you said in three sentences what I’ve been saying in endless posts in this thread.
Why are you asking me this question? Answer my questions and I’ll respond in kind.[Y]
Why not ? A murderer doesn’t object to killing people. Looks as if he can be killed too and can’t object to it. As I said, anybody with an interest in justice can do justice.
Sorry, what is an ‘opinion’ and a pretty absurd one is your ‘opinion’ that parents can kill their children.
Not at all. That’s the definition of a libertarian society.
Sounds fine to me. Except that I don’t see why the family has some sort of first claim. Maybe the family are the murderers, for instance ?
Thanks Juan,
Those answers were actually right on for me.
Not that I necessarily disagree with you on this but… I would like clarification on one thing, and perhaps it is because libertarianism has not come to consensus on this, but many argue that life is property. That is, after all, the fundamental argument for abortion, drug abuse, ect… Your comment seems to suggest differently. Can you elaborate?
I agree, my point is that culture tends to be the mob and do not use logic in deciding their moral beliefs. It may not be naive to assume that everyone will acknowledge the NAP but I think many people will use it more as a circumstantial principle rather then keeping it consistent. In other words, I believe it naive to assume that everyone will follow the NAP all of the time. If that were the case there would never be any murderers and thieves in the first place.
I find your answer very satisfactory and I want to make clear that unlike others on this forum I am not out to make enemies or upset any one. It’s hard enough in life to find other like minded individuals. I am fortunate to participate with you folks here as is. Thanks again.
I have no idea what this means. Are you asking if I think injustice is just? No, it is not. Do I think justice should be served? Yes.
Will people try to kill a murderer? Probably. Is this justice? As far as I can tell, no. That is what this whole thread is about.
I cannot specifically answer your question, because it is a complex question.
there ya go. no worries mate![:D]
I thought this whole thread was about bringing justice to a murderer and who has the right to. I didn’t think it was about the actual repercussions that would follow. I am not totally convinced on how the repercussions will happen. If somebody is trying to kill me or somebody close to me (proximity not necessarily relational such as family though I may also kill the murdering bastard that kills any one of my family members. it would be difficult for me to act not in revenge even if I am not close by the family member when the act of murder happened.), then I might end up killing them when I use self-defense. But if a murder had happened and I’m involved or somebody else is involved in the capture of the criminal and say it’s a peaceful capture, then I probably will not kill the criminal. But I don’t know as I said. I’m totally convinced how to deal with a murderer (outside of the self-defense situation I gave).
I think you answered it completely for I did not intend to make a complicated question. it was fairly simple and you answered nicely. thanks
Because there is no way to show that anyone has the authority to punish the murderer.
True. But that is just reality, not the legal argument for justifying it.
I will ask the same question of you that I asked of wilderness: If I steal your car, does anyone else have the right to seek compensation for that theft besides you? If not, then why can someone else seek compensation for me killing you?
I have laid out a logical argument why it is legal. That you think the argument is “absurd” is just an opinion.
Uh, really? I have never, ever seen that definition anywhere. “libertarianism - a society run with PDA’s”
So, wilderness, if I steal your car, does anyone else have the right to sue me for compensation besides you? If not, then if I kill you, why would anyone else have the right to sue me for compensation?
When you go to a law firm to sue, isn’t that exactly what you are doing?
What about a caretaker or financial and personal guardian who makes these decisions on your behalf, especially if the person is incapacitated. You could simply extend that to death. Assuming the person made arrangements while he was living, like with a will.
That seems reasonable to me. But what if there is no will or family?
I think the case is open to whoever wants to go after the criminal. Now there are obvious market factors that need heeded.
Can an investigator financially manage to go after the person if the victim is not willing to pay for the investigator? that’s contingent.
Another question too is if the victim denied to pay for investigation and an investigator found the stolen car can the victim claim rights to the car? I say no. The victim gave up the car and it can now be justly given to another person - the investigator who took the effort and money to track it down and get it back. Now obviously it has to be proven that the victim wanted no part in the investigation - didn’t want to pay for it. Make a contract with victim.
That’s what I would do. Now of course the investigator might want to give the car back to the initial victim out of charity and that’s his or her free choice.
well I said yes.
Yes, but, so called ‘self-ownership’ is not an ownership you can actually transfer. I can sell you my house - transfer ownership of it. I can’t sell you my ‘self’.
I admit that as a metaphor, the idea that you own your body sounds reasonable, up to a point. And you could say that it’s an analogy as well. And analogies work, but at some point they break down.
Or maybe things like drug use/abuse are justified in terms of freedom. You are free to do what you please as long as you don’t violate the equal freedom of others.
Granted, drug use/abuse can also be viewed in terms of property rights. You buy your drugs with your money and put them in your body.
But I would argue that property is the means to sustain life and liberty. I don’t think that property as an isolated concept makes complete sense. Of course, propertarians might disagree =P
Maybe. I can’t tell what will happen in the future. I believe freedom is both what’s morally right and what is practical, but for the time being the majority seems to disagree =P
Granted, but a ‘free society’ is more concerned with general political arrangements. Probably the biggest problem today is that things like taxation are not seen as theft - so they are way more dangerous. OTOH, in a society where theft is not institutionalized things would operate differently. Thieves would have a much harder time stealing than politicians have today. The amount of damage caused by ‘private’ thieves would be negligible when compared with the damage caused by institutional theft.
Well if I happen to shout at you just ignore me =]
Lol just a wild thought. What about life insurance? Not in the conventional sense ofcoarse. My agency will locate you if you kill me and prosecute you. This becomes a deterrent for murder making me more of an inconvenience to murder. The murderer factors this in and decides to murder someone else or not murder at all. Same principles apply to thieves. You don’t get a bigger lock because thieves cannot get in. Someone can ALWAYS get in. You get a bigger lock because it’s more of an inconvenience to the thief. He has to consider that its going to take 3 hours to break into your house as opposed to 1 hour to someone down the street. This dwindles his profit margin and stifles his insentive.
Or perhaps as a perk to living in a neighborhood and part of your HOA fee’s you get a death service which stipulates that if there is no final transfer of ownership of property or rights the community’s HOA would pay for it. It could be a form of security additive for neighborhoods and developers of neighborhoods.
I’m sure the market would find a way to do this but as you said this doesn’t prove they have a right to. The issue is, in my example of the life insurance company, do they inherit the right to defend property that was lost? IE, do they get to avenge the death of their client either financially or by some other means? Maybe not by killing the culprit but by punishing him?
flic,
what did you think of this? I ask a question and thought it be polite that you would be receptive. of course if you don’t want to respond that’s fine. honestly.[:D]
I’m not sure what you mean by legal argument. My arguments are moral arguments. The legal system is below morality and subordinated to it. Or at least it should be, unless your legal system is “might-makes-right”.
So, a guy who kills people with no justification is assuming either that he has authority to kill, or that no authority is needed. In either case, he can be subjected to the same treatment…
I am not a lawyer and believe that lawyers belong in hell =] So, if you have a moral argument showing why murdering children is morally correct, I will listen to you…
Fine. That’s not the definition I provided, though.
No, but if somebody else steals the car from you, you can’t complain, because you just do not own the car, do you ?
In a similar way, if you are murderer, you become an outlaw of sorts, IMO, and you can’t complain if people don’t respect your rights. Of course, in a libertarian society things would be handled in a civilized way, and whether you are a murderer or not is something that would need to be investigated, but I see no ‘legal’ obstacles to do so.
Shoot I am sorry wilderness, I completely missed your post. I actually agree with you that education is paramount. Let me make this point though, faith and spiritual beliefs aside, I think you will agree with me that a large part of the world is wrapped in various forms of religious dogma’s. Many of them being counter-productive in the respect of expanding individual freedom and education.
My concern is what types of cultural cancers would spawn and grow in a true libertarian society? Perhaps this whole fear is unwarranted and adolescent of me as it would be impossible to assume that people properly educated in ethics, freedom, and libertarianism would continue to fall into that counterproductive pattern.
Not to state that religion is incapable of existing in a libertarian society. My point is that this world has an extremely long history of institutions which attempt to negate individual freedom. In my mind I see many large religious institutions existing under the same moral principles as the government. In fact I often associate statism as a form of religion. Blind faith to the state. It seems historical states were born into existence through the foundation of some religious institution. Understand that I am not an atheist nor an agnostic as I have my own spiritual beliefs. Still, my fear is that human kind seems to tend toward ignorance and maybe even prefers it so. We see this in popular choice systems like voting as well. Lowest common demoneator rule I like to call it.
Still I agree education is one of our greatest hopes and perhaps my fears on the matter are completely unnecessary and misplaced.
Hey on that note I just discovered my new signature. Sweet 
fear is only natural. that’s why i strive to be as educated as possible, and at the same time find the NAP to be a piece of cake in understanding. that doesn’t mean there will not be people that violate others rights. we’re not talking about a utopia here.[Y] my pursuance is truth and justice, so, one thing at a time - down with the government and any criminals that get in the way!
I have a lot to post back to this thread, but I will have to do it tomorrow. Good discussion, I’m happy to see the non-confrontational sharing of ideas.