Obviously the hitman himself is committing a crime if he follows through on his part of the bargain, but is the client that hires him guilty of aggression for his role in the conspiracy?
Most definitely.
He is exercising ownership over something that doesn’t belong to him (the person’s life that is to be taken by the hitman) through hiring a 3rd party (the hitman) and having that 3rd party “manage” that person’s life on his behalf. Therefore he is just as guilty as the hitman himself.
It is not unlibertarian to ask someone to kill someone else. It is not unlibertarian to give money to someone. Two rights do not make a wrong.
You cannot delegate rights you don’t have to someone else. That’s according to the NAP and natural rights theory.
In the free society, where law is a product of the market and not some arbitrary whim, people would most likely demand voluntary contracts that consider hiring a hit man to kill you a crime.
I tend to say no, the client of a hitman has committed no legal wrong. There should be no grounds for legal recourse
However, moral wrongs within a free society can carry as much, if not more, penality than legal crimes. This individual may be blacklisted and shuned to the point of starvation
Of course this is unlawful.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_van_Dun :
Van Dun claims that the correct interpretation of the non-aggression principle (NAP) is praxeological rather than physical, because property is a “means of action”. He thus claims freedom before property instead of freedom as property. This implies that it’s not necessarily only the last action in the chain of social causations that is unlawful.
Yes. see “agency”
The hitman is an instrument of the client’s will.
btw, I believe ‘agency’ is the Hobbesian rationale for the legitimacy of leviathan, or representative government.
I’m curious.
Who would determine this divine and supreme legal code which according to would not consider the hiring of a hitman a crime? Where will this law be written and where will it come from?
You cannot deny the law without contradicting yourself.
Also, to those (seems like most) who do believe it is a crime: does it immediately become a crime as soon as the contract is agreed upon, or does it only become a crime once the murder is attempted? For example, if the hitman had an attack of conscience and reported the client before the murder, would the client already be guilty of a tort against the target? Or does the client only become an accessory once the physical violence is actually committed? This is assuming that the target is completely unaware of the plot to rule out the eventuality that the target, under threat, paid off the hitman not to carry out the murder, which would certainly be an aggressive act.
Those exact interpretations will be determined by the market outcome. Different communities will have different choices to the relative importance of different praxeological rights.
So I think we should always remember that our different responses in this thread do not divide us because we agree on a more abstract level how the law/custom would arise.
For me personally, yes I think just odering the murder is criminal. There has to be habeus corpus of course when investigating.
heres my silly answer of the day, ‘you can hire them to mow your lawn and clean the pool’
Certain providences may view this is a crime, security agencies, PPA’s, and insurance companies may view this as a crime. I am simply commenting that de facto is doesn’t seem like the hiring of an agent of violence is a violation of the non aggression principal. There is no extension of someones will, it is simply exchange.
Reprhasing the question, can you donate money to a murder simply because your glad they committed the crime they committed?
It is a crime to advocate for higher subsidies for cotton candy and you’re asking if paying someone to kill is a crime??
Advocating higher taxes = a crime in libertarian ethics => Advocating war/murder = a crime in libertarian ethics => inticing someone to murder with money = a crime in libertarian ethics.
Rephrasing the dillema. Lets say the state in a bid to raise more money is offering a service. For a donation of 1 million dollars to the state budget the donor can name a person of his choosing to be killed by the state.
Is it a crime to take advantage of this service?
You are right, I didn’t think of that.
It is OK to hire him if you are hiring him to off someone who deserves it and you have standing. In which case he is just a very speedy court and not a hitman really.
Also, is it a crime to say to someone: “If hypothetically you were to cause the death of Person A, then you could then live in my basement rent-free and I will cook for you until it blows over.” ???
Maybe, if you’re a really good cook.
There’s another thread that asked “is Austrian Economics postmodern?”
If I didn’t know any better, this thread would convince me it is.
In ancient Iceland, when a person commited a crime, refused any attempt of the community to mediate a solution, and only escalated the problem, one could find himself eventually to be an outcast, that had to leave the island in a few weeks - after this time, the person could be killed by anyone without any consequences.
In this case I believe, hiring a hitman would be perfectly legitimate.