Always good for a laugh LS.
This is off topic, but seeing as this thread isn’t gonna take off anyway, you heard this Greg Morton song “Obama Man”?’
[8]Who can take tommorrow
spend it all today?
Who can take your income
and tax it all away?
Obama man…
Obama man can[8]
Consent either exists or it doesn’t. Those things are just evidence reflecting that reality.
A person can sign a slave contract, sure. But its not binding. As long as the person continues to wish to be a slave then they will be one, but if the slave should decide to leave the relationship the contract can’t keep them in it.
I think that strictly adhering to the ‘proportionality’ principle for all cases puts some ppl in an unfair legal straight jacket. This became apparent as I read through the compensation ratio blog post. Another older thought that I had was that use of the state for justice is often supraproportional, so victims often have to choose between letting something go or becoming a criminal by using the justice system.
It would be odd if the libertarian framework didn’t allow anyone to extricate themselves. Then I watched Walter Block’s video on privatising roads. And it became apparent. The owner can just set the conditions for entry or use of his property. Even extreme conditions. Why not illustrate with a classic scenario?
I actually do work in retail. And currently laws seem to protect criminals more than real people. What I would like to see is every owner of property to be allowed to lay down the law for his own property, no matter how unreasonable people like you (aspiring social engineers?) may find it.
Well, Stephen, I think that suggesting I’m an aspiring social engineering is rather baseless. OTOH I think you are some sort of right wing nutcase. How about it ?
Well, a person may make an agreement and then change their mind later. Does this mean that it no longer applies because they no longer consent? And what would you consider evidence of consent: entry (obviously not), signature, manual biometric thumbscan? At what point would you say that a customer has agreed to certain conditions?
This part of Rothbard (and Kinsella too) always seemed a little odd. These are two guys who think it is legitmate to enslave for capital crimes. But if a person wants to be bound without committing some capital crime, why can’t they be? Because the human body is inalienable from the human will? That seems doubtable at best. Anyway, why shouldn’t a person be allowed to enter into agreement were they give up certain rights to their person?
Going back to murder park, what if a person is already inside and changes their mind, even though he agreed to be in for a certain amount of time? If someone shoots him now (at a time that he is no longer consenting) is it murder?
I try. [:o]
That song is brilliant!
Is that what you really think? Really? Let’s face it. You’ve never met me. What do you have to go on?
To anybody else who wants to know why Juan raised this question, it’s because it wasn’t resolved to his satisfaction in this thread. You will also notice a large number of ‘right wing nutcases’ there who didn’t agree with him on this occasion either.
What you say in this thread. What else do I need ? You seem to be advocating exactly what a right wing extremist would advocate.
What question wasn’t resolved to my satisfaction ?
Whether or not lethal force is acceptable.
Voluntary law?
@ JB
Hey, if a high risk debtor doesn’t want to repay his credit card and the creditor forces him to, has the debtor given his consent? There’s an easy way to tell. Ask him if he consents?
Another thing, how much can a person agree to as part of a penalty clause in an agreement? Can someone transfer rights to their body? Is organ donation invalid?
If a driver drives on a private highway, for example the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto, and a camera records their liscense plate, and they get a bill in the mail, do they have to pay it? I mean they didn’t consent right?
K,Juan.
You’re right, I’m totally nuts. Now do you have anything meaningful to add to the discussion? Maybe some points about contract theory, enforceability, that sort of thing?
I do. This whole topic should have ended in the beginning, when I pointed out that implied consent doesn’t exist. A contract is not a sign, but a 2 way exchange of or agreement to transfer title.
To that extent, entering the premises against the arbitrary terms of a useless sign can only be considered trespassing. The punishment can only be trespassing. If, further, gum is stolen, then trespassing and theft – if it can be . Not more.
This whole scenario would never exist, because people are smarter than this. If it did arise, the results would be widely known to businessmen and shopkeepers looking to earn a profit would use their brains. Profitable businessmen are notorious for being creative, witty, and good with the public. Not for creating arbitrary rules and situations which discourage business.
Uh oh. YOU started a new thread to discuss the same topic. I’d say it’s YOU the one who’s not satisfied because YOU know there’s no moral justification for killing petty thieves.
No, you’re advocating the death penalty for petty thieves, not ‘voluntary’ law. Also, in your system, if X thinks somebody snatched a packet of bubble gum, according to you, X can judge and execute the alleged thief in 5 seconds. Well, your system is very ‘efficient’, I’d grant that.
Thats different. You gone from discussing an inalienable property, self ownership, to an alienable property, money.
Once a person has transferred away title to property, its no longer his. The contract serves as evidence of that transfer of title. Self ownership is different because it can not be transferred away; do not confuse this with: not allowed to be transferred away. Self ownership is an inescapable part of the human condition.
The debtor has to return the money because its not his, thus he does not have the legal right to refuse.
As much as they want.
If the bill is proportional to the trespass.
Your right there is no implied consent…because none is required. You are the violator if you are stealing from someone. We don’ t need a contract to cover that issue. The only question that remains, which you have not answered, is do you have the right to use violence to defend your property?
I’m right because by the very nature of consent, it cannot merely be implied. “Implied” consent is a tactic of the state to convict innocent people. True consent must be given and and received (a two way process), not merely perceived (a one way imagined “thought”).
A reasonable proposition indeed. I admit, if you can be considered to rightly own property in any meaningful sense, then it follows that you have the right to defend that property, with aggression to the extent that your rights have been aggressed upon. So you must concede, also then, that any extra (non-defensive) aggression is purely aggressive and strictly non-defensive by the very meaning of the terms. Thus, killing a bubblegum thief is an act of aggression, not defense.
Further, murder of a thief cannot be considered just punishment because of its grossly unproportional nature – that is, punishment is only just so long as its purpose is to obtain reimbursement and to deprive the criminal of his rights to the extent that he deprived yours.
How does the relate to armed robbery then? As a contrast, of course…
Shoot the fuckin’ wetback.
Note that your question takes us full cycle, back to the very beginning. What I mean is, it is the question Rothbard asked which led him to describe the bubble gum thief scenario.
"Violent defense then must be confined to violent invasion – either actually, implicitly, or by direct and overt threat. But given this principle, how far does the right of violent defense go? For one thing, it would clearly be grotesque and criminally invasive to shoot a man across the street because his angry look seemed to you to portend an invasion. The danger must be immediate and overt, we might say, “clear and present – a criterion that properly applies not to restrictions on freedom of speech (never permissible, if we regard such freedom as a subset of the rights of person and property) but to the right to take coercive action against a supposedly imminent invader.”
Armed robbery is a tricky term anyways. I tend to assume it is another shady tactic of the state. Consider:
What is the (potential) robber armed with? A towel? A chain? A pencil? A knife? A water gun? A 9mm?
Is the (potential) robber threatening your life directly and immediately? Is the threat realistic? I.E. is a 5 year old kid threatening to strangle you to death right now with his shoelace if the bubblegum is not forthcoming? Or is he just threatening to beat your toe with a hammer? Does he even have a hammer?
Consider also that in a free market, crime and the incentives to commit crime will naturally be lower, and the protections against it will be more effective and common.