Actually hadn’t thought about it much. But I certainly don’t think that preacher should be condemned to a life of servitude because a group of psychos halfway around the world cut off the heads of living human beings and simply blamed the preacher for making them angry enough to do it.
And I definitely don’t think “they would not have died” is a very good litmus test.
If he is higher up in a chain of command and he issues the order, he should be punished. Disagree?
“Really. What other future events can you tell me if someone knows or does not know will happen?”
A fair number considering that people act in the first place.
“That’s you saying that it’s “pretty straightforward to know” if someone can tell the future, which was your way of saying it is easy to tell when someone “should have known” if their words would lead to someone else acting out aggression.”
JJ, I’d really appreciate it if you would actually say something about the issue rather than keep knit picking at my words. This point should be clarified but I feel like you’re sidetracking the discussion rather than actually addressing anything.
I might have had a slip of language, I’m not going to argue back and forth about whay I did or did not say, I’m often not as exact or concise with my writing as I could be.
My position is that if someone knows are believes beyond major doubt (in the same way that one does not doubt that when he goes into a store and orders something it will be ordered or when someone tries to hit someone else at a close distance they will be hit) that their actions will result in a crime against another human being, and their actions obviously do bring about such a chain of events (such as hiring a man to go and do it), then they are guilty of murder in the same way a person who points a gun in someone’s face, knows that pulling the trigger will cause that person to be shot, is guilty of a crime. It’s not about what they ‘should have known’. In most cases it’s pretty obvious what people in such positions do and do not know. Can anyone argue Hitler did not know? Or a mafia boss does not know? Meanwhile someone who brought someone into a rage or some upset state of mind could not know and it wouldn’t have been thier use of the man.
Is this a satisfactory explanation for you?
I would say yes and no. Hitler is innocent. But we have to agree on what he is innocent of. I am willing to bet he has violated NAP at least once. He is a politician first and foremost.
If people said no to Hitler, Hitler would be powerless. It is a noodle scratcher though…
A few thoughts:
I think you have to look at it from an institutional standpoint. If you interpret Hitler’s actions in the context of the institution he was involved in - the state - his actions violate the NAP; he utilized stolen materials, and utilized labor payed for by conterfieted and stolen money.
Now, one might observe that an individual using medicare or what have you is “utilizing stolen materials.” However, I think there is a difference in being a beneficiary of stolen goods (moreover, a significantly smaller sum of stolen goods), and being a beneficiary of stolen goods while being at the forefront (in terms of decision making especially) of the institution which steals the goods.
Now, interpreting Hitler’s actions as if he were a private individual is a bit more difficult. Assume there is a fictional group - one predicated on the idea that blacks are a sub-human species and need to be erradicated (why they don’t feel the need to erradicate other “sub-human species” is a mystery).
In one instance, say the group is peaceful. They boycott black stores; perhaps they completely disassociate themselves with blacks to the fullest extent. Being non-violent, no one, including the leader, is violating the NAP.
Now, assume they are a violent organization. They commonly lynch and commit other violent, heinous acts against blacks. Obviously the specific individuals commiting the acts are violating the NAP.
However, what about the leader (assuming he does nothing more than encite hatred, promote, and plan the use of violence). Is he not merely engaging in pursasion, and thus complying with the NAP? I say no. [Deleted stupid thoughts]
Revision: I say it depends.. Kinda..
The relevant question is, when does a threat begin. I think if someone marches around, promoting the use of violence against a particular group, this is on the edge of violating, but still is complying with the NAP; it is merely pursuasion absent a backing of force (compared to a threat i.e. pursuasion backed by force). However, as soon as one enters into an organization, insitution, or some form of arrangement that violates the NAP, he too is partaking in a violation of the NAP
EDIT:
Nevermind, the above is all wrong. The answer is actually pretty simple.
Someone here said that other autonomous individuals can not be used as means to an end. Of course they can. When I buy a piece of fruit from a fruit stand, I’m using the individual running it as a means to an end (the end being my hunger).
Now, when an individual hires a hitman or leads a violent hate-group, they are simply using other individuals as a means to an end. That does not take away the responsibility from the individual commiting the act (I hesitate to use the word “commiting,” because my point is that planning an act is part of commiting it). It also does not mean the invidivual “commiting” the act is soley the one responsible.
So in summary, if I were to do nothing but lead a rampage against a Jewish neighborhood, pillaging their property and what not, I would be violating the NAP, because an equally important part of the aggression is the planning (or leading; just some matter of involvment where I’m using others as a mean to an end) of the aggression. However, if I were just to cheer on the pillaging, I think I’d be innocent of agression.
EDIT:
Scratch that. That was stupid. If I cheer it on, I could still be using others as a mean to my end.. If my end were to have the Jews pillaged. But that doesn’t seem right. So basically, I have no idea how to draw a distinction between participating or not participating in an aggressive act.
Maybe merely joining a hate-group that commits acts of violence is akin to taking responsibility for the violence? But that seems more like collectivism than libertarianism.
But does anyone agree that hiring a hitman seems obviously to be engaing in the aggressive act.. As does creating an attack strategy on innocent civilians or something? But where is the line drawn?
Anyways, this is more a problem for NAP than a stateless society (it doesn’t seem like a problem at all for the latter).
I still think that when you tell someone to kill someone else, its only your wishful thinking. You just use persuation to make someone else commit a terribly immoral act. But you can’t compare words to actual deeds.
Besidse, what are you so worried about, its not that mafia bosses wouldn’t be punished. PDA can hire a hitman to kill them for instance.
Is setting up a trap at my front door to drop an anvil on anyone who rings the doorbell also “only my wishful thinking.” I’ve already established that I can use people, not just inanimate objects, as a means to an end. What I’m still trying to think through, however, is when my using of another to commit aggression becomes aggression in itself, if ever. I’m kinda stumped.
Just skimmed this.. Seems pretty relevant to this discussion.
Besidse, what are you so worried about, its not that mafia bosses wouldn’t be punished. PDA can hire a hitman to kill them for instance
Of course that hitman would then go to jail as he is the killer of someone who is not guilty of any crime.
and who would put him in jail? There is no state, remember? If everyone is happy, then there is no crime. 
Are we starting from the assumption that people who commit crimes would not go to jail? I imagine the family of the guy who was killed would like compensation.
Of course that hitman would then go to jail as he is the killer of someone who is not guilty of any crime.
What if you use a hitman mentally incapable of telling right from wrong?
For example, you strap a bombbelt around a child and you till the child to go hug the nice man? It seems that in that case, you are using the child as a weapon. A gun is not capable of making a moral judgement, so when you pull the trigger, the moral decision has been made by you. You are guilty and not the gun. I think the same reasoning would go for the child. The child makes no moral decision, it is incapable of that, so you instead make a decision instead of a child. And you are responsible.
If you would convince an adult to kill someone, the adult makes the final moral decision.
If this still seems like a sticky issue, that’s because it is. However it’s not really one anti-statists need to address. Judges on the market who are masters at this sort of thing will make such determinations. A libertarian needn’t play the role of King Solomon, needn’t be a masterful arbiter of right and wrong, needn’t come up with a solution for hard question like this. Or even easy questions like this. If we believe in the division of labor, we’ll let a judge chosen to be wise and fair by the free market handle it.
I completely agree, AJ. But in terms of the non-aggression principle, I think this is an important scenario.
True, however, in reality this “decision” is usually backstopped by an implicit death threat… fail to carry out orders, and you will be killed. This death-threat is tortious (assault) but it’s a tort against the trigger-man (with whom we have little, if any, sympathy). Everyone keeps overlooking the trigger-man’s right to sue the drug lord/kingpin/Hitler/whoever. Of course, in the case of a Leviathan state this is all wishful thinking because it will have monopolized the very law services which could be used to prosecute the kingpin/drug lord/Hitler on the trigger-man’s behalf.
The chain of torts mirrors the chain of causality.
Clayton -
Actually he wouldn’t be able to sue Hitler because Hitler by himself did not threaten anyone. No one could credibly believe that Hitler himself would come and kill you.
What the hell are you talking about? No one could believe that Hitler himself would come and kill you? The absolute ruler of Nazi Germany had no power to kill? As I said in my previous post: the chain of torts mirrors the chain of causality. If Hitler’s executioner is held liable, he will not want to execute. If the Gestapo man who is ordered to kill the executioner for refusing to obey orders is held liable, he will not want to murder the executioner. If Hitler’s bodyguard who will shoot the Gestapo man for refusing to kill the exeuctioner is held liable, he will not want to murder the Gestapo man. This leaves Hiter himself responsible to grab a pistol and execute the bodyguard for refusing to obey orders, at which point, Hitler is responsible for murder/assault/whatever.
Are you just being intentionally obtuse? Everyone knows that “Nazi” threads are a waste of time… I had hoped to redeem this thread by shifting the line of discussion onto a path that had at least a remote possibility of being useful. Why do you keep posting these kinds of threads? Are you just trying to suck up oxygen and impede, as best as one user can, the fruitful discussion of economics, politics and law from an Austrian perspective, which is the stated purpose of these forums? You’ve attempted to bait anti-semitism on more than one occasion. I don’t understand your fixation with attempting to elicit anti-semitism on this forum.
Clayton -
Are you just being intentionally obtuse? Everyone knows that “Nazi” threads are a waste of time
Yeah, I can’t believe this thread is still going on either - it’s mind boggling. But I think this is a symptom of somthing in liberterianism. Unlike left wingers we don’t really have a “priestly language” support system that is ingrained in the gereral psyche and the fact that we disagree (rightly so in my opinion) with much of the left leaves us a bit isolated. I think it tends to lead some to rather crazy reactionary views like “Hitler was whatever” - or “Rape is not all that bad”, etc, etc.
I think this may compound itself more when people cling to these ethical questions, and NAP things - as that seems to be the only guiding light they have. I don’t know how to really shift the focus of liberterians - but to focus on things like this is flat out catastrophic, both socially and probably existentially and psychologically as well.
It is just a fact of life that unfashionable asocial agressive behavior will be eradicated if it can. There is no way around it, or no ethical system that can neatly tie this up. This may cause one to be pissy to the fact that Stalin can get his semi-relevant apologists to this day, or have a longer lasting tolerated regime, etc while Hitler can not - but that is of minor importance.
Your accusations are absolutely baseless. I do not want to provoce anti-semitism or anything else, I am just trying to figure out some issues with regards to ethics. I am sorry that you find my choice of arguments or words offensive.
Now regarding the main topic of the thread, I think I am now more convinced than before that only the physical act itself can be considered a crime.
I’ll give you two examples, both of which I already mentioned in this and in other threads.
A private investigator investigates a murder that occured in the midst of a very dangerous gang. He hides his identity. His wife found that he cheated on her, so she wants her husband dead. Therefore fully knowing that he will most likely be murdered if his identity becomes known, she posts this information in a newspaper. The gang members read the newspaper and murder the investigator. Should the wife be liable for murder? I don’t think so. I would be very uncomfortable if people would be liable for muder just for writing in a newspaper.
Now this is a real world example. Terry Jones, an American pastor threatens to burn Quaran books. His goal is to create massive riots in which Muslims will be killed, and in this way show the world how dangerous and barbaric Muslims are. Indeed riots break and Muslims get killed. Should Terry Jones be liable for murder? Again I don’t think so.
These cases show to what ambiguity and murkiness can lead laws that prohibit speech that might lead to crimes. I wouldn’t want the society to be like this. Would you?
Here is your answer:
Start a court, call yourself a judge, start administering your justice as best you see fit and see how that works out.
You are asking questions as to what law/justice is. These can be brought up without sensationalist topics - and when done so, will not lead people into the rabbit hole in fantasy lands where people talk nonsense after nonsense to and past each other. You will never be satisfied with this line of inquiry unless you wish to create an echo chamber.