Just had a quick question regarding self-defense and how a situation (which I’ll cover) would work under libertarian law.
Of course, all Austrians agree that coercion is justified in self defense, but what about conditions where the victim is unable to ask you for help…for example, what if someone is in so much pain they cannot ask for help, or a woman is being raped, or an individual is being held at gun point and cannot speak.
Would a 3rd party be justified in stepping in and putting an end to the coercion being used on the victim?
I think back to the incident in Canada where the one individual repeatedly stabbed another, on a bus. No one attempted to defend the man or stop him; instead they all ran and shut him in the bus. Under that condition, there was practically no way for the victim to call for help from another individual. Let’s suppose though, for a moment, that someone on the bus had a gun and shot the the man who was repeatedly stabbing the victim; under libertarian law would his actions be justified?
The only case where this would not be justified is where the “victim” actually consented to whatever harm was being done to him/her. For example, a surgeon who operates on an unconscious patient who consented previously is not committing any crime, and it would be a crime to interfere. Otherwise, if the victim actually wants to be helped, and the bystanders can plainly see this, then no communication is necessary.
Since I generally base any legitimacy in intervention on the request for “contracted-out” self defence from the victim, I find it hard to legitimise stepping in in these circumstances. You are, of course, uncertain that the rapee is not actually engaging in consensual sex, and you are uncertain if that person held at gunpoint is actually playing a game or filming a scene for a home-made film.
Many every day occurrences can be seen as crimes with a different level of uncertainty filter.
So I am totally unsure what to do in these situations, and I have yet to hear any convincing cases for intervention.
certainly though, some situations would be quite obvious as to their nature; for example, the stabbing of the man on the bus–no one would think, for one moment, that that was consentual. Another example is if you walked into a store, and everyone is on the ground/tied up, and you see that the employees are dead. You could argue that it could “just be a movie scene”, but that would be extremely obvious to the observer.
With few exceptions, I doubt any of the hostages would object to you shooting, killing, or incapacitating the hostage-taker, regardless whether or not they could verbally ask for help.
Assuming the act you’re witnessing is non-consensual, against whom could intervention possibly be a crime?
In the rare event that someone decided to enact a “performance drama” that was indistinguishable from an actual crime, they would realize that every passerby would conclude that a crime was being committed and act accordingly. Knowing this, they went ahead with the performance drama anyway. Therefore, someone who intervenes cannot be held liable for any damage they cause.
It’s as if you put up a sign on your lawn saying “Visitors welcome” and then complained about people trespassing, saying that they should somehow have figured out that the sign was meant to be sarcastic.
It sounds like you’re only convinced of having a paid bodyguard. If you don’t know what to do in these situations, then it is probably best that you have a bodyguard.
But how is it different from killing someone you believe to be trespassing on a third party’s property, then saying, don’t worry, it’s all right, I’ll pay the family afterwards.
Well I’m glad the consequences would have to be felt
But I always thought rights-violation was deontologically immoral, and as such we should not commit such acts, even if we were willing to face the consequences
Right but this is more complicated. The question is whether the victim would like the third party to assist or not. It’s a gamble and uncertainty plays a role here. That there are consequences is still a resultant of the fact that such rights violations are immoral, else no such consequences would obtain. So I don’t think taking the risk here is necessarily immoral - that’s only determinable ex post.