The question is not whether it would be wrong. The question is what incentive a justice company would have in prosecuting the man if it’s for-profit.
The incentive would come from any justice company’s client pressing charges. In the case of the father throwing his children from a bridge to their death, the person pressing charges might be the mother, who rightfully shares joint guardianship with the father, or the company itself fulfilling its own responsibility to act on behalf of its former clients, the children, and/or their legal representative(s), who would probably include the mother. If there were no one to accuse the father of murder or aggression, then there would more than likely be no punishment for the crime. Also, we can’t forget that in this case the mother might also seek vengeance against the father on her own, thereby circumventing courts and justice companies altogether, saving money in the process and eliminating the need for finding profit-seeking corporate motives. Of course, by doing so, the mother risks inciting legal action against herself by the father’s parents or anyone else that would seek charges against her for doing so, etc.
I repeat my question: Under our current system with the Department of Social Services, Health and Human Services, et al, how were they protected? Unless I’m missing something seriously significant, such as proof of everlasting life, the children who would have been so neglected in an anarcho capitalist system are just as dead now as they were when you first asked the question. So stop trying to change the focus and answer a damn question for once: How are the two dead children better off now than they would be under anarcho capitalism?
Are you implying that murder shouldn’t be punished at all, since the victims won’t be made any better off?
I do not think that is a fair question at all because there is physically NOTHING that can be done to improve the lot of a dead victim.
Thus, what he or anybody else is implying is irrelevant at best.
It’s self-contradictory.
“Not keeping your child alive” is murder.
Depends - someone else could still go after the individual and take them to a court (a bit like “homesteading” the abandoned claim, something Nozick discusses at length in ASU.)
There is no way to prevent somebody from throwing his kids off a bridge. However, in a libertarian society, one or more sets of grandparents or other family/acquaintances would likely hang the man over the very bridge until dead. Then his body would be cut loose to rot in the river like an animal’s. This would no doubt deter a number of would-be child murderers.
In a democratic state, the man would be under armed protection, provided with free legal representation, and then given room, board and medical care at the taxpayer’s expense for the rest of his life. For the sub-humans who don’t bat an eye over killing their own flesh and blood, democracy is one hell of a deal.
Very well put, Byzantine.
I’ve mentioned before about contracts. Couldn’t communities have contracts that lists basic expectations of neighbors, e.g., Thou shalt not drop your children off an 80 ft bridge? If an individual w/i that community refused to agree to community contracts they would experience varying levels of discrimination, depending upon the contract(s) not agreed to. If a person refuses to sign the most basic contract, one that binds them not to commit ‘murder’, 99.9% of the community would refuse to trade with them. You gotta trade to live. Plus, landowners w/i a community would feel pressured to make sure anyone they trade land with and ‘bring into’ the community signs said contract(s) before trading w/ them or risk the same level of ostracization. In fact, part of the community contract might involve only selling to those that agree to at least the most basic contracts. If the child killer was a party to the ‘anti-murder’ contract he would be investigated by the justice company and be subject to the terms he agreed to if found guilty.
That is not a contract. Contracts are legal transfers of ownership or use. If I sign a paper that reads, " I will not killed pairunoyd" that is a promise not a contract. I can not forfeit the right to kill you, because I never had it.
Murder is a property right dispute. I am not safe from murder because I go around collecting promises from people. I am safe because the legal system(ie the institutionalization of property rights) recognizes my claim of self ownership.
Thanks Jon.
So if I drew up a ‘contract’ that said, “I will trade with you if you agree NOT to do the following to said parties: murder, rape…if you violate this agreement you agree to subject yourself to said process (system of justice, retribution, etc)…” that’s erroneous? What about the idea of ‘social contracts’?
But you do at times have the right to kill another person, correct? I understand what you’re saying about ‘never had the right’, ie natural rights. I think. I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I really am that thick. 
I just really find the ideas at the Mises forums intriguing.
I don’t know if you ever ‘got in on it’, but what do you think about procreation being murder? A child canNOT, canNOT die unless you bring him into existence TO die. Of course, you could appeal to ‘accidental death’. You could offer mitigating circumstances surrounding the impregnation, but I could also see wreckless endangerment as a possiblity.
I only thought about this a few weeks ago because of the argument against God due to evil, about his knowing evil would exist, yet he created us anyway. But man also knows that evil exists and yet we bring into existence man. We procreate.
However, I can see going back further and further to previous procreative acts, all the way to Adam (let’s assume Brother Adam did exist, shall we?). Does the procreative acts of Adam and Eve give us clemency? Haven’t they enabled our every action, actions we’re unable to perform without them and their procreation? Is this a mitigation? And you could travel further back and address the creative (no pro prefix) process of God, God as the ultimate enabler.
If we’re here by no act of our own, are we then morally unaccountable? If we are accountable, can we be held accountable for our own procreative acts, acts that absolutely positively will result in the death of another human being? But, they’re only potential humans, right? Can we be held accountable for actions against potential humans?
Weird stuff, eh? [*-)]
P.S. I googled this crapola and of course I’m not the first person to ever think about procreation as murder. At, The Hoover Hog it’s referred to as, antinatalism. lol. http://hooverhog.typepad.com/hognotes/2007/06/initial_harm_pa_1.html
P.S.S. I don’t blame you if you don’t to reply to such babbling, but I thought I’d offer it you and anyone else that might be interested.
Here’s an interesting portion of The Hoover Hog’s article ( http://hooverhog.typepad.com/hognotes/2007/06/initial_harm_pa_1.html ):
Cursorily formalized, the pro-mortalist argument might go a bit like this:
- If coming into existence is always a serious harm;
- And if the plight of those who do not yet exist constitutes an incalculably vast degree of harm;
- And if the prevention of such harm is a rational moral duty;
- And if continued procreation is otherwise practicably inevitable;
- Then the intentional destruction of human life may be justified in the interest of preventing the greater magnitude of harm to not-yet-existent people
Here’s the argument with a little more context:
Initial Harm Part Two: The Antinatalist Logic of Libertarian Nonaggression
Apocalypse Ethics
In Better Never to Have Been, David Benatar’s methodical case against procreation is crafted, for the most part, in the language of ethical utility. This may be the best way to do it. I don’t know. There is the advantage of potential objectivity, which can be helpful. But there is a point, I think, at which Benatar seems cornered by the stronger claims that his own reasoning would seem to permit, if not sanction. A point at which the ultimate logic of hedonic asymmetry is better left diluted. .
“Pro-mortalism” is a fascinating term, isn’t it? In Benatar’s usage, it denotes the broadest and most morally problematic application of the negative utilitarian logic buttressing anti-natalist ethics. In a peculiar phrase, it describes a moral philosophy of genocide.
Cursorily formalized, the pro-mortalist argument might go a bit like this:
- If coming into existence is always a serious harm;
- And if the plight of those who do not yet exist constitutes an incalculably vast degree of harm;
- And if the prevention of such harm is a rational moral duty;
- And if continued procreation is otherwise practicably inevitable;
- Then the intentional destruction of human life may be justified in the interest of preventing the greater magnitude of harm to not-yet-existent people
Now I know of no serious thinker – living or dead – who openly embraces a pro-mortalist stance thus or otherwise articulated, even rhetorically. And it should be emphasized that Benatar’s dalliance with the idea is staged in the manner of a preemptive rejoinder; he raises the specter only to explode it, ostensibly as a matter of philosophical housecleaning. Yet it is only at this awkward juncture that I catch even a whiff of disingenuousness. In stating his case against breeding, Benatar always takes care to ask the right questions and consider possible responses, but his perspective becomes suspiciously myopic, er, sub specie humanitas, when he considers the prospect of mass killing for the greater good.
I think you’re on the right track here with the peer pressure and ostracism, but I don’t think you need explicit contractual arrangements for such basic things as murder. I think such things would be reasonable expectations of the community, and thus naturally enforced through defensive measures and criminal cases.
But wouldn’t explicitness via contracts be a proactive way of stating that man has the power to agree or disagree to terms and not be ‘naturally subject to’ any other man? If we get to the philosophically problematic areas concerning a parent’s role, a lot of the problems can be resolved by clarifying these issues via explicit contracts. Also, there would be assumed an implicit understanding of the nature of your neighbor if he eschews such basic contracts as ‘non-murder agreements’. If a person doesn’t agree to this, they’re most likely highly suspect. Of course, they could simply be a radical anti-contractual anarchist. lol “My only contract is the anti-contract. I shall not be bound by pen and paper to the machinations of your ideologically utopian aspirations.” [:@]
If the remedy for breaching a contract is no different than committing the crime without any such contract, then the contract is pointless, or at best, simply an explicit statement of what is desired. If somebody signs a “non-murder agreement”, and then commits a murder, why would the retaliation be any different than if they hadn’t signed such an agreement? Someone who refused to sign such an agreement might be suspect, or they might just be contrary. Either way, it’s still not a valid contract, and we still don’t want someone to murder someone else.
Other areas that don’t involve crime might well be contractual, though, so a parent’s role might be subject to a contractual agreement, under certain circumstances.
So since man will naturally avenge murder, we don’t need to explicate this natural response of man? But at the least, can’t remedies for murder vary, ie varying ‘sentences’ imposed? Would these remedies be a ‘natural level of response’ or would they need to be agreed to? If remedies can vary, can they vary to the point of ‘no remedy’ or what we might consider a ‘nominal remedy’, e.g. you are hereby sentenced to 1 second in jail.?
The utility of contracts? Is the utility determined by how pratical is it for man to forever seek agreement on every matter they engage in? I mean, I can imagine everyone walking around with briefcases and pulling out contracts over every trivial encounter. "I wish to greet my fellow-man. Let’s see, where that greeting contract? [8-)]
Thank you for your patience.
It doesn’t need to be part of a contract, since it involves crime and criminal law.
The utility of contracts are largely determined by their usefulness and enforceability. Contracts for trivial encounters are silly not just because they’re impractical, but unenforceable. What would be an appropriate punishment for a rude greeting or lack of greeting? What would be the point of going to court over it?
Life is precious. Please remember Rick Burgess of Rick and Bubba radio show today at 2 P.M. CST. His son, Bronner, drown in their pool Saturday evening. They now have 4 children. The mother locked all the doors, put the kids a movie on and went to take a shower. When she got out she couldn’t find their 2 yr old son, little ‘cornbread’. They later found him in their pool. 911 was called but he couldn’t be saved.
Rick, Bronner’s dad, will speak at the funeral today in Birmingham, AL. He’s CRAZY about his kids. It’s really, really tough. My sister was raped and murdered 30 yrs ago this year. My dad is a preacher and he too officiated her funeral. She was 18. It’s probably the worst thing a person can go thru, burying their own child.
Thanks guys.