have to be used to decide on the margin what the right decision is. Disembodying actions and meanings from another - and just look at mechanistic connections cannot be a theory of acting moral/human beings who's actions have meanings. We don't blame the bullet, because someone _shot_ the bullet. Similarly: we not only blame the hitman, because someone hired him to do so. There is a definitive causal connection there. Yes, the hitman is responsible for his actions, but so is the person who hired him. 

The problem you see with the threat is that uttering the words 'I'm going to kill you' could or could not be a joke. This is true. But similarly: shooting someone could or could not be injustice. If he was aiming a gun at you, it was self defense; even if might be proven otherwise that the gun had no bullets and the person who held the gun knew that. The only way to solve this puzzle is to refer to meaning and understanding of actions and reactions based on the knowledge and expectations people had. It's true that just words aren't an easy case; but that doesn't mean that it's a priori right that you should have the right to utter whatever the hell you want. 

Reply

Merlin replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 1:45 AM

rated by 0 users

To continue Jeremiah’s point, try to see it in a perfectly practical matter: what would be the surest way to, say, stop  British mercenaries form burning house sin some Ancap region (say, modern Ireland)? You could kill the Prime Minister of the UK, and this would serve nothing at all. Political terrorism has a long, long history of clusterf*ck errors and stupidity, and has single-handedly caused more revolution, genocide and wars than anything else.

Or you could hold the mercenaries themselves personally responsible for their actions and shoot them. The PM could be willing to hire other mercenaries, but who, in his right mind, would come forward knowing that now consequences accrues to him alone, and not to the misty Prime Mister?

So yes, Obama and Bush are totally guilt-free. It is the police and SWAT guy who needs to be shot in the head (not to say that I wouldn’t enjoy seeing Obama starve to death by people refusing to sell him anything). I have no doubt at all that this would come to be standard reasoning in an Ancap society.

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 1:52 AM

rated by 0 users

HAHA. So, if I hire 50 contractors to kill 50 people I am innocent?!

If only I could be a capitalist in your glorious revolution, I am sure there's a few people on this forum I disagree with....

How is this even being debated?

Reply

Merlin replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 2:17 AM

rated by 0 users

HAHA. So, if I hire 50 contractors to kill 50 people I am innocent?!

If you do so, do come to my insurance company and we’ll arbitrate in your favor. Don’t’ expect a renewal of coverage though.

How is this even being debated?

What about writing a book when you ask for people to kill some other guy? Would that be censored? Is it worth even debating that? What if you held a Nazi speech, would you e thrown in jail? What if you, jokingly, asked me to kill your competitor and I did it, would you be thrown to rot in jail? Is it worth debating? What if I just hung a huge swastika in my front yard? Am I inciting murder?  

 Where, exactly does one draw the line to stop such an allegedly ‘free society’ form becoming a full-blown dictatorship? How can that lien be anything but arbitrary?

 People are not things, they have a will of their own, and act accordingly. Only by assuming that people are objects, you can hold me culpable for what some other guy did (be it on my request), as I would hold you of killing someone ‘though’ you handgun.

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 2:43 AM

rated by 0 users

we’ll arbitrate in your favor

Why would I need your laughable insurance? I have just killed off all my economic rivals. I will insure myself, in cash, tyvm.

You can say all you want, it is when you hand the money over that you have acted a plan to set in motion the death of an innocent person.  What if you and I set-up a plan to kill someone, we both shoot, yours hits, mine misses...? There are any number of hypotheticals that could come up and threaten the law. This is heatlhy and good, it speaks to human experience.  And it is exactly why we developed court systems as humans.

And how is hate speech, conspiracy to commit murder... there's another point, you are saying in your hypothetical there is no law for conspiracy? Only the "trigger man" can be punished?

I don't want this to come out insulting, it may and I apologize, but how does that even make sense in your brain?

Reply

Merlin replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 3:08 AM

rated by 0 users

Why would I need your laughable insurance? I have just killed off all my economic rivals. I will insure myself, in cash, tyvm.

First page, New York times: “ CEO murders 50 people!”

First page, New York Times, a months later: “[insert you company’s name here] Stock prices crash. Workers leave employment!”

 Plus, if you have no insurance, I can just bomb your house and no one would say anything at all to me. If you feel like taking the risk, be my guest.  

You can say all you want, it is when you hand the money over that you have acted a plan to set in motion the death of an innocent person. 

If I just convince you with no payment? Am I liable? What if I blackmail you (kill X, or I’ll tell everyone you did YYYY)? What if I promise to marry tour daughter (which she desperately wants) if you murder X? What if my wife withholds…you got the idea, if I do not kill some guy? Is she liable? I’m genuinely interested in your opinion on such cases.   

What if you and I set-up a plan to kill someone, we both shoot, yours hits, mine misses...?

Let each guy assume his own responsibility. X shot me, so he is liable (how is an other issue). Y shot but missed so I would have been right in killing him right there in self-defense. Now I can no longer kill him. He had his chance, I had mine, we both missed, we’re square.

 Of course there will be cases in which you just will not be able to tell who among your 5 attackers shot you and who didn’t. In such cases I myself would assume all of them to be liable. So, if you partake in a group of attackers, you are not a priori liable (though you can be killed on the spot and you daddy is just going to have to swallow that), but the burden of proof fall on you to prove otherwise.

And how is hate speech, conspiracy to commit murder

I write a book convincing dummies that docilocephalic guys are inferior and pollute us brachicephalic superior races. I write detailed chapters on how to purchase guns, how to make a homemade silencer, and how to hide your traces in a perfect manner. Murders of docilocephalic people jump and murder are indeed untracable. Am I liable?

you are saying in your hypothetical there is no law for conspiracy?

Bingo!

Only the "trigger man" can be punished?

Only he violates the NAP. I care not a bit why he didi it, just that he did it.

I don't want this to come out insulting, it may and I apologize, but how does that even make sense in your brain?

Indeed it does sound insulting, but I’ll pass.

 Well, I see how a statsist used to letting criminals off the hook because they ‘stole out of need’, or ‘are mentally unstable’ can put other considerations before the mere action. But I myself see only that, the fact, and the human action behind it. I refrain from judging personal value scales, such as the ones that led the criminal to commit a crime. I care not about them, nor could I measure or otherwise take them into account if I wanted to. Praxeological insights let one loose such bad vices as judging.

 So, as long as you did it, I care not why. Perhaps you where paid, perhaps you felt like it, perhaps you where drunk. Punishing some other guy would just treat humans as objects, incapable of saying ‘no’. And it sound a lot like collectivism to me.  

Reply

Peter Sidor replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 3:16 AM

rated by 0 users

Maybe we can try a different angle, let's see if this simplifies something:

Hiring a hitman constitutes a contract (and we can argue whether it is legitimate or not, but there it is). Doesn't this act also mean the hitman and the employer share the responsibility for the deed? Sort of "share the fame, share the blame"?

Yes, contracts can also include clauses that absolve one side of the blame for what the other side does (say, shareholders vs. the executive board), but would such a clause be valid if both sides explicitly agree on commiting a crime?

(This is independent from the definition of a crime; showing whether there is a contract is also another problem.)

Reply

Merlin replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 3:26 AM

rated by 0 users

Maybe we can try a different angle, let's see if this simplifies something:

Hiring a hitman constitutes a contract (and we can argue whether it is legitimate or not, but there it is). Doesn't this act also mean the hitman and the employer share the responsibility for the deed? Sort of "share the fame, share the blame"?

Yes, contracts can also include clauses that absolve one side of the blame for what the other side does (say, shareholders vs. the executive board), but would such a clause be valid if both sides explicitly agree on commiting a crime?

(This is independent from the definition of a crime; showing whether there is a contract is also another problem.)

That is indeed a question o vicarious liability. I’m afraid this will open an other side-thread, but I myself go with Rothbard in seeing vicarious liability as unjust and stupid. Its just designed to get to the deeper pockets around. Thus, I cannot follow this route.

Reply

Peter Sidor replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 3:51 AM

rated by 0 users

I admit to not knowing a bit about vicarious liability, but the definitions I came across speak about negligence (1)(2) and at least hint(3)(4) the employer/supervisor did not know about the actions of his employee or made some steps to prevent them  - one really distinguishes direct responsibility ("Parents, for example, sometimes face criminal liability for allowing their minor children to use guns or automobiles..." 5). Does this concept apply even if the employee was specifically ordered/hired to do the deed?

(If this goes too far outside of the topic, let's make another thread.)

Reply

Conza88 replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 4:08 AM

rated by 0 users

A lot of people need to read Kinsellas;

Causation and Aggression

Reply

Merlin replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 4:10 AM

rated by 0 users

Peter Sidor:

I admit to not knowing a bit about vicarious liability, but the definitions I came across speak about negligence (1)(2) and at least hint(3)(4) the employer/supervisor did not know about the actions of his employee or made some steps to prevent them  - one really distinguishes direct responsibility ("Parents, for example, sometimes face criminal liability for allowing their minor children to use guns or automobiles..." 5). Does this concept apply even if the employee was specifically ordered/hired to do the deed?

(If this goes too far outside of the topic, let's make another thread.)

As far as I know, Common Law countries hold the employer liable if the employee did some damage as a result of duties he was ordered or expected to carry out as normal in his employment. So, vicariously hiring a hitman would certainly be a crime.

Now that I think of it, not only is this not off-topic but is a wellcome generalization: what we’re discussing here indeed is vicariously liability itself, and hiring a himten is just a subset of that. Well thought!  

Reply

Merlin replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 4:25 AM

rated by 0 users

I get ‘address not valid’. Under which’s title can I find this in ‘literature’?

Reply

Peter Sidor replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 4:29 AM

rated by 0 users

Search and you shall receive: Causation and Aggression

Reply

AdrianHealey replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 5:10 AM

rated by 0 users

What about writing a book when you ask for people to kill some other guy? Would that be censored? Is it worth even debating that? What if you held a Nazi speech, would you e thrown in jail? What if you, jokingly, asked me to kill your competitor and I did it, would you be thrown to rot in jail? Is it worth debating? What if I just hung a huge swastika in my front yard? Am I inciting murder?  

 Where, exactly does one draw the line to stop such an allegedly ‘free society’ form becoming a full-blown dictatorship? How can that lien be anything but arbitrary?

What I don't get is the fact that just because you call 'there will be an arbitrary line', you think you have made a valid argument against the concept itself. Libertarian philosophy is full of concepts that are just principles that have to be applied in real life to arbitrary lines; the concept of childeren and responsibility being one of them. The concept of legal responsibility in accidents being another. The concept of the proportinal punishment for a crime is a third. These aren't minor issues; it means that we argue for a certain principle that has to be applied in a certain context. The reason why this wouldn't turn into a full blown dictatorship is that given the interpretation to it; anarchy outperforms statism, i.e. decentralized non-monopolistic organizations who make decisions on justice out perform monopolistic agencies. Sure: if everyone thinks that writing in a book somewhere is 'exciting' murder; that would cause many more convictions of participating in murder then in a case where there is not such a general feeling. But that's hardly an argument: libertarian society can turn into a 'full blown dictatorship' for a lot of reasons because of these issues on the margin; any one of the 3 I mentioned above could turn out to be one. What if nearly everyone thinks one should be shot if one just bums into some one else? This obviously is a physical invasion of someone else, and the proportional punishment is obviously death! 

Given examples on the margin - 'what if x, what if y, what if z'! - is pretty much irrelevant for the concept itself. You're proving that decisions will have to be made on the margin in a certain context. But that's really not all that big of a discovery. 

Again: what this line of reasoning amounts to, is that you have no basis for criticizing taxes: most taxes are paid without using violence; just the threat thereof. And it isn't really the same people; so we can't even hold the people accountable who make the threat. I can just walk up to you and say 'if you don't pay, you will be shot' and be oke with it - even if I mean it. A generalized practice like that is imaginable in a mafiatown; where everybody pays, but nobody ever undergoes violence. 

What Merlin is confusing is praxeology with history: yes, we can't say something when we practice praxeology about someone else value judgment. That is why we have economic history; but that is also why legal matters are subject to the concept of understanding actions as meaninfull behavior. Stephan Kinsella's paper is totally right in this regard. 

Reply

Merlin replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 6:39 AM

rated by 0 users

What I don't get is the fact that just because you call 'there will be an arbitrary line', you think you have made a valid argument against the concept itself. Libertarian philosophy is full of concepts that are just principles that have to be applied in real life to arbitrary lines; the concept of childeren and responsibility being one of them. The concept of legal responsibility in accidents being another. The concept of the proportinal punishment for a crime is a third. These aren't minor issues; it means that we argue for a certain principle that has to be applied in a certain context. The reason why this wouldn't turn into a full blown dictatorship is that given the interpretation to it; anarchy outperforms statism, i.e. decentralized non-monopolistic organizations who make decisions on justice out perform monopolistic agencies. Sure: if everyone thinks that writing in a book somewhere is 'exciting' murder; that would cause many more convictions of participating in murder then in a case where there is not such a general feeling. But that's hardly an argument: libertarian society can turn into a 'full blown dictatorship' for a lot of reasons because of these issues on the margin; any one of the 3 I mentioned above could turn out to be one. What if nearly everyone thinks one should be shot if one just bums into some one else? This obviously is a physical invasion of someone else, and the proportional punishment is obviously death! 

Given examples on the margin - 'what if x, what if y, what if z'! - is pretty much irrelevant for the concept itself. You're proving that decisions will have to be made on the margin in a certain context. But that's really not all that big of a discovery. 

Again: what this line of reasoning amounts to, is that you have no basis for criticizing taxes: most taxes are paid without using violence; just the threat thereof. And it isn't really the same people; so we can't even hold the people accountable who make the threat. I can just walk up to you and say 'if you don't pay, you will be shot' and be oke with it - even if I mean it. A generalized practice like that is imaginable in a mafiatown; where everybody pays, but nobody ever undergoes violence. 

What Merlin is confusing is praxeology with history: yes, we can't say something when we practice praxeology about someone else value judgment. That is why we have economic history; but that is also why legal matters are subject to the concept of understanding actions as meaninfull behavior. Stephan Kinsella's paper is totally right in this regard. 

You do indeed make valid points. Just saying that the application of some concept will be arbitrary, be it partially so, is indeed a poor argument in itself. But what I wanted to show is not that we should reject this idea, since its arbitrary, but simply that it is. That it will get murky and complicated, while just punishing whoever pulls trigger will not (or less so).

 Thus, between two rules, one of which leaves much more leeway to the arbiter while the other doesn’t, I thing the latter will be advantaged in a free market. There will certainly be other considerations.

 Again, I’m not trying to ‘prove’ that the hitman should be solely responsible, that is for the free market in legal arbitration to decide. I’m simply disusing the demerits of the opposite rule (ex. convince you as investors to invest in my company, which follows this rule).

 And, speaking of the Kinsella piece…

Reply

Merlin replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 6:39 AM

rated by 0 users

I got to half of it before remembering that I had actually read it a year ago (some time ago there was a thread based on the hilarious midget-in-the-tank scenario). Still it was refreshing to revisit (though it didn’t change my mind a bit)

 Now, something in particular stroke me in Kinsela’s argument.

 Let’s cite two of his examples: the terrorist sending bombs through mail and a guy bribing an other to kill someone.

Now, Kinsella holds that in both cases the ‘middleman’ was used as a mean, and disregards the importance of the fact that this ‘mean’ had free will,  and was not bound by causality as a handgun is.

So, he says that as long as the instigator in both cases had intent to harm and used means to successfully reach his intent, he should be punished.

What I find interesting is his (missing) discussion of the middleman’s fault. I’m sure that in the postman’s case, Kinsella would find him innocent, while in the hitman’s case, he would find him guilty.

But why so? Aren’t both of them just means? Didn’t he just disregard the fact that both of them are humans with wills of their own? On what basis, than, does he discriminate between the two? More importability: how can Kinsella discriminate between the middleman, while still finding both instigators at fault?

Either the middleman is to be seen as a mean devoid (for our purposes) of will, and thus ‘retreocesing’ the fault back to the instigator, or else the middleman is a human being with full will, and will be held at fault when willingly and knowingly harming an other (which absolves the postman). But why assume away such things as ’will’ and ‘knowledge’ of a free human mind in one instance, while holding these as proofs that decides guilt or innocence in the every same case?!

I’m at a loss.

Reply

Peter Sidor replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 7:26 AM

rated by 0 users

What I find interesting is his (missing) discussion of the middleman’s fault. I’m sure that in the postman’s case, Kinsella would find him innocent, while in the hitman’s case, he would find him guilty.

But why so? Aren’t both of them just means? Didn’t he just disregard the fact that both of them are humans with wills of their own? On what basis, than, does he discriminate between the two? More importability: how can Kinsella discriminate between the middleman, while still finding both instigators at fault?

Many things depend on the specifics - in most cases could be the postman considered a means, for in regular circumstances he simply delivers the package, which is assumed to be a safe item; and the postman is most likely forbidden to open it. While he might feel guilty, he was only misused by the true criminal - hence innocent. Actually, now that I think of it, the sender of the email bomb has entered an implicit (and possibly explicit) contract of not sending explosive materials, which he has broken. So not only would any victims (or their families etc.) get to sue the mail bomber, but the post company as well.

Of course, if it was the Super Safe Post Co., that is expected to deliver only safe packages to its customers, The Bulwark Of A Paranoid Age (tm), they would be culpable as well, if only for negligence.

So in some cases at least, the human can be really classified as a 'means', without taking the will and knowledge into question.

Reply

Merlin replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 7:45 AM

rated by 0 users

Do not try to convince me that the postman is innocent. Of course he is!

I just do not see how Kinsella can arrive at this conclusion. If this guy is just a mean, than so was the hitman. They are, in Kinsella’s eyes, the same, for he blurs the distinction between them (the postman didn’t know, the hitman did). So why let the postman walk and punish the hitman? Can you come up with a rule that does both these thing and also punishes both instigators?

Reply

Peter Sidor replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 8:01 AM

rated by 0 users

"I just do not see how Kinsella can arrive at this conclusion. If this guy is just a mean, than so was the hitman. They are, in Kinsella’s eyes, the same, for he blurs the distinction between them (the postman didn’t know, the hitman did). So why let the postman walk and punish the hitman? Can you come up with a rule that does both these thing and also punishes both instigators?"

Maybe he only concentrated on the guilt of the original instigator and wanted to show that he doesn't escape being guilty even if he uses other people to actually perform the crime. (Sorry, haven't read his article.)

Can we have more rules, hopefully only two? One for the employer/instigator or a crime, and one for the person actually commiting it? I don't know if there is one rule to be had for a crime with two distinct parties (where one may be innocent, depending on circumstances).

At the moment I can think only of the "contract" thing, where both parties agree on performing the crime (called conspiracy or organized crime or whatever). But this doesn't cover the postman, and I'm not sure if the contract thing can apply in every case. But that may be a different type of crime.

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 10:42 AM

rated by 0 users

First page, New York times: “ CEO murders 50 people!”

Who would know this? It is not a crime for me to hire the hitman, ergo, noone even investigated the issue.  Nice try tho.

Well, I see how a statsist used to letting criminals off the hook because they ‘stole out of need’, or ‘are mentally unstable’ can put other considerations before the mere action. But I myself see only that, the fact, and the human a

When will you people realize that calling everyone who disagrees with you a statist (and ergo implied thief and murderer) is getting you nowhere? Ya, people are gona listen to your message when you call them a murderer just cause they never thought past "someone has to enforce the law."

I'm glad you backed off this assertion that it is not a crime and that "let the market decide."  Too much philo-jargon, not enough real world application.

Reply

Merlin replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 12:41 PM

rated by 0 users

Who would know this? It is not a crime for me to hire the hitman, ergo, noone even investigated the issue.

Tabloids run a first page every time that Brangelina wipe their a**s, I believe that there would be some measure of interest here. 

When will you people realize that calling everyone who disagrees with you a statist (and ergo implied thief and murderer) is getting you nowhere? Ya, people are gona listen to your message when you call them a murderer just cause they never thought past "someone has to enforce the law."

Making a general point there, not referring to you personally. 

I'm glad you backed off this assertion that it is not a crime and that "let the market decide."  Too much philo-jargon, not enough real world application.

Of course I am for letting the market decide. Whenever I discuss such cases I’m merely stating what I believe would come to be normal, not what should be.

Reply

MaikU replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 12:58 PM

rated by 0 users

Merlin:

Do not try to convince me that the postman is innocent. Of course he is!

I just do not see how Kinsella can arrive at this conclusion. If this guy is just a mean, than so was the hitman. They are, in Kinsella’s eyes, the same, for he blurs the distinction between them (the postman didn’t know, the hitman did). So why let the postman walk and punish the hitman? Can you come up with a rule that does both these thing and also punishes both instigators?

 

what an absolutely amazing topic, my head explodes.

Firstly I agreed with Merlin, but now, after seeing another example (didn't read original article yet) with postman and evil terrorist I am again on the fence... So why hitman is liable and postman is not? I agree, that postman didn't know about the bombs and it is even not his job to know what's in the mail so he clearly (my common sense says, lol) can not be guilty of a crime. But is simply not knowing that you gonna harm someone is a Get out of Jail Free card?

Reply

Merlin replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 1:32 PM

rated by 0 users

What an absolutely amazing topic, my head explodes.

Firstly I agreed with Merlin, but now, after seeing another example (didn't read original article yet) with postman and evil terrorist I am again on the fence... So why hitman is liable and postman is not? I agree, that postman didn't know about the bombs and it is even not his job to know what's in the mail so he clearly (my common sense says, lol) can not be guilty of a crime. But is simply not knowing that you gonna harm someone is a Get out of Jail Free card?

Well, that in itself is indeed a contentious point. My understating is that, hadn’t the terrorist been behind that all, but, say some freak accident, the postman or post office owner would be liable to a degree. 

Reply

The Late Andrew Ryan replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 3:02 PM

rated by 0 users

I don't feel like reading through the 60 or so posts so I'm just going to give my answer,

Yes.

When someone shoots someone else they do not kill them, the bullet does. The person who pulled the trigger merely set off a chain of events which he knew would end with the person who was shot dying. The hitman is merely another step added to this process. The hitman becomes another tool which someone knows will result in the death of another human being. The hitman is also is guilty, but so is the one who hired him.

Reply

Mises Pieces replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 3:14 PM

rated by 0 users

"I don't feel like reading through the 60 or so posts so I'm just going to give my answer,

Yes.

When someone shoots someone else they do not kill them, the bullet does. The person who pulled the trigger merely set off a chain of events which he knew would end with the person who was shot dying. The hitman is merely another step added to this process. The hitman becomes another tool which someone knows will result in the death of another human being. The hitman is also is guilty, but so is the one who hired him."

While I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, I'm not sure that the bullet analogy makes sense because a bullet, unlike a hitman, has no free will.  If someone programmed a robot to go assassinate someone then yes, that would be a perfect analogy, but when a human agent is involved the chain of causality is not so clear.

One thing I wonder about is would a killer be punished equally whether he was acting on his own impulse or acting as a hired hitman?  If he would be punished equally, and if his client would also be punished, then the aggregate punishment for the murder would be greater for a hit than for a "acting alone" murder.  Would that then imply that a hit is a more severe crime than a lone murderer?  Would everyone agree with that, that the conspiracy aspect makes it a worse crime?  If not, then is it OK that one results in a greater aggregate punishment than the other?

Reply

Merlin replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 3:33 PM

rated by 0 users

Mises Pieces:

One thing I wonder about is would a killer be punished equally whether he was acting on his own impulse or acting as a hired hitman?  If he would be punished equally, and if his client would also be punished, then the aggregate punishment for the murder would be greater for a hit than for a "acting alone" murder.  Would that then imply that a hit is a more severe crime than a lone murderer?  Would everyone agree with that, that the conspiracy aspect makes it a worse crime?  If not, then is it OK that one results in a greater aggregate punishment than the other?

Yet an other good point against punishing the instigator. Well though off.

Reply

Consultant replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 3:50 PM

rated by 0 users

I consider organised crime indeed worse than a sole murder, because the professional aspect of it is a threat to society in itself. I believe ancap communities who agree with me would outperform those that don't, but I can be wrong and switch PDA's if so.

Reply

The Late Andrew Ryan replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 6:11 PM

rated by 0 users

"While I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, I'm not sure that the bullet analogy makes sense because a bullet, unlike a hitman, has no free will.  If someone programmed a robot to go assassinate someone then yes, that would be a perfect analogy, but when a human agent is involved the chain of causality is not so clear."

The free will of the hitman is irrelevant (I don't believe in free will I believe that it's inherently contradictory but that's actually besides the point in this case). While you're right that the "chain of causality" (I thought that was a very good way of putting it) becomes muddled, the fact is that the person who highers the hitman believes his actions will directly lead to the death of the person who the hitman intends to kill, just as when he pulls the trigger. It is, as with all action, a means to an end, and he must belive that his actions would lead to the intended ends, otherwise he would not do it. Furthermore the hitman would not kill the victim were it not for the actions of the man who hired the hitman.

In this case, when approaching the question of whether or not the man who hired the hitman is guilty (the matter of the hitman's guilt is another matter) the free will of the hitman is irrelevant, the only question is as a tool, or a means, whatever you wish to call it, on the way of achieving the end. This is to say it doesn't matter except in the matter of how his free will might mean that the murder is not completed. However, this is irrelevant in that one can NEVER be totally certain his actions will result in the intended ends. When firing the gun one might miss, the round might be a dud or a blank. When programing your robot assassin of doom (bwahahaha) you might leave in a flaw that causes it to malfunction before it reaches the victim. You perform an action which you know will, with your support, lead to the murder of an innocent individual.

Reply

MaikU replied on Thu, Aug 5 2010 6:29 PM

rated by 0 users

Merlin:

 

What an absolutely amazing topic, my head explodes.

Firstly I agreed with Merlin, but now, after seeing another example (didn't read original article yet) with postman and evil terrorist I am again on the fence... So why hitman is liable and postman is not? I agree, that postman didn't know about the bombs and it is even not his job to know what's in the mail so he clearly (my common sense says, lol) can not be guilty of a crime. But is simply not knowing that you gonna harm someone is a Get out of Jail Free card?

Well, that in itself is indeed a contentious point. My understating is that, hadn’t the terrorist been behind that all, but, say some freak accident, the postman or post office owner would be liable to a degree. 

 

well, I think postman can never be liable, because all he does is bringing the mail to right person. He can't know what's in it and it is not part of his job to know. He does not initiates agression or fraud or anything. Only delivers (now I see why hitman is liable and postman is not). However, speaking about "freak accident", yes, then, I believe, the post office owner could be liable to a degree, but then again, it depends what sort of accident was that. How a bomb can appear in a mail by "accident"? That's the question.

Reply

Constittuionalist replied on Sat, Aug 7 2010 11:20 AM

rated by 0 users

But what if say you own a company, and you see that someone is embezzeling money from your coffers and then suddenly the employee flees out of the country in order not to get caught. Would it then be a crime to hire a hitman scout to look for him and use all means necessary to bring him to justice?

But if someone hires a hitmen in order to murder someone that you don't like because he is getting more business than you, then yes it is a crime. Or if you hire him to kill your girlfriend because she dumped you and went out with someone else, then that is also a crime. But in theory, couldn't hitmen work in similar ways to that how a private investigator would?

What's your take?

Reply

Merlin replied on Sat, Aug 7 2010 2:32 PM

rated by 0 users

But what if say you own a company, and you see that someone is embezzeling money from your coffers and then suddenly the employee flees out of the country in order not to get caught. Would it then be a crime to hire a hitman scout to look for him and use all means necessary to bring him to justice?

But if someone hires a hitmen in order to murder someone that you don't like because he is getting more business than you, then yes it is a crime. Or if you hire him to kill your girlfriend because she dumped you and went out with someone else, then that is also a crime. But in theory, couldn't hitmen work in similar ways to that how a private investigator would?

What's your take?

Every wrongdoing one is submitted to, enables a proportionate response. Now only the wronged party can carry out this response, or else outsource it to whoever they like.

Thus, if my employee steal money from me, I can do whatever I feel its proportionate (ex. hire a hitman to bring him home or break his leg). If, after the fact, some arbiter agrees that my response was indeed proportionate, than fine; if not, I myself have committed a crime, thus entitling the wronged party (the initial wrongdoer) to extract his proportional revenge.

This is  what I believe would come to be in a free market. 

Reply

Peter Sidor replied on Mon, Aug 9 2010 4:44 AM

rated by 0 users

Merlin: Thus, if my employee steal money from me, I can do whatever I feel its proportionate (ex. hire a hitman to bring him home or break his leg). If, after the fact, some arbiter agrees that my response was indeed proportionate, than fine; if not, I myself have committed a crime, thus entitling the wronged party (the initial wrongdoer) to extract his proportional revenge.

Gotcha! If the instigator does not commit a crime, how could you by hiring a hitman in this case? :)

Okay, that might have been a slip-up, so let's go back to topic. I have to side with 'The Late Andrew Ryan'. The amount of punishment objection is a good one, but in the end, there is more guilt to go around, so more punishment seems appropriate. (Whether the instigator and the hitman should be punished equally I can't say; there could be easily societies imagined where hitmen would be considered mere tools and not punished, as long as their employer was revealed.)

Let's try a few different angles to attack this. It may be crude to say so, but we are using other people as means to achieve our goals, all the time. The employers use their employees to achieve profit, the employees use their employers to get a paycheck - hopefully there are loftier goals involved than that, but even then will be people "using" each other. Call it the miracle of human cooperation or base self-interest, but other people are what helps us to reach our goals. They do it of their own will, and yet they are a means to us. That they have free will does not change this. We do things together, even if every person may not be present at every single step of ther process. Cooperation extends to the area of crime as well. If someone hires a hitman to kill another person, they both willingly and knowingly cooperate on the murder. So here I'm led to believe that both are guilty.

Another aspect: any form of justice should attempt to fix the damage done to the victim first. From the example from the IP thread, let's say a group of thieves robs a bank, on the order of a mobster, preparing the hit with the assistance of a few other people, that don't take part in the robbery itself. A small joint-venture, you could say. When the thieves perform the robbery, are not the other fellows also guilty? Let's say the thieves get away with the money, split their loot with their accomplices and are caught later. How will be the victims reimbursed, if the thieves don't have a large part of the money anymore? Or let's say I'm the presumed heir of my millionaire uncle and learn, that he wants to change his last will to my detriment - so I hire a hitman, who kills him. Should I then become the heir anyway?

---

To come back to the postman vs. hitman conundrum, let me insert another person into the mail bomb example, and see if we can come up with a rule to determine guilt.

The terrorist sends the bomb, him I consider guilty. The postman merely delivers the package, as that's his job, so I consider him innocent. Let's say there is also a security guard at the building, that should inspect (X-Ray, etc) packages for dangerous content. The possibilities are a) he cooperates with the terrorist, guilty; b) he is able to find the bomb but neglects his duties, so he is guilty by negligence (but that is not the same crime as murder to me); finally, c) the bomb is so intricately built that it could not be possibly found (one could also go with crazy multi-component poisons, etc), so the security guard should be absolved from any wrongdoing after an investigation.

So the rule to determine the guilt could be, if people cooperate willingly and knowingly in order to achieve a crime. They use their capacities and free will to a criminal purpose and know about it. If a person takes part in the crime, but does not know about it, he may be innocent or guilty by negligence (but as said I'd grade this s a different crime).

I assume here that the deed is a crime and leave other questions aside (proper application of justice, etc.). Does this make sense to you?

Reply

Merlin replied on Mon, Aug 9 2010 5:31 AM

rated by 0 users

Gotcha! If the instigator does not commit a crime, how could you by hiring a hitman in this case? :)

It is indeed a mischievous slip of tongue. The hitman and he alone commits a crime if he overdoes in his (outsourced) punishment. Mea culpa!

The amount of punishment objection is a good one, but in the end, there is more guilt to go around, so more punishment seems appropriate.

 Than again, you punish the same misdeed in potentially hugely different ways (just assume more than two collaborators). Does this sound fair to you? There might indeed be more guilt around, but not all ‘guilt’ is punishable by violent action. Some, most I venture say, guilt is punishable best by ostracism.  

Another aspect: any form of justice should attempt to fix the damage done to the victim first. From the example from the IP thread, let's say a group of thieves robs a bank, on the order of a mobster, preparing the hit with the assistance of a few other people, that don't take part in the robbery itself. A small joint-venture, you could say.

Legal personhood (i.e. the ‘joint venture’) too seems bunk to me. I love the way ths thread has to expos multiple facets of current law.

When the thieves perform the robbery, are not the other fellows also guilty?

 Depend son what these other fellows do. If A threatens people with a gun, B steals the money and C waits in the car, I say that 1) A is not liable for anything, although anyone could have shot him where he stood without any ill-effect on himself. It appear always justified to kill someone who’s threatening you on the spot, 2) B is liable for the sum stolen, 3) C is not liable.

 Of course, practically all these three guys will fin their insurance discontinued, hence allowing anyone on the street to kill them at his own pleasure. Civilized rules apply only to civilized people.

Let's say the thieves get away with the money, split their loot with their accomplices and are caught later. How will be the victims reimbursed, if the thieves don't have a large part of the money anymore?

Aha, now all three of them have stolen the money, the moment they split it. Now and only now all of them are liable for the ‘piece’ they took.

As for reimbursement. Was the bank insured? Than the insurer will pay and probably present these guys with the choice of either working to repay the insurer or end up without some organ.

Where the guys insured (probably hard to move at all on a private road if you’re not insured, I’m afraid). Than the insurer will pay and discontinue further reinsurance in the future. Possibilities are truly endless.

So the rule to determine the guilt could be, if people cooperate willingly and knowingly in order to achieve a crime. They use their capacities and free will to a criminal purpose and know about it. If a person takes part in the crime, but does not know about it, he may be innocent or guilty by negligence (but as said I'd grade this s a different crime).

I assume here that the deed is a crime and leave other questions aside (proper application of justice, etc.). Does this make sense to you?

First of all, this is by far a better rule than the ‘people-as-means’ one that Kinsella advocates. By seeing people as means there is no answer, I feel, to the postman-hitman differentiation. But assuming this away, and seeing the hole thing, as you put it, as a joint venture in crime, would allow to solve the differentiation as you do.

 Now I myself cannot agree with this because I’m always for individual responsibility. Only individuals act and only to individual can fault rightly accrue. Joint personhood is bunk. This does not mean that people cannot cooperate as they see fit, but for me, responsibility should always be seen as individual.

Reply

Peter Sidor replied on Mon, Aug 9 2010 7:20 AM

rated by 0 users

Than again, you punish the same misdeed in potentially hugely different ways (just assume more than two collaborators). Does this sound fair to you? There might indeed be more guilt around, but not all ‘guilt’ is punishable by violent action. Some, most I venture say, guilt is punishable best by ostracism.

This is a sensitive point, even though 'fair' is a loaded word we have to be careful with. Let me try it to spell it out differently... I would assume guilt for all parties knowingly involved, but not necessarily punish them in equal ways. You are right, that is another important aspect of the problem - how to punish accomplices, once they are identified as such? I'm afraid this question may be only resolved by specific approaches of specific legal systems. Who is more guilty, the hitman, or the person hiring him? I can see reasons for arguing in both ways, or for equal blame and equal punishment. (For the record, punishment by ostracism also presumes a threat of a violent action.)

Legal personhood (i.e. the ‘joint venture’) too seems bunk to me. I love the way ths thread has to expos multiple facets of current law.

Incidentally, I have to agree with how this thread develops - a great discussion! Now, the 'joint venture' bit was kind of a joke from my side. What I wanted to say was, that these people partner up to achieve a crime, so once they do it, they are all guilty. Let's get down to specifics.

Depends on what these other fellows do. If A threatens people with a gun, B steals the money and C waits in the car, I say that 1) A is not liable for anything, although anyone could have shot him where he stood without any ill-effect on himself. It appear always justified to kill someone who’s threatening you on the spot, 2) B is liable for the sum stolen, 3) C is not liable.

I actually wanted to show a different setup, but here A, B and C are performing the robbery together, so they all should be liable.

In a more convoluted, but not improbable example, the robbers could first consult a specialist on how to disable the security system. They could also find a snitch inside, that tells them when there is the most money and the fewest guards around. There are other possibilities, but none of these people have to take any active part in the robbery itself or even be anywhere close to the bank in order to be guilty. They partnered with the robbers to commit the crime. (Again, the exact degree of guilt and punishments may be judged differently in practice, but they are all taking part in the robbery.)

"Of course, practically all these three guys will fin their insurance discontinued, hence allowing anyone on the street to kill them at his own pleasure. Civilized rules apply only to civilized people."

So they did commit something. What did they do, besides the robbery? (Even if we talk about A, B and C and not the other people?)

---

As for the reimbursment by insurance, I take that as a given, but one should always seek to make those pay, that actually caused the damage - in my approach have several persons cooperated to cause the damage and profit from it - so they should be the ones forced to return the money as a start.

An interesting question is then, what if the thieves start to spend the money to people that are not their accomplices? Since these other people are not guilty of a crime, it seems to me they shouldn't be forced to return it. I am a bit leery on this one, so I guess that would make another discussion I don't want to open here. :)

---

First of all, this is by far a better rule than the ‘people-as-means’ one that Kinsella advocates. By seeing people as means there is no answer, I feel, to the postman-hitman differentiation. But assuming this away, and seeing the hole thing, as you put it, as a joint venture in crime, would allow to solve the differentiation as you do.

 Now I myself cannot agree with this because I’m always for individual responsibility. Only individuals act and only to individual can fault rightly accrue. Joint personhood is bunk. This does not mean that people cannot cooperate as they see fit, but for me, responsibility should always be seen as individual.

Good point! Methodological individualism shouldn't be left out. Companies, states and other groups have a certain reality in our world, and that's why it is useful to refer to them. Austrians recognize, that it is only through individual behavior groups can be recognized and meaningfully referred to - but that doesn't make the concept invalid. You can say "Company X has damaged my property, I'm gonna sue them bastards!". By suing "Company X", one sues either this whole group of people, or a specific subgroup.

It can be said, that, "Company X is guilty" - but this immediately translates into who are the specific people, that carry their individual responsibility. Based on existing contracts and arrangements, it should be already clear in most commercial enterprises who carries responsibility for what - and who's gonna pay; shareholders, executives, and so on.

And if there is a criminal enterprise, the 'joint venture'? Then you can also say "the gang is guilty" - and delve into specifics. What is the structure of the gang? Are there any leaders, executives, etc., that are liable for the actions of the group? Can a group of people, that have organized themselves specifically to commit crimes, absolve some of them of the responsibility? Could you found a legal "criminal company" (or say mafia), where some people organize and plan crimes, while letting "contractors" commit them and presumably take all responsibility if caught?

Reply

Merlin replied on Mon, Aug 9 2010 7:59 AM

rated by 0 users

I have to clarify this point. It is my strong impression that, present a free market in arbitration, it will always  (if not form the very beginning) happen that the only person who shall have the right to punish (or delegate punishment of) the wrongdoer will be the harmed party. The proper function of the arbiter/insurer here will be to try to convince the wronged party to do X instead of Y (or do nothing at all, if the offence is not considered punishable). Eventually it shall always be up to the wronged party to agree or not, a decision which in turn shall depend largely on the incentives present.

 Now, I’m sure that there will be people which will be totally uninterested in collaborating within the fabric of a civilized society. A killer can repent and work his ass off for 25 year to repay the million bucks he cost his insurance company, but a guy with no intention to repent, and even set on committing crime after crime is beyond reach.

These people we (the market) will not be able to care about. They will be ‘outlaws’ in the clearest sense, people for which laws do not apply (i.e. for whom no one will stand out). Whether they are shot, or they kill, or they live in jungles, or in they own house, or work, it is no concern of the industry.

Thus, we have to see that even if we say “action X shall not be punishable”, all we mean is that “if you do X, your company will try to convince whoever you wronged not to punish you”. Yet your action could still convince your company that you’re an unworthy risk in the future. And discontinuance of the policy will cast you as an outlaw. Whether people decide, according to their personal values, to kill you for what you’ve originally done, it will be outside the market and hence, besides the scope here.  

Could you found a legal "criminal company" (or say mafia), where some people organize and plan crimes, while letting "contractors" commit them and presumably take all responsibility if caught?

 Technically the wronged party has entered no contract with you, hence there is no transfer of guilt possible. Still, I would not hold anyone besides the ‘soldiers’ liable. Good for the Don if he’s so smart (and his soldiers so stupid) as to operate a criminal empire without blooding his own hands.

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Mon, Aug 9 2010 8:13 AM

rated by 0 users

So not only do we get rid of conspiracy laws, we add emotion/conflict-of-interest into the punishment.... Why don't we just go a step further and reinstitute an eye for an eye?

Thought is an action, planning is an action, funding is an action...  how is it even being discussed?