gangs and economics

Miscellaneous Current Events
21

Ok, as I haven’t yet reached the conclusion that it isn’t hypocritical, would you explain what leads you to your conclusion?

Admittedly, where I stumble in this (as I have actually discussed very recently with a friend of mine) is that more often than not, “getting my stuff back” is going to involve violating the property or person of another, even after the fact. The question I have been kicking around is whether or not that violation (violence) is defensive, as I siad, after the fact.

A purse snatcher takes my purse on the street, he gets 10 feet away and I hit him with a taser. Pretty straight forward. The proximity of the events lends itself to the conclusion that the purse snatcher was still in the act. Some thief steals your car in the night. A year later, you find out that this dude 10 blocks from you is the dude who took the car and it’s still in his possession. Are you morally “in the clear” breaking into his garage to get it back? Would you compensate him for the damage you did to his garage? Should you? What if he’d sold the property to an innocent person? Would you be justified to violate their property (i.e. break into their garage) in order to obtain your property?

These are all questions I struggle with.

You are incorrect. I do not confuse NAP with pacificsm. Pacifists, as I understand it, wouldn’t even attempt to defend themselves against the aggression others would commit against them. I am certainly not of that mind. I have no problem with protecting myself (or my family), even if the consequence of doing so means ending the life of another.

I consider myself to be an adherent to the NAP, I do not, however, understand how the NAP allows the killing of a person who is not actively a threat to your life. That is where I find that the death penalty isn’t consistent with the NAP, as I understand it. If, by the death penalty, we are referring to killing a person while he is trying to kill you in order to stop him from succeeding, I’m all for it. If the death penalty is a bunch of people deciding a man who is bound and tied should be executed… I can’t say I agree with that. That doesn’t even take into account that the death penalty is usually carried out by states, which presents even more of a problem for me.

22

The hypocritical comment doesn’t make sense to me. I’m arguing it’s wrong to initiate violence against someone, not that violence is always wrong. It’s hypocritical if I say it’s wrong to initiate violence and then do so, or if I say it’s wrong to steal and then steal. I’m not arguing that.

If somebody steals my car they’ve violated my rights. Let’s just say they steal $100.00. If a year later I take $100.00 from their wallet I haven’t violated their rights. In fact, I would be well within my rights to take $100.00 and then some. To go back to the car situation I would be within my rights to break into the garage up to a point. I couldn’t destroy their house because that’s not proportional at all, but it’s not justice if someone takes $100.00 and then only pays me back that exact amount at a later date - there is more owed than that.

I suggest you read Rothbard’s “The Ethics of Liberty”. I haven’t read “Man, Economy, and State”, but I thought it’s the best thing he wrote. He goes into the details of the NAP and applying it to real situations. One of the components is proportionality.

I’m against the death penality for several reasons, but I don’t think killing a murderer violates the NAP. Executing Hitler would not have been an act of aggression.

23

I haven’t read the ethics of liberty yet, but here’s an excerpt on punishment: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard145.html

24

But then the retaliator cannot cogently argue the attacker should not use force against him given his own use of force.

When both parties are using force on each other the argument has long ended. The intent of the measure is that using force against the attacker will force him back to lawfulness due to prisoner’s dilemma-style incentives.

25

Do you mean to imply that all “force” is equal?

26

Let me start from the beginning, becuase I think I may be failing to communicate clearly here.

If you ask John Q Libertarian and NAP adherer, “When is it acceptable to use violence against another individual?” I expect his response to be, “Only defensive violence is acceptable, morally.” If I were to press the issue, “Please tell me what you mean by defensive.” I expect his answer to be something like, “A defensive act is an act which is meant to stop an act of aggression in progress.”

Would you agree with this? If not, tell me where you differ in your position.

27

I would agree with that. Under such a philosophy I could firebomb your house and you would have absolutely no recourse. It’s nigh impossible for stop every crime in progress, so under a philosophy you’re describing once a crime is committed punishment is not allowed.

28

Of course it’s impossible to stop every act of aggression in progress. I don’t think anyone would argue that it is possible.

I don’t understand, however, why it is you think that I would have absolutely no recourse for such an act. There are plenty of consequences which don’t involve me hunting you down and seeking revenge. Justice doesn’t, in my world at least, equal “revenge.” Also, one can achieve justice without having to violate the NAP.

The question is whether or not me breaking into your house to take back a pair of shoes you stole from me a year ago does, in fact, violate the NAP. Given what I described in my previous post… I think the case could be made that it does.

29

So what is the recourse for someone that firebombed your house? Let’s say you find out a week later it was a guy 5 houses down. What do you do?

30

Tell me, do I know without a shadow of a doubt that it was him? And am I readily able to convince others with the same certainty?

31

Let’s say he comes to you and says, “Yeah, I did it. What are you going to do about it?”

32

I make sure all of his neighbors and anyone who he might do business with are aware of his actions and I file a claim for damages with an arbiter. Were he insured against such an act, I’d file a claim with his insurance company, and were he not, I’d contact his insurance company and explain to them the level of risk he poses thereby all but guaranteeing they’d drop him as a client. In short, I would make it very difficult for him to do business. Anything less than a completely self-sufficient hermit would have difficulty securing the necessities for his own survival.

Naturally, this assumes that his neighbors and the people who would do business with him do, in fact, care that he has shown himself capable of committing such an aggressive act. But I don’t see why woul be an unreasonable assumption. Even today I can’t imagine anyone I would do business with willingly doing business with Timothy McVeigh while he was alive.

33

Agression doesn’t have to be “in progress” to be stopped. What about stolen property? So a person wouldn’t have a right to “steal” his property back from a thief? (assuming he knows where he lives, etc.)? Thief is in a state of agression as long as he have a stolen property and as long as he doesn’t bring this to the rightful owner.

I am not saying that what would happen. I believe, it is more practical to ask a third party (DRO whatever) to do that rather than myself. But just for the sake of argument, it is justifiable to seek restitution and use AGRESSION if necessary even after the crime. And it is part of the NAP principle.

34

If it isn’t “in progress” it has already stopped. Unless you’re talking about aggression which hasn’t yet occurred… You aren’t, are you?

I haven’t been convinced one way or another.

Why?

Forgive me. This doesn’t make sense. “Being aggressive doesn’t violate the non-aggression principle.” I can’t say I understand that one. It’s either aggressive, which violates the NAP, or it’s defensive, which doesn’t. If you’re using “aggression” after-the-fact then you are, by definition, violating the NAP.

Perhaps you mean “violence,” instead? Or force?

35

So self-sufficient hermits ARE allowed to commit crimes without repurcussions?

36

Forgive me. This doesn’t make sense. “Being aggressive doesn’t violate the non-aggression principle.” I can’t say I understand that one. It’s either aggressive, which violates the NAP, or it’s defensive, which doesn’t. If you’re using “aggression” after-the-fact then you are, by definition, violating the NAP.

So by the same definition agressing in self-defence when the crime is in progress is violation of the NAP? That would be absurd. That’s why I think it is necessary to understand, that NAP doesn’t work only in a present action. As long as there is a victim which didn’t get a restitution from a criminal, the crime is in progress, so to speak.

By crime, I mean, as long as a thief didn’t bring the stolen property to the rightful owner, the thief is commiting an act of agression and it is justifiable for a victim under the principle of the NAP to seek a restitution from the thief. It is a part of self-defence in my view. And that restitution can be anything, from “stealing” your property back or by forcing (violently, if necessary) a thief to give your property back (also, assuming you know where the thief lives).

That’s how I understand NAP. :slight_smile:

If NAP (and self-defence) was only justifiable as long as the crime is literally in progress, then there would be no use of it at all. NAP wouldn’t work (by this definition) after the crime. And it would be impossible to justify any DRO actions (or just restitution, to put it simply).

37

I’m going to say that I understand where you’re going with this and I think that we are having a language issue. :slight_smile:

The NAP, as an idea, can only be logically consistent if “aggression” and “self-defense” are mutually exclusive. A behavior may be violent or forceful, but if it is in self-defense it cannot be “aggressive.” So “aggressive self-defense” like you talk about above would be self-contradictory. This is where I was confused about what you were saying before.

This I dig, completely.

This is what I don’t quite buy… because it hasn’t been effectively demonstrated to me. This is the core of my issue. Is it really just an a priori assumption on the part of NAP adherers that violating a violator is not considered “aggressive?” I have yet to see anyone give me a real reason other than “it just is.”

Why wouldn’t it “work?” What do you mean by “work,” exactly, anyhow? Do you mean that it is incapable of seeing that justice is served? Or is there some other criteria you’re using to gauge its effectiveness?

38

Nope. By definition, people who are self-sufficient hermits, voluntarily, have no reason to interact with other people. They wouldn’t be violating the property (or bodies) of others. People who would commit what you’re calling “crimes” do have a need for some sort of “social” interaction, even if that interaction is something you’d consider morally questionable. THOSE people being essentially FORCED to become self-sufficient hermits would view such a state as “punishment.” They don’t WANT to live like that. That is the repercussion. Not to mention, it is a very hard state for humans to live in. Why do you think “solitary confinement” is a punishment in the current US prison system?

39

You completely evaded the question.

Let’s imagine Joe. Joe lives in the woods. Joe doesn’t need anyone to survive - he owns a big plot of land and lives a simple life. He is, however, a bit of a weirdo. He decides one day to go into the city and robs a bank in plain view of everyone and then flees back to his plot of land. He’s got $10,000 in cash on his land, are you saying it would be a violation of (your skewed view of) the NAP to go onto his property and retrieve the money?

40

I did no such thing. You didn’t appreciate my answer. That doesn’t mean I didn’t answer the question.

Let me first start by saying that I haven’t cast ANY aspersion upon your character, your argumentation, nothing. I have been polite and sincerely inquisitive. I don’t appreciate either a) the accusation of dishonesty in saying that I evaded anything and b) that my views are somehow skewed. My viewes are no more or less skewed than yours are from perspectives other than your own. I don’t resort to being obnoxious simply because I disagree. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

So actually replying to your content here, let me ask you a question. If Joe is a completely self-sufficient hermit, what use does he have for $10,000 cash? Where’s Joe’s motive for stealing that money? I ask becuase it seems highly unlikely that a completely self-sufficient hermit, one who is voluntarily so, would have any reason whatsoever to acquire money/goods from others. Sure it’s possible, but it doesn’t seem like a meaningful scenario. In the unlikely event that such a thing would occur, I would hope that someone keeping $10,000 would care enough to protect their property. Let us not forget that in an ancap society people wouldn’t hesitate to defend themselves and their property against theives. I think it also highly unlikely that sort of theft would take place without putting the hermit at significant risk of physical harm or even death.

My hope would be that if he were stupid enough to attempt such a feat, he’d be shot. Otherwise, I have no answer.

Here’s where you’re going to really start to dislike me, I’m afraid. The fact that I can’t answer that question beyond, “the owner of the property had better shoot him,” doesn’t bother me. A single, highly unlikely circumstance does not make me think that what I’ve proposed isn’t reasonable in the vast majority of cases. The goal of advocating the NAP is not, at least in my case, to “cure” the problem of “aggression.” It is simply to make aggression much less likely by making the consequences of acts of aggression much more immediate and dire. Stamping out aggression is not possible without killing everyone in the world save for yourself (or myself).

Man is a social animal. The vast majority of men cannot handled extended solitude. The prospect of being literally forced into a solitary situation (let alone one where you could starve if you don’t already have enough food/water to survive because you are unable to trade goods or services) is enough incentive to make [most] men comply with demands for restitution, though again, my hope is that people who are willing to [intentionally] commit such acts of aggression in the first place are readily removed from the gene pool. I’d even be willing to put their bodies on display, like the english did to pirates, with notes saying, “this is what we do to thieves and murderers.”

Don’t think that I’m a pacifist. I’m not. I am simply asking for someone to demonstrate to me, logically, how it is not aggressive to take property from someone who isn’t in the act of stealing something from you. If it’s an a priori assumption, I can live with that. Just say the word.