Many things depend on the specifics - in most cases could be the postman considered a means, for in regular circumstances he simply delivers the package, which is assumed to be a safe item; and the postman is most likely forbidden to open it. While he might feel guilty, he was only misused by the true criminal - hence innocent. Actually, now that I think of it, the sender of the email bomb has entered an implicit (and possibly explicit) contract of not sending explosive materials, which he has broken. So not only would any victims (or their families etc.) get to sue the mail bomber, but the post company as well.
Of course, if it was the Super Safe Post Co., that is expected to deliver only safe packages to its customers, The Bulwark Of A Paranoid Age ™, they would be culpable as well, if only for negligence.
So in some cases at least, the human can be really classified as a ‘means’, without taking the will and knowledge into question.
Do not try to convince me that the postman is innocent. Of course he is!
I just do not see how Kinsella can arrive at this conclusion. If this guy is just a mean, than so was the hitman. They are, in Kinsella’s eyes, the same, for he blurs the distinction between them (the postman didn’t know, the hitman did). So why let the postman walk and punish the hitman? Can you come up with a rule that does both these thing and also punishes both instigators?
“I just do not see how Kinsella can arrive at this conclusion. If this guy is just a mean, than so was the hitman. They are, in Kinsella’s eyes, the same, for he blurs the distinction between them (the postman didn’t know, the hitman did). So why let the postman walk and punish the hitman? Can you come up with a rule that does both these thing and also punishes both instigators?”
Maybe he only concentrated on the guilt of the original instigator and wanted to show that he doesn’t escape being guilty even if he uses other people to actually perform the crime. (Sorry, haven’t read his article.)
Can we have more rules, hopefully only two? One for the employer/instigator or a crime, and one for the person actually commiting it? I don’t know if there is one rule to be had for a crime with two distinct parties (where one may be innocent, depending on circumstances).
At the moment I can think only of the “contract” thing, where both parties agree on performing the crime (called conspiracy or organized crime or whatever). But this doesn’t cover the postman, and I’m not sure if the contract thing can apply in every case. But that may be a different type of crime.
First page, New York times: “ CEO murders 50 people!”
Who would know this? It is not a crime for me to hire the hitman, ergo, noone even investigated the issue. Nice try tho.
Well, I see how a statsist used to letting criminals off the hook because they ‘stole out of need’, or ‘are mentally unstable’ can put other considerations before the mere action. But I myself see only that, the fact, and the human a
When will you people realize that calling everyone who disagrees with you a statist (and ergo implied thief and murderer) is getting you nowhere? Ya, people are gona listen to your message when you call them a murderer just cause they never thought past “someone has to enforce the law.”
I’m glad you backed off this assertion that it is not a crime and that “let the market decide.” Too much philo-jargon, not enough real world application.
Who would know this? It is not a crime for me to hire the hitman, ergo, noone even investigated the issue.
Tabloids run a first page every time that Brangelina wipe their a**s, I believe that there would be some measure of interest here.
When will you people realize that calling everyone who disagrees with you a statist (and ergo implied thief and murderer) is getting you nowhere? Ya, people are gona listen to your message when you call them a murderer just cause they never thought past “someone has to enforce the law.”
Making a general point there, not referring to you personally.
I’m glad you backed off this assertion that it is not a crime and that “let the market decide.” Too much philo-jargon, not enough real world application.
Of course I am for letting the market decide. Whenever I discuss such cases I’m merely stating what I believe would come to be normal, not what should be.
what an absolutely amazing topic, my head explodes.
Firstly I agreed with Merlin, but now, after seeing another example (didn’t read original article yet) with postman and evil terrorist I am again on the fence… So why hitman is liable and postman is not? I agree, that postman didn’t know about the bombs and it is even not his job to know what’s in the mail so he clearly (my common sense says, lol) can not be guilty of a crime. But is simply not knowing that you gonna harm someone is a Get out of Jail Free card?
What an absolutely amazing topic, my head explodes.
Firstly I agreed with Merlin, but now, after seeing another example (didn’t read original article yet) with postman and evil terrorist I am again on the fence… So why hitman is liable and postman is not? I agree, that postman didn’t know about the bombs and it is even not his job to know what’s in the mail so he clearly (my common sense says, lol) can not be guilty of a crime. But is simply not knowing that you gonna harm someone is a Get out of Jail Free card?
Well, that in itself is indeed a contentious point. My understating is that, hadn’t the terrorist been behind that all, but, say some freak accident, the postman or post office owner would be liable to a degree.
I don’t feel like reading through the 60 or so posts so I’m just going to give my answer,
Yes.
When someone shoots someone else they do not kill them, the bullet does. The person who pulled the trigger merely set off a chain of events which he knew would end with the person who was shot dying. The hitman is merely another step added to this process. The hitman becomes another tool which someone knows will result in the death of another human being. The hitman is also is guilty, but so is the one who hired him.
"I don’t feel like reading through the 60 or so posts so I’m just going to give my answer,
Yes.
When someone shoots someone else they do not kill them, the bullet does. The person who pulled the trigger merely set off a chain of events which he knew would end with the person who was shot dying. The hitman is merely another step added to this process. The hitman becomes another tool which someone knows will result in the death of another human being. The hitman is also is guilty, but so is the one who hired him."
While I don’t necessarily disagree with your conclusion, I’m not sure that the bullet analogy makes sense because a bullet, unlike a hitman, has no free will. If someone programmed a robot to go assassinate someone then yes, that would be a perfect analogy, but when a human agent is involved the chain of causality is not so clear.
One thing I wonder about is would a killer be punished equally whether he was acting on his own impulse or acting as a hired hitman? If he would be punished equally, and if his client would also be punished, then the aggregate punishment for the murder would be greater for a hit than for a “acting alone” murder. Would that then imply that a hit is a more severe crime than a lone murderer? Would everyone agree with that, that the conspiracy aspect makes it a worse crime? If not, then is it OK that one results in a greater aggregate punishment than the other?
I consider organised crime indeed worse than a sole murder, because the professional aspect of it is a threat to society in itself. I believe ancap communities who agree with me would outperform those that don’t, but I can be wrong and switch PDA’s if so.
“While I don’t necessarily disagree with your conclusion, I’m not sure that the bullet analogy makes sense because a bullet, unlike a hitman, has no free will. If someone programmed a robot to go assassinate someone then yes, that would be a perfect analogy, but when a human agent is involved the chain of causality is not so clear.”
The free will of the hitman is irrelevant (I don’t believe in free will I believe that it’s inherently contradictory but that’s actually besides the point in this case). While you’re right that the “chain of causality” (I thought that was a very good way of putting it) becomes muddled, the fact is that the person who highers the hitman believes his actions will directly lead to the death of the person who the hitman intends to kill, just as when he pulls the trigger. It is, as with all action, a means to an end, and he must belive that his actions would lead to the intended ends, otherwise he would not do it. Furthermore the hitman would not kill the victim were it not for the actions of the man who hired the hitman.
In this case, when approaching the question of whether or not the man who hired the hitman is guilty (the matter of the hitman’s guilt is another matter) the free will of the hitman is irrelevant, the only question is as a tool, or a means, whatever you wish to call it, on the way of achieving the end. This is to say it doesn’t matter except in the matter of how his free will might mean that the murder is not completed. However, this is irrelevant in that one can NEVER be totally certain his actions will result in the intended ends. When firing the gun one might miss, the round might be a dud or a blank. When programing your robot assassin of doom (bwahahaha) you might leave in a flaw that causes it to malfunction before it reaches the victim. You perform an action which you know will, with your support, lead to the murder of an innocent individual.
well, I think postman can never be liable, because all he does is bringing the mail to right person. He can’t know what’s in it and it is not part of his job to know. He does not initiates agression or fraud or anything. Only delivers (now I see why hitman is liable and postman is not). However, speaking about “freak accident”, yes, then, I believe, the post office owner could be liable to a degree, but then again, it depends what sort of accident was that. How a bomb can appear in a mail by “accident”? That’s the question.
But what if say you own a company, and you see that someone is embezzeling money from your coffers and then suddenly the employee flees out of the country in order not to get caught. Would it then be a crime to hire a hitman scout to look for him and use all means necessary to bring him to justice?
But if someone hires a hitmen in order to murder someone that you don’t like because he is getting more business than you, then yes it is a crime. Or if you hire him to kill your girlfriend because she dumped you and went out with someone else, then that is also a crime. But in theory, couldn’t hitmen work in similar ways to that how a private investigator would?
But what if say you own a company, and you see that someone is embezzeling money from your coffers and then suddenly the employee flees out of the country in order not to get caught. Would it then be a crime to hire a hitman scout to look for him and use all means necessary to bring him to justice?
But if someone hires a hitmen in order to murder someone that you don’t like because he is getting more business than you, then yes it is a crime. Or if you hire him to kill your girlfriend because she dumped you and went out with someone else, then that is also a crime. But in theory, couldn’t hitmen work in similar ways to that how a private investigator would?
What’s your take?
Every wrongdoing one is submitted to, enables a proportionate response. Now only the wronged party can carry out this response, or else outsource it to whoever they like.
Thus, if my employee steal money from me, I can do whatever I feel its proportionate (ex. hire a hitman to bring him home or break his leg). If, after the fact, some arbiter agrees that my response was indeed proportionate, than fine; if not, I myself have committed a crime, thus entitling the wronged party (the initial wrongdoer) to extract his proportional revenge.
This is what I believe would come to be in a free market.
Gotcha! If the instigator does not commit a crime, how could you by hiring a hitman in this case?
Okay, that might have been a slip-up, so let’s go back to topic. I have to side with ‘The Late Andrew Ryan’. The amount of punishment objection is a good one, but in the end, there is more guilt to go around, so more punishment seems appropriate. (Whether the instigator and the hitman should be punished equally I can’t say; there could be easily societies imagined where hitmen would be considered mere tools and not punished, as long as their employer was revealed.)
Let’s try a few different angles to attack this. It may be crude to say so, but we are using other people as means to achieve our goals, all the time. The employers use their employees to achieve profit, the employees use their employers to get a paycheck - hopefully there are loftier goals involved than that, but even then will be people “using” each other. Call it the miracle of human cooperation or base self-interest, but other people are what helps us to reach our goals. They do it of their own will, and yet they are a means to us. That they have free will does not change this. We do things together, even if every person may not be present at every single step of ther process. Cooperation extends to the area of crime as well. If someone hires a hitman to kill another person, they both willingly and knowingly cooperate on the murder. So here I’m led to believe that both are guilty.
Another aspect: any form of justice should attempt to fix the damage done to the victim first. From the example from the IP thread, let’s say a group of thieves robs a bank, on the order of a mobster, preparing the hit with the assistance of a few other people, that don’t take part in the robbery itself. A small joint-venture, you could say. When the thieves perform the robbery, are not the other fellows also guilty? Let’s say the thieves get away with the money, split their loot with their accomplices and are caught later. How will be the victims reimbursed, if the thieves don’t have a large part of the money anymore? Or let’s say I’m the presumed heir of my millionaire uncle and learn, that he wants to change his last will to my detriment - so I hire a hitman, who kills him. Should I then become the heir anyway?
To come back to the postman vs. hitman conundrum, let me insert another person into the mail bomb example, and see if we can come up with a rule to determine guilt.
The terrorist sends the bomb, him I consider guilty. The postman merely delivers the package, as that’s his job, so I consider him innocent. Let’s say there is also a security guard at the building, that should inspect (X-Ray, etc) packages for dangerous content. The possibilities are a) he cooperates with the terrorist, guilty; b) he is able to find the bomb but neglects his duties, so he is guilty by negligence (but that is not the same crime as murder to me); finally, c) the bomb is so intricately built that it could not be possibly found (one could also go with crazy multi-component poisons, etc), so the security guard should be absolved from any wrongdoing after an investigation.
So the rule to determine the guilt could be, if people cooperate willingly and knowingly in order to achieve a crime. They use their capacities and free will to a criminal purpose and know about it. If a person takes part in the crime, but does not know about it, he may be innocent or guilty by negligence (but as said I’d grade this s a different crime).
I assume here that the deed is a crime and leave other questions aside (proper application of justice, etc.). Does this make sense to you?
Gotcha! If the instigator does not commit a crime, how could you by hiring a hitman in this case?
It is indeed a mischievous slip of tongue. The hitman and he alone commits a crime if he overdoes in his (outsourced) punishment. Mea culpa!
The amount of punishment objection is a good one, but in the end, there is more guilt to go around, so more punishment seems appropriate.
Than again, you punish the same misdeed in potentially hugely different ways (just assume more than two collaborators). Does this sound fair to you? There might indeed be more guilt around, but not all ‘guilt’ is punishable by violent action. Some, most I venture say, guilt is punishable best by ostracism.
Another aspect: any form of justice should attempt to fix the damage done to the victim first. From the example from the IP thread, let’s say a group of thieves robs a bank, on the order of a mobster, preparing the hit with the assistance of a few other people, that don’t take part in the robbery itself. A small joint-venture, you could say.
Legal personhood (i.e. the ‘joint venture’) too seems bunk to me. I love the way ths thread has to expos multiple facets of current law.
When the thieves perform the robbery, are not the other fellows also guilty?
Depend son what these other fellows do. If A threatens people with a gun, B steals the money and C waits in the car, I say that 1) A is not liable for anything, although anyone could have shot him where he stood without any ill-effect on himself. It appear always justified to kill someone who’s threatening you on the spot, 2) B is liable for the sum stolen, 3) C is not liable.
Of course, practically all these three guys will fin their insurance discontinued, hence allowing anyone on the street to kill them at his own pleasure. Civilized rules apply only to civilized people.
Let’s say the thieves get away with the money, split their loot with their accomplices and are caught later. How will be the victims reimbursed, if the thieves don’t have a large part of the money anymore?
Aha, now all three of them have stolen the money, the moment they split it. Now and only now all of them are liable for the ‘piece’ they took.
As for reimbursement. Was the bank insured? Than the insurer will pay and probably present these guys with the choice of either working to repay the insurer or end up without some organ.
Where the guys insured (probably hard to move at all on a private road if you’re not insured, I’m afraid). Than the insurer will pay and discontinue further reinsurance in the future. Possibilities are truly endless.
So the rule to determine the guilt could be, if people cooperate willingly and knowingly in order to achieve a crime. They use their capacities and free will to a criminal purpose and know about it. If a person takes part in the crime, but does not know about it, he may be innocent or guilty by negligence (but as said I’d grade this s a different crime).
I assume here that the deed is a crime and leave other questions aside (proper application of justice, etc.). Does this make sense to you?
First of all, this is by far a better rule than the ‘people-as-means’ one that Kinsella advocates. By seeing people as means there is no answer, I feel, to the postman-hitman differentiation. But assuming this away, and seeing the hole thing, as you put it, as a joint venture in crime, would allow to solve the differentiation as you do.
Now I myself cannot agree with this because I’m always for individual responsibility. Only individuals act and only to individual can fault rightly accrue. Joint personhood is bunk. This does not mean that people cannot cooperate as they see fit, but for me, responsibility should always be seen as individual.
This is a sensitive point, even though ‘fair’ is a loaded word we have to be careful with. Let me try it to spell it out differently… I would assume guilt for all parties knowingly involved, but not necessarily punish them in equal ways. You are right, that is another important aspect of the problem - how to punish accomplices, once they are identified as such? I’m afraid this question may be only resolved by specific approaches of specific legal systems. Who is more guilty, the hitman, or the person hiring him? I can see reasons for arguing in both ways, or for equal blame and equal punishment. (For the record, punishment by ostracism also presumes a threat of a violent action.)
Incidentally, I have to agree with how this thread develops - a great discussion! Now, the ‘joint venture’ bit was kind of a joke from my side. What I wanted to say was, that these people partner up to achieve a crime, so once they do it, they are all guilty. Let’s get down to specifics.
I actually wanted to show a different setup, but here A, B and C are performing the robbery together, so they all should be liable.
In a more convoluted, but not improbable example, the robbers could first consult a specialist on how to disable the security system. They could also find a snitch inside, that tells them when there is the most money and the fewest guards around. There are other possibilities, but none of these people have to take any active part in the robbery itself or even be anywhere close to the bank in order to be guilty. They partnered with the robbers to commit the crime. (Again, the exact degree of guilt and punishments may be judged differently in practice, but they are all taking part in the robbery.)
“Of course, practically all these three guys will fin their insurance discontinued, hence allowing anyone on the street to kill them at his own pleasure. Civilized rules apply only to civilized people.”
So they did commit something. What did they do, besides the robbery? (Even if we talk about A, B and C and not the other people?)
As for the reimbursment by insurance, I take that as a given, but one should always seek to make those pay, that actually caused the damage - in my approach have several persons cooperated to cause the damage and profit from it - so they should be the ones forced to return the money as a start.
An interesting question is then, what if the thieves start to spend the money to people that are not their accomplices? Since these other people are not guilty of a crime, it seems to me they shouldn’t be forced to return it. I am a bit leery on this one, so I guess that would make another discussion I don’t want to open here.
Good point! Methodological individualism shouldn’t be left out. Companies, states and other groups have a certain reality in our world, and that’s why it is useful to refer to them. Austrians recognize, that it is only through individual behavior groups can be recognized and meaningfully referred to - but that doesn’t make the concept invalid. You can say “Company X has damaged my property, I’m gonna sue them bastards!”. By suing “Company X”, one sues either this whole group of people, or a specific subgroup.
It can be said, that, “Company X is guilty” - but this immediately translates into who are the specific people, that carry their individual responsibility. Based on existing contracts and arrangements, it should be already clear in most commercial enterprises who carries responsibility for what - and who’s gonna pay; shareholders, executives, and so on.
And if there is a criminal enterprise, the ‘joint venture’? Then you can also say “the gang is guilty” - and delve into specifics. What is the structure of the gang? Are there any leaders, executives, etc., that are liable for the actions of the group? Can a group of people, that have organized themselves specifically to commit crimes, absolve some of them of the responsibility? Could you found a legal “criminal company” (or say mafia), where some people organize and plan crimes, while letting “contractors” commit them and presumably take all responsibility if caught?
I have to clarify this point. It is my strong impression that, present a free market in arbitration, it will always (if not form the very beginning) happen that the only person who shall have the right to punish (or delegate punishment of) the wrongdoer will be the harmed party. The proper function of the arbiter/insurer here will be to try to convince the wronged party to do X instead of Y (or do nothing at all, if the offence is not considered punishable). Eventually it shall always be up to the wronged party to agree or not, a decision which in turn shall depend largely on the incentives present.
Now, I’m sure that there will be people which will be totally uninterested in collaborating within the fabric of a civilized society. A killer can repent and work his ass off for 25 year to repay the million bucks he cost his insurance company, but a guy with no intention to repent, and even set on committing crime after crime is beyond reach.
These people we (the market) will not be able to care about. They will be ‘outlaws’ in the clearest sense, people for which laws do not apply (i.e. for whom no one will stand out). Whether they are shot, or they kill, or they live in jungles, or in they own house, or work, it is no concern of the industry.
Thus, we have to see that even if we say “action X shall not be punishable”, all we mean is that “if you do X, your company will try to convince whoever you wronged not to punish you”. Yet your action could still convince your company that you’re an unworthy risk in the future. And discontinuance of the policy will cast you as an outlaw. Whether people decide, according to their personal values, to kill you for what you’ve originally done, it will be outside the market and hence, besides the scope here.
Could you found a legal “criminal company” (or say mafia), where some people organize and plan crimes, while letting “contractors” commit them and presumably take all responsibility if caught?
Technically the wronged party has entered no contract with you, hence there is no transfer of guilt possible. Still, I would not hold anyone besides the ‘soldiers’ liable. Good for the Don if he’s so smart (and his soldiers so stupid) as to operate a criminal empire without blooding his own hands.
So not only do we get rid of conspiracy laws, we add emotion/conflict-of-interest into the punishment… Why don’t we just go a step further and reinstitute an eye for an eye?
Thought is an action, planning is an action, funding is an action… how is it even being discussed?
