I like the clear answer! Very straight forward. Thanks Autolykos.
I think Rcder misunderstood your question. He seems to have taken it as one of the format “In a society without government, how will X be handled/dealt with?” That’s not what you meant, as far as I can tell. You actually meant to ask what each of us would do, i.e. on an individual basis.
liberty student trolling? No!
That’s really none of your business.
It’s not trolling, it’s that some of you believe stuff that is pure fantasy, and those people are so invested in that fantasy, it takes a different approach to get a point across.
Yes and no. One begs the other. Really I only start discussions on here, don’t look to find the exact answer, really, though one usually forms after some time.
Yes, I want to know what each individual person would do, but similar to a method liberty student might profess, I want to find out why they would do it. I think everyone on here is good in trusting their intuition. One naturally knows the scenario is wrong, but anarcho-capitalism can lead to a sticky web. Where is the line drawn between tolerance and compassion? It’s gray for sure.
For example, say the situation was different, that a mute 30 year old man was bludgeoning another 30 year old man that was bound in a wheel chair, obviously not putting up a fight. Would you stop that?
If you did choose to stop it, what if the wheel chair bound man had kidnapped the mute man’s son and will not tell him where his son is other than by force? Then I say by all means allow the bludgeoning to continue until he gets the information, yet many people would stop it and the mute would not be able to elaborate on the dire circumstance. The mute man might be stopped, yet an injustice is being done by society interfering in actual justice: a man protecting his son.
Although I know this and other scenarios like this would likely never happen, it’s an exercise to see how strong the proposed system of anarchy is in a quick, emotional and dangerous scenario. Seems like the ethics are questionable, though the solution is simple and clear. Again, I only intended it as a thought exercise.
As Bojan B. pointed out, it’s not necessarily just a fight between two people. I would consider the father/adult to be clearly aggressing against the child by beating him/her to a bloody pulp.
In logical terms, this seems like both an appeal to ridicule and an appeal to the majority.
I would join that man and beat the shit out of that little bastard
How does one beg the other? Strictly speaking, there can never be a clear answer to the question “How would X be dealt with?” Each situation is unique, and there are never any guarantees in this world.
This sounds to me like you’re appealing to the nirvana fallacy.
Yes.
Are you implying (i.e. sneaking in an additional premise) that the mute man is also illiterate? Otherwise, I don’t see why the mute man couldn’t elaborate on the dire circumstance.
For the wheelchair-bound man to tell the mute man where the latter’s son is only if the former is “sufficiently forced” would imply to me that the wheelchair-bound man is some sort of masochist. I don’t see any other reason why he would put down such a condition. In that case, the mute man isn’t aggressing against the wheelchair-bound man and I’d let him continue with the bludgeoning.
What do you mean by “strong” and “the ethics are questionable”? I don’t see how there’s necessarily any solution, let alone a simple and clear one.
In a society without government, what would you do if you walked by and saw a man beating his 5 year old child into a bloody pulp?
A very generalized question, isn’t it?
A society without government does not necessarily imply a society without law. In beating his son, the man in question must face consequences in dealing with the rest of society even if his son is considered to be his property. In a society where people purchase the services of protection there would probably be stipulations on what would be considered acceptable behavior. This situation may or may not fall into some exceptions to the general rule. Defending the brutal beating of the child may not necessarily violate the father’s property rights, that would be a matter for the court to decide.
Since the question is over-generalized, as I expect was the intention in order to generate discussion (possibly to conclude “therefore, government”), the over-generalized response would be to intervene and accept the resulting punishment for violating the father’s property rights. I would not criticize others who choose not to intervene. The question goes beyond the application of rights, and focuses more on subjective value. It’s the subjective value of the boy’s life (at least for the moment) versus whatever penalty is required for violating the father’s property rights.
Yes, and I know that raises implications for the parent’s authority over the child and the legal custody of the kid. I think you can work it out though.
I thought you were a nihilist.
I’d say the clear and simple answer is to stop the man from beating the kid, that’s my solution. However, for anarchists, getting involved in other people’s affairs due to an injustice seems to be quite a bold action given that it really is the man’s business. It’s the fact that you and others advocate a third party’s interference in itself that is surprising. Of course I agree with the conclusion, but principally, I don’t see how anarchists are breaking their own liberty. I understand that by preserving the boy’s liberty, they really are…but that begs the reality that sometimes third party interference in other people’s affairs leads to the greatest liberty. Anarchists in that case can become utilitarians.
And this law enforcement concept some people suggested is really vague. What if John’s Law Enforcement and Bill’s Law Enforcement are both called to the scene of the mute and the wheel chair bound man fighting, and the two come to different conclusions about who started the fight, who is right, et cetera. What then?!
It seems you guys are still assuming the kid is the defender, and the guy the attacker, merely because the kid is getting beat. We all know the attacker doesn’t always win. Let us suppose the kid is a theif who was trying to steal from the man.
Need it be a complex question? Many situations we come across on a daily basis are this “generalized,” yet some response is begged.
So the law is universal, yet law enforcement itself is non-monopolistic, right? I’m genuinely trying to understand the anarchist conception of law enforcement. If law is universal, then what is its jurisdiction? Who creates and authorizes this law? A committee? Is this a representative committee? Is the law determined by democratic vote? What then of potential mob rule, whereby the mob agrees to things that are against liberty? Would it not still be law? Who is the judge in this court you speak of? How is he selected? Can the judge be paid off? Can the judge even be paid in emoluments or salary? What if he is corrupt? Is this judge also part of an anarcho-capitalist model whereby I could set up John’s Judging next door to Bill’s Judging and the people that apprehend the law breaker can choose where to bring him? These are just a few things that immediately come to mind in the scenario you suggest.
You’re implying that I’m making a judgment call on needing government when, in fact, I have made none and don’t intend to. This isn’t to teach anyone any particular lesson or anything. I made the situation as general as it would be in a real situation as if you were walking to the mall and saw it happening on a street corner.
I’m eager to see the responses to the above questions I had because I’m really curious how this works out in the anarchist model.
What’s your answer to the question, then? What would you do?
I thought I should pose this for you as well as the other person answering it. It’s concerning non-monopolistic law enforcement. Just curious to see your response.
So the law is universal, yet law enforcement itself is non-monopolistic, right? I’m genuinely trying to understand the anarchist conception of law enforcement. If law is universal, then what is its jurisdiction? Who creates and authorizes this law? A committee? Is this a representative committee? Is the law determined by democratic vote? What then of potential mob rule, whereby the mob agrees to things that are against liberty? Would it not still be law? Who is the judge in this court you speak of? How is he selected? Can the judge be paid off? Can the judge even be paid in emoluments or salary? What if he is corrupt? Is this judge also part of an anarcho-capitalist model whereby I could set up John’s Judging next door to Bill’s Judging and the people that apprehend the law breaker can choose where to bring him? These are just a few things that immediately come to mind…
I would do what cops are supposed to do (although I’m not one) and call backup from private protection agency (my safety first ;)) and them point my gun at him and tell him to stop. What comes next depends on situation but I bet unless he is some kind of psycho this would suffice.
You would not necessarily be violating a property right by rescuing the child. If the abusive actions of the parent constitute abandonment of the parental right (and this will be determined by customs), then the action of rescuing the child is an act of homesteading of the parental right. It would be the abusive parent who would be violating property rights if he resisted your attempts to rescue the child: namely, he would be committing the crime of forestalling (preventing the homesteading of an unowned object).
I don’t know why more libertarians are not familiar with Walter Block’s solution to the problems that Rothbard was unable to solve on this topic.