I don’t see how a sign can give a store owner permission to violate a person’s right of life (in this example). Of course it is their property, but to kill somebody for stealing vacates reason. That’s like asking somebody over to visit to eat dinner and the driveway is a mile long in a field aka no obstructions from the front door. You get there and the property owner says, “Ah, no dinner today I thought instead I’d give you 10 seconds to leave my property or else I shoot you cause now I don’t want you here and thus you are trespassing.” Even natural law of human nature has some say in this.
Yes, I would hope in time, reason will be exercised and a bit of civility can muster it’s way in.
If it where an issue of punishment, you would be right. However, this is an issue of penalty clauses in agreements.
Yeah, I know what Rothbard was going for. I know what the orthodoxy is on these forums are with regard to punishment.
I’m pretty sure that Rothbard, Kinsella, and others would say that it would not be a valid contract (agreement) because an individual cannot transfer rights to their body because it is not alienable from their will. So they would probably consider me somewhat out to lunch. Rothbard discusses this in The Ethics of Liberty and Kinsella has a pretty good article which discusses this in the Literature section.
I’m pretty sure that Rothbard would be fine with implied consent, given his views on contractual copyright.
I’m trying to say that it is easier to get justice if the law is laid out beforehand for people to agree to or not. I suppose I could have used a less extreme example, but I really wanted to make the most extreme case possible so that there was no doubt that it was supraproportional.
I think that right now when stores catch shoplifters, the process is already supraproportional. Typically, some low IQ, underclass delinquent steals something of low value: deoderant, perfume, contraceptives, ect. The private investigator waits for him/her to leave the store without paying for it, follows him/her outside, flashes ID, brings the loser to the back, interrogates, then calls the cops. Afterward the cops show up, lay charges, slap on handcuffs, brings them down to the station, interrogates them, then releases them. I confess I don’t know much about what happens next: how often the thing actually goes to trial, severity of sentence, and so on. Now some people might not agree that this is already more than proportional. I think it is. But what options are really open to a store owner? Do nothing about shoplifters, or use an unjust justice system. Well, I think that if you give people fair warning ahead of time, it’s not the victim that should be left holding the bag. If a store posts a sign that says “Shoplifters will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law” they should be off the hook when it comes to Natural Law.
And in the bubblegum example, extreme but not unjust, all the shopkeeper has to do is post a sign which states, “by entering this premises you agree to the following terms.” I don’t see what’s so controversial about that. What do you think about Block’s “murder park”? Or what about his idea that private road owners could set a death penalty for driving drunk on them. Can property owners set the terms of use for their property or not?
Slave contract are a contradiction, thus unenforceable. A person can’t consent to not have the ability to consent.
The visitor does not consent to enslavement, just as the thief does not consent to being killed. If either person did, there would be no conflict of interests. You are trying to perform some logical maneuvers to prove that stepping foot onto a space of earth translates into consenting to being enslaved, even against the party’s objection.
Consent is not a one time occurrence. Crossing a threshold can never transfer away your ability to choose to leave again.
Someone who wants to be a slave isnt a slave, they are an employee. Someone who wants to quit their employment but is prevented is a slave.
No. It is you who is failing to integrate the concepts of self-defense and arbitration into your argument for justice.
Wrong. The case is not closed. This is where you fail: the worst that can happen is that I deem you to be a mortal threat because of your neurotic selfish desire to violate very simple rules that are posted on my property entrance and I shoot you on sight. You are dead and the local arbitrator is called in by the insurance companies and says: “Yeah. That guy who thinks he can walk into a shop with his eyes closed and argue his way around flagrantly disrespecting anybody else’s property is a loose cannon. People like that usually escalate their anti-social behavior to greater crimes and violence. He deserved what he got. The shop keeper did this community a service by rooting out the scum.” SLAM! the gavel hits the bench and everybody in the neighborhood agrees.
This is where you fail: ultimately, arbitration is how disputes over justice are resolved and YOU have no power to decide how an arbitrator will rule.
OK, then what is it in this case? and who is going to pay for it?
I am saying they have nothing to offer in objectively distinguishing an act of self-defense from an act of vengeance or restitution. In the end, you are left having to arbitrate.
Wait a minute here. I am trying logical maneuvers? Go re-read what you wrote yourself.
By your own admission, you are saying your own question is internally inconsistent and your own defintions are without merit. You asked: “I have to wonder, would you defend the enforcibility of a sign that read: “Anyone who walks on my lawn becomes my slave for life”? After all, it fits the template.” but now you are saying that the very concept that YOU introduced into the argument – consensual slavery – makes no sense. So… who is performing logical maneuvers??? I have to wonder myself, what was the purpose of your internally inconsistent question, JB?
Anyway, by your own admission, once someone consents to being a slave, the concept of slavery ceases to exist – he is an employee. This is where you fail: an outside party would never objectively know the difference. Thus, the libertarian solution can only be found through arbitration. In other words, you have to look around, get a few clues, ask people a few questions and make a judgement call as to whether the situation is consensual or not. There is no scientific Consent-O-Meter that libertarians have to solve the problem.
You get it.
No. Your analogy is erroneous.
The sign simply clarifies to anybody what they should expect to follow. It is the same as telling a person: “If you run off that cliff, you will fall on the rocks below.” The justice comes into play only with an assesment of the consensuality of the actions.
Somebody might truly want to run off a cliff or become a slave or get shot with bubble gum or offer his life as a sacrifice to convince lawyers of the folly of their profession. In many third world countries, suicide bombers kill themselves primarily to absolve their families of debt “owed” to them by drug loards and we pretend they are doing it to go get virgins in Heaven. You can never know the motives behind the actions of a single person. If you base your libertarian convictions on such omniscience, you will fail. In the end, you have to rely on arbitration to glue everything together.
I am still insisting that you are making a mistake because once you say “just” in a libertarian discussion, you are categorically implying something about the action which has not be clarified. What you have to understand is that from an outsider’s perspective, you can not always distinguish the actionsof self-defense, vengeance or restitution from each other.
Charles Anthony you are wrong. No matter WHAT (even if you hire drugged up shopkeepers and cracked out arbitrators) you cannot violate me more than I violate you. That’s the end of the whole argument. Period. Everything else is “for the sake of argument”:
To the extent that you do, YOU are the criminal. It wouldn’t change if some methheaded orator genius convinced a whole country you were right, you’d still be wrong. And justly so.
Further, implied consent doesn’t exist, no matter impure your meth is. Even if you fail to properly determine whether I consent or not, implied consent never exists.
Your arbitrator and insurance company would never exist because they are thoroughly insane. Your judge would be broke, your little community would disappear quickly, and your meth dealer would quickly follow suit. Whats more, being a potential future threat isn’t a crime, and certainly not one punishable by being shot on sight. That’s just dumb.
I haven’t stolen. If I don’t consent to your sign, then I my only crime is tresspassing. Surely only a crackhead would react as you do: “I deem you to be a mortal threat because of your neurotic selfish desire to violate very simple rules that are posted on my property entrance and I shoot you on sight.” Utter failure. Admittedly, my only wrong was “violating very simple rules”. Again, the problem is that I don’t have to agree to your rules. If, then, I disagree and still enter, then my only crime is tresspassing. You can only punish me for trespassing. If you shoot me, then you are the criminal.
Picture your scenario:
A peaceful bubblegum shop on a sunny day. Security cameras rolling, 2 polite customers (nobody can tell if they read and/or consented to the arbitrary sign), 2 tellers chatting about Murray Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty, and a shopkeeper keeping watch over it all. I stroll in whistling a jolly tune, and your shopkeeper flips, screaming, “A MORTAL THREAT! A NEUROTIC SELFISH VIOLATOR!!” and shoots me, spraying brain waste over all the bubblegum, the 2 customers, and the 2 tellers.
Surely, I deserved it. My heir steps in, we proceed to court, and nobody like you ever exists again. The local meth dealers go out of business. Case closed.
Well maybe you need to take a stress free vacation Stephen. Going postal ring a bell? I’m not being a smart-ass, but Juan asked a serious question and this is your answer.[^o)]
Good for you.
Stephen,
So because in the current government a bubble gum lad goes to the cops and is freed you find that to be unjust and the store owner should have been able to kill him to prevent him from being freed.
There is nothing set in stone on this inquiry of repercussions and how far any property owner is able to go in delivering their own form of justice is a discussion in a civil society coming to terms as any other concept.
Stephen do you know murder when you see it? If you are trying to push for the property owner to be able to do anything on their property then you are asking to throw out natural law. You are saying Bill can invite Bobby onto his property and then instantly shoot him by instantly saying he has trespassed. And you don’t see that as murder? [^o)] Your loose understanding of natural law and thus property rights is uncivil.
You do understand that my analogy was about an unjust situation don’t you?
Can you spell out what I said you disagree with - with an example or something?
And if I think it was just it was just. If you don’t, then you don’t. So what?
I think it was a not a consequence but the cause. The cause of life after a store owner and bubble gum thief have met in a little town called Tomsville. Perspective… thus why dialogue. Uniqueness isn’t to be something of shame.
It wasn’t a serious question. Neither was the answer. Postal? Lighten up a little.
I guess I should have been a little more clear. Yes, the ‘maximalist’ position is justified, under certain conditions.
What I thought I was getting at was this:
I don’t think this is an inquiry into repercussions so much as an inquiry into the enforceability of certain types of agreements and whether or not they can be used as a means of solving certain issues relating to crime, specifically crimes where proportionaliy is not a viable option.
Yes.
Yes
No
Yes, I do.
I will agree with you if you can back it up. I’m open to being persuaded. I know I can make mistakes as well which is part of the reason why I throw ideas out and see what arguments they can withstand. What specific points do you disagree with? What are the principles you invoke against them? What does or does not constitute a valid agreement in your opinion? What do you think about penalty clauses? What’s your position on voluntary slavery? What about organ sales? What do you think about Block’s “murder park”? Or what about his idea that private road owners could set a death penalty for driving drunk on them?
Thank goodness. And I can’t see if you are laughing or not, so, I’m glad you were laughing.
Could you be any the more vague again? I guess sigh you could put forth an example other than killing a bubble gum lad, it would help.
Well I see the controversy plain as day. But the excitement is actually making me drowsy.
Well you just defined what repercussions mean. Yet I summed it up in one word: repercussions.
I see. So murder is fine on somebody’s own property and so is mugging a visitor, and rape them too. I want no part of this sadistic property owner. bye
Well hey yes you are cause who cares about natural law. Bill is king. But I will not pander to this anymore.
And so does natural law.
Well since I already made my position clear that I will not pander to this anymore and I have other things to do in my life I don’t have the time at the moment to go through this with you. Maybe somebody else will. Sorry but my posts are consistently clear and I need not write them all over again in this one post. Time will answer your questions. I hope that’s not too rough an answer for you.[:)]
The case in question is not a matter of simple trespassing. It is not a matter of contracts implied or otherwise. The question is do you have the right to use violence to defend your property? It doesnt matter if it is a piece of bubblegum being stolen or someone burning down your home. Do you have the right to protect your property with violence agianst the perpetrator?
In your example of simple trespassing, what if the trespasser refuses to leave. Do you have the right to use violence to force him off your property?
People in murder park want to be there, the killing is mutually agreed upon. But, again, the thief does not agree to being killed.
That’s what you were trying to prove in your scenario remember? That the property owner can declare the right to kill anyone on their property, even should the victim disagree.
To see if you noticed the inconsistency. You didn’t.
Perhaps my language was unclear. I was lumping in the steal-and-get-murdered clause as a form of slavery, as it seeks to remove a person’s ability to withhold consent. So I wasn’t referencing just my lawn scenario but also the store scenario.
Arbitration has nothing to do with it. A relationship can be ended unilaterally by either party. How do you know if a relationship is voluntary? Ask.
What would it take for there to be an indication that killing or an other terms are agreed upon? What would constitute a valid agreement? And what’s your opinion on voluntary slavery? Can someone contract themselves into slavery?
Heh. But it was a serious question. Stephen seems to be interested in justifying the application of the death sentence on the spot and by people who are both party and judge. Frankly, it can’t get any more…unjustifiable IMO. Since I find the position very unreasonable I wondered why he personally holds it.
And the answer “I work in retail” would have made some sense…had it been true.
