My post, From a Libertarian Perspective Was Donald Trump Justified in Demanding That a Protester's Coat Be Taken Away From Him?, where I state my view that it should be the victim (via the rules of the property owner where he finds himself) that determines the penalty when he experiences/suffers because of a violation of the non-aggression principle, has drawn a number of comments that I want to address here.
Francisco TorresJanuary 11, 2016 at 11:42 AM─In a libertarian society, the default rules of the owner of the property[...]─
Is it really that much trouble to just throw the guy out, coat and all? The rules of the owner of the property do not necessarily include the taking of property unless stipulated in a mutually-agreed contract ("Hecklers shall have pieces of clothing removed from their persons before being escorted out. Initials here X")
sonepatchworthJanuary 11, 2016 at 1:01 PMAgreed. Not having an advance agreement is a profound problem exactly because of all the different possibilities RW sketched.
Both parties may genuinely have different interpretations. Did the heckler sign a clearly outlined no-heckling agreement? Maybe to him his catcalls were just lively participation. Did the heckler agree to stake his coat to bond his performance? Did he agree to assign Trump as the sole arbiter of whether a violation occurred? Without all this in black and white, we can't arbitrarily decide that Trump taking his coat is justifiable. Eviction is the only remedy needing no agreements.
Nick BadalamentiJanuary 11, 2016 at 12:43 PMI've really never seen you explain your viewpoints on punishment for a crime(or in this case, a property rights violation) quite to this degree.
Going way back to your example a year or two ago, where argue a farmer should be able to shoot a child over stealing an apple from his orchard- I still have problems with how this would be considered "justice" if allowed to happen.(at least in our culture)
The acknowledgement that some crazy farmer might hold the value of an apple equal to that of a child doesn't violate the "subjective value theory", nor does stopping said farmer from executing the child.
You can acknowledge the fact the farmer values the apple higher than the child's life and still not allow him to kill the child.
The question is, is that itself a crime or re-victimization?
Bionic Mosquito has touched on "culture" (custom?) recently as a part of libertarian society over at his blog. I think this plays a role to some extent as it doesn't seem possible to codify all actions in society from a practical standpoint.
In your previous example of the apple, even if the farmer posted a sign saying "those stealing my apples will be killed if caught"- it would probably be hard in American society to do so given the culture here even if there wasn't a central government.
Now I'm not so sure in other cultures-some Muslim/Sharia law types for example(but I'm not an expert in that area), that type of justice might be welcomed.
I think of the old times or in some of those cultures in modern day where thieves get their arms cut off(which still isn't death), and it might be acceptable in their general society/culture(and I don't now what age the thief would start receiving such punishment in that culture).
I have to think on the whole topic some more. I always liked Lila Rajiva's answer back when you touched on this before in regard to "proportionality of justice" which I believe in some ways can be objectively answered even though you are correct that everyone has different values for different things-
But, to your point...said proportionality still has a subjective element and varies from both person to person and culture to culture.
I have to think on the topic more.
Rick FitzJanuary 11, 2016 at 9:03 PMI agree with BM- no culture would ever condone a property owner killing a child for stealing an apple.
The shooter would be ostracized and isolated. Unless he had massive wealth he would become an exile subsisting on his precious apples. Even if he possessed enormous wealth he would soon be relegated to small libertine and dangerous "towns" or confined to his own property. Few people are going to allow someone like that free passage, especially transport companies.
He would become the equivalent of El Chapo, a wealthy man fearing the bounty that would be placed on his head by the family via KickStarter. I would certainly donate a few bucks to fund the mercenaries that wanted to kill him, and I'm sure millions more would feel the same.
So, the guy that (rightly, under strict private property law) murdered the kid that stole his apple, would soon be the target of people who stood to benefit (since the person/s who killed him would claim all the money) and his "life insurance company" would radically raise his rates, eventually bankrupting him, and at least isolating him so throughly that he fears for his life daily.
Or so I've theorized.
In truth no culture would ever evolve to accept child murder as acceptable, even a purely private property Anarcho-Libertarian-Capitalist dyspeptic utopia like Rothbardia.
RW is just pushing buttons.
The property owner gets to make the rules for people who want to be guests. But when the guests break the rules, they become trespassers. The owner doesn't get to decide what the penalty is for trespassing.
The owner gets to eject the trespasser, but doesn't get to decide what law is regarding the penalty for trespassing. The penalty/law is decided by the market.
The owner can lie about what his subjective value is and therefore can justify $100,000 compensation, because the guest broke the rule of "no wearing red hats allowed", for example.
Perry MasonJanuary 11, 2016 at 1:13 PMDeath penalty rules, except in cases of self-defense, seem to me to be never justified as they will be grossly disproportionate.
Ad LibertatiJanuary 11, 2016 at 2:40 PMThe key point here is how any justice is actually administered. Absent the threat of physical violence, there is no justification for the use of physical violence by the property owner.