… What?
Once again, you’re as incomprehensible as ever to me (at least).
Yeah,lol, we see to have a hard time talking to each other.
The key is you can’t say “I can never be certain” - it’s literally a nonsense proposition
Sure you can say it - you just did.
And there’s a difference between feeling certain and knowing something with certainty, isn’t there?
Everything I say is a lie
propositionally speaking: nonsense
Autolykos, it might make sense if you think of it this way:
OK, looks like we were talking past each other.
My point is simply that it is a social norm that if one party is willing to settle a dispute through non-violent means (arbitration) and the other party is not and if the party who wants to use violent means (direct conflict) acts on that desire, they have committed a new, separate tort. Let’s say Mike steals from Bob. Mike wants to go to court, Bob wants to beat Mike up. The fact that Mike wants to go to court - instead of fist-fight Bob to keep the stolen property - means that if Bob assaults Mike, he will have committed a separate tort against Mike. But if Mike had said “I’ll fight you for it” and Bob agreed, no tort will have occurred since this is how the parties to the dispute had agreed to settle it. Finally, if Bob wants to go to court and Mike refuses and then Bob later decides to take direct action against Mike (it must be proportional force, however, or it becomes a new tort), Mike can’t come back and complain that Bob took direct action against him when he refused to go to court in the first place! This is the scenario I was explaining above.
If both Bob and Mike agree to go to court (I’m going through all combinations here), the result should be some sort of new property arrangement… e.g. Mike agrees to pay Bob $1,000 (that is, Mike agrees that $1,000 of Bob’s money is presently in Mike’s possession and must be transferred to Bob). Now, if Mike doesn’t follow up on what he agreed to in court, we’re back at Square A above… that is, a new tort is being committed (Mike refusing to transfer Bob’s property to him) and we look at each of the combinations of whether Mike, Bob or both agree or don’t agree to settle the matter non-violently.
Bear in mind that the legitimacy of proportional violence comes from the agreement of the person who committed the tort. That is, Bob is only entitled to forcefully seize his property from Mike because Mike refused non-violent means to settle the dispute. If Mike desires non-violent settlement but Bob uses force anyway, then Bob has committed a new tort. So, the agreement of the parties is what determines whether violence is simply the chosen method for arriving at a settlement or constitutes a new tort. This is what I meant when I said that, “It will only have been justified when Bob suceeds in convincing Mike to agree that it was justified.” If Mike is being reticent and refuses to go to court, there is nothing further that Bob needs Mike’s agreement on… Mike has already refused non-violent resolution of the dispute so Mike is implicitly agreeing to the use of (proportional) violence in the settlement of the dispute! If Bob acts on that (forcibly seizes his property back from Mike), he is not committing a separate tort, he is simply resolving the existing dispute between Mike and himself.
Clayton -
I’m wondering if the section I bolded is exactly what you mean. Suppose the crime had been murder instead of theft. If Mike (the murderer) wanted a non-violent settlement, but Bob refused and used force anyway, are you saying that Bob has now committed a new tort?
It would be great if you could let me know if I’m interpretting what you wrote correctly.
Great question. Yes, things get more complicated at the extremes. I don’t think there can be such a thing as capital punishment in a private law society because the whole purpose of going to arbitration is to try to reach a settlement that is better (for both parties) than battling it out. No one would voluntarily agree to go to arbitration knowing they are going to receive “the death penalty”… better to just take your chances in direct conflict.
This is where I think outlawing comes in. If you commit murder or some other kind of extremely violent crime, you are no longer under the protection of law both because you would never agree to go to arbitration and no arbitrator would agree to hear your case (not worth the risk). It is my view that, in private law society, the act of murder (and other violent acts of the same magnitude) is always an act of war. It is still possible that non-violent settlement can be reached (for example, through the payment of a large cash settlement) if the family of the murdered agrees to it. But I believe that the normal case would be that the family of the victim would hunt down the killer and kill him in direct retribution. If the family of the murderer tried to claim he was murdered, the family of the victim would defend themselves by proving that the murderer committed murder and, thereby, had become an outlaw so it was impossible to commit a tort against him or his family. Feuds are possible in such a society but their occurrence in history is extremely rare and has been heavily exaggerated and over-dramatized.
Clayton -
This conversation has been interesting, but all of it has missed the forrest for the trees, in my opinion. My question was: what is the line between possibly, likely, and certainly guilty?
As for the rest of the conversation: I think the debate has mainly derived of semantic misunderstandings. Minarchist has been proposing that if I steal from him and refuse to give him any kind of restitution then I have not consented to give him that restitution. I agree, it would be absurd to have a justice system where I am only bound to give restitution when I agree t give him restitution. Others of you have been saying that by going into arbitration, then I am consenting to the verdict that the arbiter gives out, thus making both parties consent and have the argument resolved. In that sense, you might say that I, the thief, have consented to some form of restitution. Going back to the original question mixed with this conversation so far, What i am wondering, and what I feel like minarchist is really asking, is this: Lets say minarchist walks into his house. He sees me crawling out of his window and before he can stop me I escape but he knows its me because he’s known me for years. He sees me get in MY car and drive down the street and go into my house. After he returns to his room, he finds his safe busted open and all of his gold is gone. He also knows of the financially tough times I’ve been going through, and he remembers telling me yesterday that I should consider buying a safe because thats where he keeps all of his gold. If you havent figured out by now, I’m trying to paint a picture of near certainty that i am the thief. So, how much more evidence do you need to go from “probably guilty” to “certainly guilty”, and, to the rest of you, if I refuse to go through arbitration, litigation, courts of any kind, then how have I, in any way, consented to restitution? You say I must only pay restitution if I consent, but also say that violence is a justifiable means to get restitution, but I just dont understand how anybody would consent to violence being used against them, barring perhaps a masochistic streak in them.
I’m sure most of this is misunderstanding. I just want to understand everybody’s arguments as much as possible. Thanks. I appreciate the responses, and let me know if I have mis-stated what each of you meant, and if so, rephrase in a different way than before.
Edit: Ok I didn’t seem clayton’s response when i wrote this so it cleared some things up. However, what if the murdered person has no family or no one that is effected by his death enough to be worth it to go to court. At first glance, it might seem that we are getting back to tribal tendancies because those who have no family would be at much greater risk for murder-robbery because who will take the murderer to arbitration/court? As I have found, I am not saying there isn’t a solution, I am just wondering if Rothbard or any of you have spoken on this matter.
caulds: You are committing the complex question fallacy. I’ve already explained to you that probability of guilt doesn’t justify anything. All that matters is guilt or non-guilt.
For example, let’s take your scenario (it appears that some guy you’ve known for years has busted in and stolen your stuff). But let’s say that you actually got it wrong… a professional thief intentionally framed your buddy for the express purpose of misleading you and causing you and your buddy to get into a fight, thus distracting you from the real thief. When you go “arrest” your buddy, you are in fact committing a tort against him… kidnapping/false-imprisonment/unjustified detention, whatever you want to call it. When your buddy takes you to court, he’s going to say “prove that I stole your stuff.” But since he didn’t steal your stuff you won’t be able to. You can’t say “well, I was 99% sure you were guilty of stealing my stuff!” That doesn’t matter, it doesn’t justify the tort you committed against your buddy. Hence, you will be held liable for the tort you committed.
In private law society, it’s up to you to get it right. You will be held legally liable for all your actions at all times under all circumstances, without exception. You don’t get a magic get-out-of-jail-free card based on the nobility of your intentions and the appearances of things. “It really looked like he was guilty!” So what? Unless he actually was guilty, then kidnapping/imprisoning/detaining him was unjustified.
We’re too accustomed to the modern system where the cops have a million excuses for committing crimes (yes, crimes) against people and then shrugging it off. “Oops, we thought he was the perp.” “Oops, we followed policy but it turns out that our policies on the use of force can result in death of innocents.” There are a million “oopses” that the cops give for every sort of crime from assault to false imprisonment to murder. In private law society, there is zero room for error, there is no forgiveness, there is no factoring in of the nobility of your motives or the “probability” that someone was guilty/not-guilty. It is a much more precise system.
Clayton -
The world is a dangerous place. It is much more dangerous for those without family and this is just as true in our modern “compassionate” society as it is in a private law society. The plight of the unfortunate is a red herring to the issue of whether a monopolist of law and security can be morally/legally justified.
Clayton -
Ok, fine. but in the same situation you just gave proves that certainty is impossible. The arbiter was 99% sure I had been robbed by you, but what actually happened is you were framed. All evidence pointed to you as the perp. So the arbiter was 1% sure you were not the perp. My point is the burden of proof is on the accuser, but the accuser can never 100% prove it was you. This means that while all that matters is if you are guilty or not guilty, we can never KNOW which it is. We are bound by the evidence we can come up with. So I ask you: if the evidence is a mountain against you but you choose to go into arbitration and you are found guilty, but 20 years later new technology vindicates you, have I committed a tort against you? What if you say "fuck you, im not going to any sort of arbitration. You become an outlaw and I kill you, then new technology comes out 20 years later and it vindicates you. Have I committed a tort then? This isn’t an attack. I’m not saying I disagree with you, I am just saying I want to understand your position better.
as for the second post: You are putting words in my mouth when you say I am committing a red herring to the issue. I didn’t throw that out there to try and crumble your libertarianism. I am one. I think that in all cases the market can provide a better quality of life than under a state. I asked the question because it was all of you who stated that the world would be much safer in a stateless society. I agree with that, and I am wondering how that applies to the situation of murder of those who have no family. Your saying that my question is a red herring to the issue is a red herring to avoid my question. You could apply this same argument to the entire “for a new liberty”. I know you cannot know what would happen in this situation (since I’ve already talked about how you can’t know anything), I am asking what many libertarians might think about that question.
Sometimes the people on these on these forums are so defensive about their ideology that they come off as insecure which is a terrible way to spread your message. Chill out in knowing that the world is wrong about us and that we are right. We are here to argue with other not to verbally beat each other but to understand our ideology more deeply. I doubt any of you would honestly say that the reason you come on these forums is to insult others. How did any of us come to be libertarians. If you are like me, you started ASKING QUESTIONS and finding that most of the time the answers were not satisfying. So, for me to understand you more deeply, I am ASKING QUESTIONS. Libertarians really need to learn to be a little more diplomatic, not compromise, but learn a little about how t market your ideas. Ron Paul didn’t get to where he is by griping every time someone asked him why drugs should be legal, did he? Sure, this is an easy question to most libertarians. But on the issue of philosophical certainty/uncertainty, things get a little weightier. Maybe I am not to your level yet. Thats why I come ask the questions. If I am wrong, I will probably admit I am wrong eventually, as long as you are willing to explain your idea in a way that is convincing, but most importantly not so defensive. Libertarians are the brightest, most independent people I know, but Jesus, are they bad at expressing themselves in a way that attracts people. I mean we are talking about Freedom here. Freedom is like booze; its the easiest thing in the world to sell. Yet, people aren’t buying it. sorry for the rant. I’m just tired of our message being ignored because its reps’ fuses are too short.
I don’t know what an arbiter is.
Clayton -
someone who presides over arbitration (the judge if you will)
You didn’t answer my question. Please try again.
Is that supposed to be a joke? Or what?
The judge/arbitrator does not decide what is true. Hence, his confidence in the truth or falsity of something is irrelevant except in his role as a referree of the verbal dispute.
Well, not true. There are at least two ways to be 100% sure… the first way is to catch the person in the act and the second way is for the perpetrator to say (without coercion or torture) “yes, I did it.” In the second case, it doesn’t even matter if it’s true… if someone is taking on the burden of guilt, that is their choice.
Yes! Of course! How can there be any doubt about that?
I assume you mean as a result of a false accusation. I think that you have committed murder - you killed an innocent person over a false accusation that you made. As I said above, there is zero room for error. Appearances are irrelevant, all that matters is the case-in-fact. There are no excuses. The nobility of your intentions counts for nothing.
Clayton -
It was supposed to be a joke 
Anyway, it was utter nonsense, so I have refined it:
I hope you don’t mind that I broke up your paragraph to make the whole thing easier to read.
My opinion is that there are three main incentives for a person to behave according to some moral standard. The first incentive is internal - you could call it his “conscience”. In this case, he considers behaving that way to be preferable to behaving otherwise. The second and third are external. First there’s the incentive of other people shunning him and otherwise expressing their disapproval of his behavior should he behave contrary to the given moral standard. Then there’s the incentive of other people responding to his behavior with violence.
Unfortunately, these days people tend to concentrate on the last incentive. All too often I find someone assuming that people he doesn’t know well have no incentive to behave “morally” (by his own standard) except for the threat of violence used against them. Yet when I ask him if he thinks he’s the same way, he says that of course he’s not. Likewise, people he knows well, like family members and good friends, are like him, not like “most people out there”. How can it be that only a select few among us have consciences or care about what others think of us? All of my own observations point me in the opposite direction.
I could be wrong, but I think the hierarchy of incentives for the vast majority of people goes like this: first the internal incentive (“conscience”), then the non-violent external incentive (“public opinion” or “social standing”), and finally the violent external incentive (“coercion” or “retaliation”). So I think that in many cases, even today, people will consent to restitution for reasons other than the fear of coercion. That of course doesn’t mean that coercion is never useful.
Anyways, my own take is that a libertarian society would adhere to the clear and convincing standard of evidence when it comes to intentional torts. For unintentional torts, like negligence, I think either that standard would still be used, or the lower preponderance standard would be used. Unless one is a direct witness, it’s impossible for him to assign guilt with absolute certainty. However, since presumably all cases in a libertarian society would be civil cases - that is, no one’s life, body, or liberty is at risk from conviction - I see no need to use the beyond reasonable doubt standard of evidence.
Of course, this all hinges on the accused agreeing to dispute resolution in the first place. If he doesn’t agree to that, then I think he would be considered an outlaw. What would this mean? First off, I think a default judgement would then be rendered against him. This is the equivalent to a trial in absentia for civil cases. That’s just the beginning though. I also think he’d lose his job, his bank accounts would be closed, and his insurance and security coverages would be dropped. If he has any loans outstanding, those might be called in immediately due to the catastrophic drop in his creditworthiness. He might be able to get by with paying for things in cash - for a while. But who in their right mind would hire him, cover him for insurance and/or security, or enter into any kind of contractual agreement with him? My point is, he wouldn’t have to face violent punishment for his quality of life to diminish tremendously.
I personally think that any reasonable person in a libertarian society would have one or more people designated as his “survivors”. Those people would be the ones who have the right to pursue a wrongful death claim on his behalf. But if a person doesn’t designate anyone as a survivor for him, that’s his choice. Maybe some kind of default designation would be customary in that case, like with intestacy.
Hope this helps!
You didn’t answer my question. Please try again.
Nope. Done