While we condemn all forms of murder, is it technically murder if a gang member (18th street) murders another gang member (crips)? I mean, both are engaging in illegal activities. But are they necessarily engaging in activities because of the incentives made illegal by the government (i.e. drugs, prostitution et al)?
The same goes with a gang member raping another gang member, stealing etc. Or would gangs even happen if we engaged in decriminalization of many activites that are illegal?
The way the NAP works, killing a murderer isn’t murder and taking back stolen property isn’t theft. Dealing drugs, prostitution, pimping, etc. aren’t crimes, as you yourself seem to suggest. The state might say otherwise, but that’s irrelevant from a libertarian perspective.
If someone walks on your lawn, that does not give you the right to kill him because he is a criminal. Criminality out of context does not carry a penalty. An ethical justice system removes the rights that the criminal does not respect. For example, someone who invades the property of others may have his property invaded. Someone who robs may be robbed. Someone who kills may be killed. Criminals must then pay some kind of penalty in order to buy back their rights and secure once again the protection of society.
Also see Kinsella’s Estoppel theory that someone who initiates force against another person cannot subsequently cogently argue that force should not be used against them in defense/punishment/retaliation.
The type of gangs that would survive are outlaw motorcycle clubs and football hooligan firms. Gangs that are not primarily an enterprise for profit.
I want to make sure I understand what you’re suggesting here… Please bear with me.
By “killing a murderer” and “taking back stolen property” do qualify (internally or otherwise) this statement at all? For example, is there ever a time after a murder has taken place where killing him would be morally unacceptable? Or is it perfectly acceptable, morally, in your opinion, to go kill a murderer at any point (say, even 100 years) after he’s committed a murder…? (And yes, I’m assuming we all know, for sure, the murderer committed the murder in question.)
But then the retaliator cannot cogently argue the attacker should not use force against him given his own use of force.
What? If you break into my house and steal my TV and I go to your house and take it back I can’t cogently argue that you can’t come to my house and steal it again?
That depends on how highly “consistency” (i.e. not benig hypocritical) ranks in your value structure. Is it more important to you to get your stuff back, or is it more important to you that you not do that which you would decry others for doing…? I think that’s where he’s coming from.
I think that only killing a person in self defence is not the crime (unless he hadn’t intention to kill you). Just randomly killing a person, who murdered someone else is a crime (according to my principles). Though, I wouldn’t care much of a murderers life and probably wouldn’t try to stop someone, who seeks a revenge and wants to kill a murderer. But again, he himself becomes a criminal and I would try to avoid such person just like “regular” murderer.
However, “stealing” from the thief what is your own property is NEVER a crime, unless you hurt someone in a process etc. Sure, it has some grey areas and it is hard to be absolutely consistent.
acceptable, morally, in your opinion, to go kill a murderer at any point
In the context of my own personal morals, no, assuming the murderer has been in some way pardoned by the victim’s survivors (perhaps they served a long prison term and/or paid restitution, or the victim’s family are pacifists, etc.).
If I understand the NAP (the libertarian political ethic I “believe” in) correctly, committing a crime entails the forfeiture of the same property rights the aggressor invaded himself. By that logic, a murderer would forever be fair game, meaning everyone could kill them rightfully, regardless of him being pardoned by the victim’s survivors. I might be misunderstanding something here, so feel free to share your take on this.
Even if I’m right in point 2, that could largely become moot due to contractual arrangements. For example, being insured could reasonably entail being contractually bound to forgo killing murderers (regardless of the victim being close to you or a complete stranger) who have been rightfully convicted. It’s also conceivable that pacifists, who would otherwise be inclined to pardon a family member’s murderer, would have to put up with them getting locked up indefinitely instead, based on their insurance contracts.
That depends on how highly “consistency” (i.e. not benig hypocritical) ranks in your value structure. (…) I think that’s where he’s coming from.
Well, libertarians are “coming from” the non-aggression principle. According to that principle, there is no inconsistency in using force to get one’s loot back from an aggressor. That Scineram would reject the NAP is no surprise, but now they pretend not to understand it as well.
Well, I happen to consider myself a libertarian and an adherer to the NAP, but admittedly, whether or not “stealing back” your goods from one who stole them is, in fact, consistent… well, it’s something I still struggle with. Perhaps you could lay out the common reasoning for this here for me?
My personal morals also say no, but I’m afraid our reasoning is much different.
This would be something akin to “outlawry” under english common law if I’m understanding it properly. I think my position differs from this somewhat.
I would have a hard time excusing any non-defensive violence. This means to me that if, in the process of protecting my life, it is necessary to kill the person who is threatening it, I have no moral objection. However, if that person is not an active threat to my life, irrespective of whether or not he has murdered someone in the past, killing him would, in my opinion, amount to murder (i.e. aggressive killing). It is my belief that violence is only non-aggressive if, and only if, it is applied in order to stop an active act of aggression. The killing of a man who murdered someone after he is no longer actively threatening/committing aggression against anyone does not meet that qualification in my opinion.
I accept that there may be a descrepency here between our ideas partially because I don’t recognize “rights” like most people tend to.
So I guess my next question is… is my understanding of NAP different from the “common” definition?
It’s not aggression to get your stuff back. Stealing is the aggression, retaking what is rightfully one’s own is not aggression. Don’t equate non-aggression with pacifism.
I’m curious who this is addressed to, and what specifically…
Perhaps you could lay out the common reasoning for this here for me?
I’m not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. They steal from you, the loot is not lawfully theirs, ergo you can get it back. I don’t see how that needs a justification other than the concept of self-ownership and the NAP.
That said, I do not think that allows you to use disproportionate violence. A pickpocket or shoplifter is clearly non-threatening. Opening fire on them would be a crime, breaking their wrist when they refuse to give up your property, not so much. Contrast this with a “hot” burglar (one who plies their trade while the home owners are present) or a mugger. I don’t think I have to state the obvious here.
That doesn’t explain much to me. You assume I know exactly what you’re talking about when you say “self-ownership” and “NAP.” One of my recent posts (though admittedly it’s not in reply to you, I don’t think) points out that I am starting to think that my idea of NAP and what most people (at least in this community) think of as NAP might differ.
I would prefer that you actually provide the justification rather than assuming I know what you’re talking about. I’m really very interested in understanding better. Thanks. 
I base most of my (admittedly rather dilettantish) understanding of libertarian theory on Rothbard’s and Block’s work. Thus I found it appropriate to quote For a New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard (not as a justification, but as a clarification of terms):
I was referring to you ladyphoenix.
“That depends on how highly “consistency” (i.e. not benig hypocritical) ranks in your value structure. Is it more important to you to get your stuff back, or is it more important to you that you not do that which you would decry others for doing…?”
I don’t decree people getting their stuff back. It’s not hypocritical to get one’s stuff back.
Again - I think you’re confusing the NAP with pacifism - although I do agree about the death penalty from a moral point of view.
| Quick Reply |
|---|