Given 2, would you not agree that paying taxes that finance the killing of other people makes the taxpayer partially culpable for those killings?
No way. Not even if I donated the money freely. Are gun sellers partially culpable for what their customers do with the guns they’ve purchased? I think not. The fact that I’ve given you a tool in no way makes me liable for your use of that tool. Unless, of course, you believe in the social contract and that that government is voluntary and all that crap.
If they know they are going to use them to kill someone, I would say yes. Wouldn’t you?
You should know I do not, and nothing in this conversation has suggested that I do.
no they are not morally culpable, restitution can not be extracted from them through legitimised violence. although its a rights violation to murder people. its not a rights violation to manufacture and sell the guns to people who eventually end up murdering people. someone with a reputation for selling guns to murderers cannot expect to be popular amongst civilized people though…
Again, I am not talking about “selling to the general public”. I am talking about selling to someone that tells you they are going to kill someone with it. I would say the seller, in this situation, is partially culpable.
Maybe an example would help. You have a friend and a gun. Your friend comes to you and says, “hey, I want to go kill this other person, because well, they pissed me off, will you sell me your gun so I can go and do that?” You say, “sure!” And you are going to tell me that you are not partially culpable for the person your friend goes and kills?
if the person reneges on their word and goes and kills instead a wild wolf that has been terrorising local farmers livestocks. am i somewhat heroic for having sold him the gun?
being part of the story that led to something doesnt equate for me with culpability for the thing done. it is necessary but not sufficient (i understand culpability to be a moral and legal notion)
First of all, you did not answer the question. Second of all, your question is not comparable to mine. In mine, he tells you what he intends to do with it, in yours, he does not.
In answer to your question, no, because he did not tell you that was his intention.
my answer was ‘not culpable’
if i sell you a gun and you intend to murder someone and you tell me of your intention, and yet i go ahead with the sale…although i may have acted in an ugly manner, in a stupid manner, but i have not breached the NAP and I am not a criminal or morally culpable. I have violated no-ones rights. Bear in mind that i may face consequences which i will be displeased to face as others respond to the ugliness of my act. yet there is no rights violation in the sale.
the only grey area we may have here is that there may be debate over whether my act ‘of salesmanship’ posed an immediate and clear threat of rights violation and so is immoral and capable of being legitimately countered with self-defencive force. on the force or threat of force criteria of the NAP. I think that someone cocking a loaded gun at someone (on the one hand), and someone selling a gun to someone who has credibly said that their intention is to cock a loaded gun at someone and discharge it (on the other hand) are relevantly different in their degree of immediacy and clarity ,so as to be distinguishable. you may disagree, you may have.
Of course you don’t, but your current proposition is along those lines. If i give you or the government a tool, I am not responsible for how you or the government use(s) that tool. I am only responsible for the government’s actions if the social contract is legitimate and the government is working for me (and all that crap). Otherwise, I’m just a tool seller.
I am telling you that. Are you telling me that I am at all responsible for the free will, under no coersion from me, actions of another? Is the drug dealer responsible if I OD by snorting half an ounce just because I tell him I’m going to do a shitload of coke? I don’t think so. Perhaps you do.
Now, do I think it’s virtuous to give my friend the gun in those circumstances? Hell no. But am i responsible for his actions? not in the least.
Guys, this is one impressive thread-jack.
The rights violation occurs when the weapon is used to harm another that you knew the person intended to use it for. So yes, I would say there is culpability.
Spideynw,
Are you talking about an Accomplice? or an Accessory? or both?
So I am obligated to act in a certain way beyond refraining from aggressing upon another’s person or property?
yes. the rights violator is culpable. someone that had some dealing with the rights violator in the past is not culpable. how many people are culpable for the crime of one finger pulling a trigger ?
Well, using your reasoning, neither Obama nor any of the so called presidents have done anything wrong. Only their goons have.
I do not see how you draw that conclusion. I would say not assisting someone in killing another is refraining from aggressing upon another persons person or property.
Government Political Science 101:
The President is the executor of all laws within the United States. Therefore police, ATF, CIA, FBI, military are all agents of the executive office.
I agree that not handing you a gun is not aggression. Are you saying that handing you a gun is aggression?
If I have told you I intend to kill someone with it, and I do, then yes. This could be mitigated of course with you telling the person I intend to kill that I intend to kill them.