So I didn’t write it.
Did I?
You don’t need to play games asking me questions for clarification. How can I possibly clarify your positive assertion?
You claimed a moral or legal (or both) authority for my peers to judge me. YOU ASSERTED IT. What is that based on?
For the 4th or 5th time, answer the question.
Well, then you will probably both be dead really soon, anyways.
If we are in apocalypse, there probably would be no law, and so it would not matter.
I have not heard of that happening. Pretty tough to get all the equipment there to do it. Not that it would be OK for him to do it, if he could.
At whatever point it is not excessive.
I think most people are smart enough to know. But again, that is why we need courts.
Ah, so this is why you have so much animosity for me now. It is sad that you are so immature. Feel free to drop our friendship at anytime. Do you go around calling people that think eating burgers is OK, “Mr. Cow Killer”, or some such nonsense too?
Nice strawman. I never said stealing is OK. I have only said that if it meant the difference between living or dying, that I would take the chance and face the music rather than die. But to each his own.
Nor did you deny it.
You said you had the authority to kill one for stealing from you, so yes.
I am not playing games. I have not seen this point really addressed before. I know people like to claim that if someone kills another person, not in self-defense, then he or she has lost his or her rights. I do not agree. However, if someone seems to be too dangerous, well, they need to die. I am not really sure how the free market would handle the situation. If I feel no one is going to do anything about it, I may just take matters into my own hands, if I feel that society would be in agreement with me, and hope for the best, in terms of it being ruled to be justifiable homicide.
Still waiting for an answer to my question.
That is a logical fallacy, using the absence of proof as proof.
That is not the same thing. Why are you lying?
You still didn’t answer my very simple, and direct question now posted to you a half dozen times. You’re either incredibly dishonest, or unfathomably unintelligent.
So you would act, only if there was a democratic consensus to provide popular cover. Right? So where does a majority get its authority from? Where do you get your authority from to act? What is a society?
This thread has proven to be quite popular. While I haven’t contributed to the argument throughout, I have read most of the responses and I appreciate all of your contributions. This particular lifeboat scenario affected me greatly. Upon the honest admission that I would choose to steal the farmers’ food, I feared that my claim to anarchocapitalism was in jeopardy. Your responses, my research and a lot of thoughtful contemplation has finally helped me to reconcile my initially apparent contradictions. I’ll try to explain below. I welcome your feedback and constructive criticism.
Allow me to restate the imagined circumstances:
“You find yourself on the brink of starvation and your only hope of survival depends upon a nearby farmers’ crops. The farmer is unwilling to engage in trade, no matter the conditions, and you are left with one choice: violate his property rights by stealing some of his food in order to survive, or respect his decision and perish.”
The problem: if a self-proclaimed libertarian chooses to steal the farmers’ crops, is that person a hypocrite and do they undermine their case for libertarianism?
At first, the apparent contradiction is obvious. A vocal libertarian, who preaches the virtue of the non-aggression principle, undeniably violates the principle under certain circumstances. Granted, the alternative is (by definition of the problem) certain death, but what difference should that make since this clearly serves to illustrate one’s hypocrisy and, thus, undermines ones argument for libertarianism.
Judging from many of your suggestions (as well as a somewhat thorough online investigation), a popular approach to this problem is to cast it aside as unrealistic or a highly unusual case where the non-aggression principle, somehow, no longer holds. I don’t believe this is wise. If the non-aggression principle “breaks down” under this artificially crafted scenario, then it is not a universal principle at all. One would actually be suggesting another principle – for example, something like “…an individuals’ property rights ought to be respected under all situations except where it is subjectively deemed contrary to the means of one’s survival.” That’s not a solid principle at all. Moreover, how does one expect to determine the particular extraordinary circumstances under which it applies? It may be impossible to prove whether or not a persons’ life was actually endangered when a crime had taken place. Or someone may honestly believe that their survival was threatened, when in fact such a belief could be shown to be unfounded. Is the thief justified in that case? What if an individual finds oneself in a life threatening situation due solely to his own making? Doesn’t this create a moral hazard? It could lead to all sorts of mischief. I propose that libertarianism must answer even these lifeboat scenarios.
The solution, in my opinion, arises from the difference between just and moral behavior. Prior to this realization, I have often confused the two concepts. Henceforth, I will consider “justice” to be that state when appropriate compensation has been given to the victim by the aggressor in exchange for damage caused by an aggressive action. By this definition, an “unjust” act has been committed when the starving beggar decides to take the farmers’ crops without permission because the farmer has (by definition of the problem) not previously engaged in a proportional act of aggression against the beggar. “Justice” will be done when the thief has compensated the farmer for the crops stolen in addition to any other costs incurred, plus interest, etc. or whatever other settlement the two decide to make amends. A “just” action is one in which additional compensation is not required afterwards (i.e. voluntary exchanges).
I will consider “moral” behavior to be any action which yields a psychic profit due solely to the nature of the action. That is, “moral” behavior abides by a set of moral codes which define “right” and “wrong” for a specific individual. Since value scales differ between individuals, moral behavior is subjective and differs between individuals. Donating money to a charity that assists the poor would be considered “moral” behavior to an individual who receives a psychic profit from the knowledge that the situation of the poor has been marginally improved as a result of the donation. This individual would yield a psychic profit no matter where the donation came from; from either his own money or his neighbors’ money. Forcing people to donate to charitable causes may or may not be “moral” behavior, depending on whether one believed it was moral to enforce ones own morals onto others through the threat of aggression; but in any case, such a situation could never be considered “just”.
Thus, the problem is solved. Let’s examine the situation of the starving beggar. Stealing some of the farmers’ crops is clearly “unjust”, since the farmer is not responsible for his dire situation. If the starving beggar is in this situation because, say, somebody burned down his field, stole all of his food, or locked him up making him unable to obtain food until now, then that person is the aggressor and, perhaps, receiving food from him would be justified. Or, instead, if the starving individual is in this situation because of his own actions, say because of his incompetence as a farmer or laziness, then nobody has committed an aggressive act toward him and he cannot rightfully lay claim to anybody else’s property. The question of whether an action is “just” or “unjust” appears to be objective. But what is moral?
Now let’s examine the same situation from the farmer’s standpoint. The farmer may decide to offer some of his crops or he may not. The choice is rightfully his since, after all, we’re talking about his property. He ought not to be forced to yield his crops to the starving individual because he has not aggressed against him and, hence, no restitution is necessary. Either the starving beggar himself or some other aggressor is responsible, but this farmer has done nothing wrong. The question of morality is different from the question of justice (from my definition). Many people might argue, the starving beggar included, that the moral choice for the farmer would be to yield at least a small portion of his crops so that the starving beggar could sustain life. (How long this situation should continue and still be considered “moral”, now in terms of the beggar, is another question.) Voluntarily yielding the crops returns a psychic profit to those who hold this position, because they would prefer not to imagine that the starving individual had died after the food had been refused. Although the farmer would not be responsible for the beggar’s death, he (or others that learned of it) might feel negatively about the situation anyway. On the contrary, it may be that the farmer would not receive any psychic benefit from helping out the beggar, nor would he receive any psychic loss if his neighbors found out about how “heartless” he was in refusing the food, in which case he might not provide it under any circumstances. He would be within his rights to do so.
I assert that most people, when put in the position of the starving beggar, would steal a small amount of food from the farmer to sustain their life (so long as the loss of food would not place the farmer’s life in jeopardy). There are probably several reasons for this, the two most likely (in my opinion) are listed here: (1) The beggar values the food (i.e. survival) more than the possibility of punishment (due to either the farmer’s self-defense or the judicial system enforcing restitution) and more than any psychic loss suffered from violating the non-aggression principle. (2) The beggar may consider the farmer’s decision immoral. In case (2), the beggar’s action is actually a form of “civil disobedience”. Here, I will define “civil disobedience” as an action that is known to be “unjust” but that may bring attention to what one considers to be an immoral situation. In other words, the beggar voluntarily accepts the punishment for taking the farmers’ crops to bring attention to the fact that the farmer would have otherwise allowed a starving man to die. This civil disobedience may (or may not) convince others in the society to voluntarily yield food when put in a similar situation.
So, then, what are the implications if one decides to violate the farmers’ property rights by stealing food to avoid starvation? I argue that this does not make one a hypocrite so long as the right of the farmer to defend his property and/or take action to receive just compensation is accepted. This is true regardless of whether the action falls under the definition of civil disobedience or not. Let me stress it again – the beggar that nowhere rejects the right of the farmer to self-defense or to seek restitution is not a hypocritical libertarian. On the contrary, a hypocrite would argue that, under extraordinary circumstances, one has a right to steal food without punishment__.
I’m satisfied that this argument effectively settles any dispute and proves that stealing the farmers’ crops does not necessarily make one a hypocrite. One is only a hypocrite if they take a position where, under some circumstances, property rights are invalid (i.e. arguing that punishment, or compensation, in these cases is “unjust”).
This has lead me to one additional insight regarding libertarianism. Libertarianism is, perhaps, the only correct moral philosophy for anyone who believes that it is immoral to enforce one’s own morals onto others. In the case of the farmer – even if the beggar believed the farmer was being immoral by refusing to offer his crops, a libertarian beggar would resist the temptation to enforce his own morality onto the beggar (i.e. force him to offer his crops to starving beggars). If one would seek to force the farmer to offer his crops, that person believes that enforcing moral views onto others is itself moral and this would be incompatible with libertarianism.
This implies the following: the best strategy to convince others to follow libertarian morality is to convince them that enforcing one’s own moral system onto others is immoral.
Perhaps this is discussed in the literature somewhere. Has anybody come across an argument like this before? These have been profound revelations for me. I’ve settled on a better understanding of what libertarianism means and am more convinced than ever that libertarianism is compatible with my own set of moral values. Thanks to everybody here who has helped me along the way. I hope this discussion has raised some interesting points for you to consider.
Please discuss!
have i been unfair to you that i take away from your last post that you believe that being unjust is not necessarily being immoral?
Spidey I think what you are trying to say is that you believe in proportional justice. In the sense that someone who perhaps accidentally walks on your lawn without knowing it is your property doesn’t deserve to be shot. Now if that people is running at your with a knife then it is a different story.
Am I correct in stating that?
That is because I do not have one. I am not sure where the “authority” to punish a murderer derives from. I have started another thread about it.
I do.
The problem with the particular scenario is who has the legal authority to stand in place of the murdered person to claim justice? I have started a new thread to address the issue.
In this particular scenario, I assume we are talking about a thief sneaking into your house, getting some food out of your refrigerator, then leaving, you catch him, and shoot him in the back. That is how I understood the scenario. From your responses, it appears that you believe you have authority to kill him, for stealing some food. Am I right? If not, could you please explain your position?
Disclaimer: This is a relatively new formulation and may contain flaws either in its logic or in its definitions. I welcome you to help me root out and repair any inconsistencies.
What you stated is correct, based on my definitions for “just/unjust” and “moral/immoral” behavior. Since according to my definition morality and justice are independent descriptors of action, there exists four types of action. I’ll clarify by giving four examples for the farmer/beggar scenario. In this example, we’ll assume what’s “moral” is from the subjective opinion of an individual who gains a psychic benefit from knowing that starving people receive enough food to sustain life so long as their starvation is not the result of their own laziness or other systematic incompetence.
Moral & Just:
The farmer voluntarily yields a portion of his crop to the beggar (possibly in exchange for labor services), sustaining his life.
Moral & Unjust:
The beggar takes a small portion of the farmer’s crop, against the farmer’s wishes, to sustain the beggar’s life.
Immoral & Just:
The farmer refuses to yield any of his crop to the beggar under any condition.
Immoral & Unjust:
The beggar is not actually starving, but steals some of the farmer’s crop because he is too lazy to grow or work for his own food.
The beggar kills the farmer because he has refused his food.
The beggar steals some of the farmer’s food and then sets the rest of the crops on fire as revenge for not yielding the crops voluntarily.
The government legalizes the theft of property under the condition that one’s own life is in jeopardy. In this case, the farmer would be banned from seeking restitution for damage caused by the beggar’s aggression.
The farmer, so enraged by the act of begging for food, preemptively kills the beggar before the beggar has actually trespassed on his property.
Since morality is subjective, I’ll resort the same possible outcomes according to a second individual who believes it is immoral to violate property rights under any circumstance, even the possibility of death. Outcomes that have been moved are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Moral & Just:
The farmer voluntarily yields a portion of his crop to the beggar (possibly in exchange for labor services), sustaining his life.
*The farmer refuses to yield any of his crop to the beggar under any condition.
Moral & Unjust:
NONE
Immoral & Just:
NONE
Immoral & Unjust:
*The beggar takes a small portion of the farmer’s crop, against the farmer’s wishes, to sustain the beggar’s life.
The beggar is not actually starving, but steals some of the farmer’s crop because he is too lazy to grow or work for his own food.
The beggar kills the farmer because he has refused to offer his food.
The beggar steals some of the farmer’s food and then sets the rest of the crops on fire as revenge for not yielding the crops voluntarily.
The government legalizes the theft of property under the condition that one’s own life is in jeopardy. In this case, the farmer would be banned from seeking restitution for damage caused by the beggar’s aggression.
The farmer, so enraged by the act of begging for food, preemptively kills the beggar before the beggar has actually trespassed on his property.
I argue that libertarianism does not require one to accept one moral set or the other even when they violate property rights under certain conditions. Libertarianism does, however, require one to refrain from forcing others to accept your moral set. So long as any individual accepts this single moral statement, that person is a libertarian.
Libertarians are free to persuade others (either verbally or through civil disobedience) to accept a certain moral code, but they also accept the justness of property owners in seeking restitution if that is their choice.
I imagine some people might question my definitions of “justice” and “morality”, which is fair. Many people will probably argue that they are synonymous (as I’ve been assuming up until this week). I don’t believe that a potentially poor choice of words can negate this argument. My definitions of “justice” and “morality” are clearly distinct. If anyone agrees with the logic of my argument, but isn’t satisfied with the terms used, I encourage you to suggest alternatives.
Eagerly awaiting your opinions…
-Michael Hall
What a pity! This thread quieted down just after I proposed a solution to the original problem! Perhaps my posts were too long-winded…?
-Michael
Well said Rocky.
While we may be human, we are still animals and when faced with the choice of death or theft, 98% of us will instinctively choose theft while 2% of will intellectually choose death.