Hello
I was just wondering if there are any Libertarian ideals in favour of assassins?
Maybe I’ve been reading to many Terry Pratchet books… but my thoughts are, that in a Free Market, Assassins would be ‘Legal’ according to the Natural Law.
It wouldn’t be “Survival of the Fittest” but “Survival of the most Powerful”, which inherently could mean the same thing.
Please tell me your thoughts on this matter.
Thanks in advance,
Panarchy
I think most people here will agree that assassination = killing = force = wrong.
What justification is there for this?
In fact, what makes this different then just murder, besides the victim?
You mean the killer right?
Who is worse, the Assassin or the person/people who hired the Assassin?
Or, if you think that they are both in the wrong, then who do you think is more in the wrong, the Assassin or those that hired?
Panarchy
What is the ROI on assassination? Unless it’s criminals fighting each other over a government-imposed black market, pretty much nil. That’s why corporate boardrooms aren’t awash in assassination plots and truck drivers for Miller and Budweiser distributorships don’t do battle in the streets. By contrast, competing alcohol distributors during Prohibition really did do battle in the streets.
Sure, murder is okey! In one sentence, libertarianism is that everyone has the right to everything which he/she can get through voluntary agreements, or murder. It’s your right to kill me, says the libertarian, but don’t ya touch my money!
Actually, I think that this libertarian advocacy of random murders is getting a bit unpopular. Does anyone else think that we should change it? [8-)]
I like assassins. They may provide useful services on a market in dealing with aggressors.
Yup, at least they are “skilled” [:P]
Very similar to lawyers in some respects.
Well, at least I can think about useful facilitations for assassins - See Irenicus [+o(]
Indeed! And about the same price!
They are also useful in “genetic memory” research… Or was that just a game I played?
What on Earth has happened here?
Yes
You mean the historical group of Islamic fighers in the middle east called the Assassin? They were wiped out by the Mongols, in a classic free market style (one group of government taking over another group, to extract wealth from the remaining population).
The Mongols did good work, even taking fortresses from the Assassins, though truth be told the Mongols were in their prime and the Assassins were way past their prime.
The whole of the problem with a fully decentralized system of law rests within the tyranny of the majority whim. In respect to assassinations, which should really be called murder, everything comes down to popular opinion. In where individual lives are judged entirely by the attitude of those immediately involved. There are no rights, no liberties, and no ownership. There would only be uneasy truces between various persons.
Been reading too much Hobbes, eh?
The most fundamental tenet of the libertarian philosophy is that each person owns his/her own life, and is responsible for the various outcomes of how that life is lived. Assassination involves the taking of someone else’s life against their will, making it completely incompatible with libertarianism on the deepest possible level.
I suppose your dream of becoming a ninja while maintaining your devotion to laissez-faire will have to wait until something better than reason comes along.
The Rev
What are you talking about?
And there I disagree. Assassination implies premeditation, secrecy, and murder. Killing in self-defense is not premediated (the aggressor chooses the time and place of the shootout, not the victim), and it is not secret; the aggressor fully anticipates (or should anticipate) that you will fight back. And of course, it is not murder.
What about strikes in retaliation? Even then, your enemy is entitled to a fair trial (innocent until proven guilty). So of course, you can not hire a sniper to get rid of him; you have to put handcuffs on him and haul him into court to be tried by a jury of his peers. Of course, I would not want the task of trying to arrest a scary dude; that is why we have the division of labor (hire a legitimate detective agency to do the hard work).
So my point is, assassins are never legitimate and serve no useful purpose in a free society.