Let’s assume a hypothetical (a bit science fiction) scenario.
Everyone in the neighborhood knows that Albert will attack and kill John Smith if anyone utters the word “Abracadabra”. I uttered the word by mistake, and indeed Albert killed John Smith. Do you think I am liable in court for this?
Of course not. If everyone knew Albert would do this in the first place, why wouldn’t he be subject to some sort of repercussion? Is he not obviously threatening force?
Albert does not need to hear the word, the mere action of someone uttering the word anyplace/anytime in the world puts him in “killing mode” by default?
What was the intention behind uttering the word? Accidental, on purpose?
Do people actually believe Albert was/is going to kill someone from the idea of someone simply saying a word?
Is it only the people who know Albert or know of the situation that when they say the word he kills John Smith?
Does John Smith know about this?
When Albert told anyone this did anyone call the police?
How did Albert kill John Smith?
How long did it take after the word was uttered before Albert killed John Smith?
No, you are not. The fundamental difference between this scenario and mere physics is human action. Allow me to explain.
Uttering the word ‘abracadabra’ is a freedom, just as lifting a knife is. However, we know that we may not lift a knife into a person’s face. Why? Because by the laws of physics, we will injure the man. Someone may try to argue that uttering the word ‘abracadabra’ in your scenario is sort of like physics - it is a trigger that leads to events down the line. Hence, you are liable for the word just as you are liable for the knife.
However, there is a fundamental difference. The knife scenario deals with the inevitable laws of physics - that’s how the world works. If you knife someone, you will hurt him. In the situation with the word, however, the damage being dealt is predicated on the action of another person - the murderer. So while uttering the word may indeed lead to a murder, the actual action performed is by another person. He has the choice whether to do it or not. The process is not deterministic. There was the option of not killing the man. As such, the fault is his and not yours.
In this way, it is not the same as mere physics, because there was a choice in the system that was not yours to make, and that choice, not your speaking in itself, led to the death.
Albert will attack in an automaton fashion or in a free-will fashion? So, is he, at bottom, able to stop himself, or his attacking after hearing the word is more like e reflex, say, like a heartbeat which one cannot stop (no such thing exists nowadays, but you mention a sci-fi scenario)? In the former sense, you are clearly not liable. In the latter, you clearly are liable of accidental murder (I know that’[s not the proper legal term, but it get the idea through.
Merlin, even if you don’t know of the rule?
I’m sorry, I’m not sure I understand the question
Even if the guy who said the word was not aware that if he said the word then some murderer deterministically kills someone?
Oh, I see. Well, I say it further depends on whether it was reasonable information to have.
By way of analogy, if John kills Derp by accidentally shooting him, and he latter holds that he’d never seen a gun, and he had no idea of how a gun worked, this would still be no defense, as a reasonable person is supposed to know what a guns is and how it works.
So, in this strange universe Eugene is postulating, would it be common knowledge that the work causes a rampage? If yes, than I insist that we have guilt, if not than there must be no guilt. Now, determining what is reasonable knowledge to have is tricky, but it’s the best we can do to approach the problem.
I am pretty sure I agree with Wheylous. You can’t be responsible for the actions of someone else.
But if that’s the case, then I am also not responsible for what a hitman whom payed to kill someone did. That is I just uttered the words “kill him and I will pay you”. How is that different than uttering the word “Abracadabra” in my first scenario? In both cases you migth have actually wanted the person to be killed, but in both cases you were using your mouth (your own property) to utter words. You were using your natural right.
Tomato potato pizza pie air cloud balloon blimp jet! Thinking dirt down ground around chair table bench mark? Quote quote quote magician wizard duke earl london paris berlin!
Capisce?
In one case there is a deal between the two of you and in another there isn’t.
if that’s the case, then I am also not responsible for what a hitman whom payed to kill someone did.
Oh, boy. I was afraid of this 
I really do hope no one goes around and says, “wow, Wheylous gave a really good explanation for why hiring hitmen is legal.” Let’s start with this: Do you believe a threat of violence is illegal?
I’m so glad this issue is finally getting settled. It’s been a legitiimate blind spot in libertarian jurisprudence.
XD
Yes I believe a threat of violence justifies violence in self-defense.
I see no difference between the following cases:
Uttering Abracadabra to achieve the murder of John Smith
Asking another person to kill John Smith
In both cases I acted in order to get John Smith killed. Whether the hitman striked a deal with me or not is irrelevant.
Hm, it appears that uttering with intent, then, actually constitutes paying a hitman.
You are exchangin one service (utterance/money) for another (killing/killing) willfully. Hence, you are liable in both (if you do it willfully).
Now, if you had no reasonable way to know this, then you are not liable.
And what if just by leaving your house will get John Smith killed and you know that for sure?
Does this mean Terry Jones, the pastor who threatened to burn Quaran books in order to create a mayham in the Muslim world that will get Muslims killed (which actually happened) is liable for multiple murder?
I think that the idea that you can be responsible for someone’s else actions will get you into all sorts of trouble. Morally it is wrong as well.
I myself see I huge difference between the hypothetical scenario in the OP and the hiring a hitman: the hitman is a human being with free will, hence the blame for the kill is his and his alone. Why he killed the guy (money? love? Ideology? Bar brawl?) is irrelevant.
If you are going to say that the commissioner of a murder is culpable, than you must treat the hitman as a thing (like gun that the commissioner used to kill the victim) not a man with free will, and hence you cannot punish the hitman! No, I see that the hitman as fully culpable, and the commissioner as innocent. Of course, in a free society I imagine he’d become an outlaw anyway as no reputable insurer would stand by such a shady character. But in theory, he is not culpable.