tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post666635437317368933..comments2024-01-13T07:38:36.064-05:00Comments on Target Liberty: Additional Comments on Penalties for Violators of the Non-Aggression Principle Robert Wenzelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14296920597416905488noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-91486948452923496552016-01-17T23:23:24.272-05:002016-01-17T23:23:24.272-05:00When your theory starts producing absurd results, ...When your theory starts producing absurd results, it's time to adjust the theory or at least accept its current limitations, instead of redefining basic morality to fit the theory.<br /><br />Robert has ignored some basic critiques in this thread, and asserts, without justification, that some things "just wouldn't happen". Well, it happens all the time. People are not perfect,Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08340471191018052788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-68410100034231625192016-01-17T20:28:17.943-05:002016-01-17T20:28:17.943-05:00Great thread. Having been around and around the h...Great thread. Having been around and around the hamster wheel with Rothbardian anarchism and found it lacking vs. Ron Paul style minarchism, the following were the highlights for me: <br /><br />Matt@ "This theoretical libertarianism is mere LARPing and is why people are calling libertarians 'autistic'." I had to look that acronym up. Live Action Role Playing, as in playing Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-90435871043908057922016-01-17T17:24:06.149-05:002016-01-17T17:24:06.149-05:00This stateless society thing is just LARPing. Most...This stateless society thing is just LARPing. Most people are biological statists. Libertarianism will always be a minority persuasion because of that. Even the "defense agencies" and "private arbitrators" described here are mere state stand-ins, pseudo state entities with the mere fig leaf that it is a private entity operating with the consent of the people under its Matt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-70941129779914485942016-01-17T17:17:46.462-05:002016-01-17T17:17:46.462-05:00Contrary to what some have suggested, Rothbard sup...Contrary to what some have suggested, Rothbard supported proportionality:<br />https://mises.org/library/punishment-and-proportionality-0<br /><br />Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18259730262288807964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-65673441469047181822016-01-17T17:15:44.880-05:002016-01-17T17:15:44.880-05:00>> Spencer Fan, you assume the use of force ...>> Spencer Fan, you assume the use of force is the only way to divide up land?<br /><br />No, I didn't say "force is required to divide up land." Force isn't needed to do anything except, if necessary, to resolve violent conflict over who has the rightful claim to the land. Wishing away the state doesn't magically make humans become peaceful, non-violent, good-faith Spencer Fanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18403526865526817137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-85021080472716712902016-01-17T15:27:50.001-05:002016-01-17T15:27:50.001-05:00Spencer Fan, you assume the use of force is the on...Spencer Fan, you assume the use of force is the only way to divide up land? Why does it take the use of force for people to have a judge, lawyers and police? Does you boss at work not have authority over you? <br /><br />Authority can be voluntary. Two people have a land dispute, they both agree to take their case to a company that provides arbitration services. If that company is corrupt it wonttheageofnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16684732649465149601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-71030420826946741902016-01-17T14:42:58.266-05:002016-01-17T14:42:58.266-05:00@Matt,
I agree with you RW is wrong about the leg...@Matt,<br /><br />I agree with you RW is wrong about the legitimacy of a land owner in appointing himself judge, jury, and executioner of guests. Mutually agreed to terms of visitation must be negotiated in advance between both land owners and body owners. But I think RW is 100% right on all the rest. There is zero way to try to justify a state here.<br /><br />Not only parents, but their Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-19308278816693886242016-01-17T12:22:14.498-05:002016-01-17T12:22:14.498-05:00RW, the PPS assumes the state begging the question...RW, the PPS assumes the state begging the question "how are land claims adjudicated?" At this point, Rothbardians respond basically with "it'll just work out in the wash" accompanied by a lot of hand-waving.<br /><br />Property in land requires a standardized universal system of title (deeds with meets and bounds) and there has to be some system of courts to resolve Spencer Fanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18403526865526817137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-39070760003619274982016-01-17T08:39:16.444-05:002016-01-17T08:39:16.444-05:00@Matt@Occidentalism.org
The distortion comes in w...@Matt@Occidentalism.org<br /><br />The distortion comes in when you attempt to suggest that child molestation would occur in a private property society, when you fail to acknowledge that I make perfectly clear in my post that absurd outcomes wouldn't develop not even businessmen paying workers one cent a day, never mind child molestation.<br /><br />The point is that in a Private Property Robert Wenzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296920597416905488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-34451361163016586552016-01-17T01:39:02.447-05:002016-01-17T01:39:02.447-05:00@Matt - I think on this issue, RW is going "f...@Matt - I think on this issue, RW is going "full Rothbard." And you NEVER want to go full Rothbard! ;)<br /><br />>> So a farmer can kill a child for stealing an apple under libertarianism.<br /><br />No. Because in the libertarian state, there are police, courts and system of justice that uphold libertarian principles like the NAP. Right of property in Libertopia would be under Spencer Fanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18403526865526817137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-22821242849110728422016-01-16T23:58:13.316-05:002016-01-16T23:58:13.316-05:00I am not trying to distort anything you are saying...I am not trying to distort anything you are saying. You are saying that people will have to be alert at all times, and probably be armed to the teeth as well. Also you are engaging in the 'perfect information' fallacy. The activities of this farmer might well be unknown to others. Parents wouldn't know and the default position would have to be trust no one and perhaps shoot first ask Matt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-33275253845239775952016-01-16T23:41:42.297-05:002016-01-16T23:41:42.297-05:00You are entirely missing the point. Parents are no...You are entirely missing the point. Parents are not going to let their children near such a farmer anymore than they would let a child wander the streets of Tijuana alone or in any major city.<br /><br />Do you see three year olds wandering the streets alone anywhere? Can't you think two steps into the way things will develop instead of distorting what I am trying to point out?Robert Wenzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296920597416905488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-80786232515083751292016-01-16T23:24:14.378-05:002016-01-16T23:24:14.378-05:00So a farmer can kill a child for stealing an apple...So a farmer can kill a child for stealing an apple under libertarianism. What if the farmer would rather have sex with the child? In principle that is fine because under libertarianism the victim would determine the penalty, right?<br /><br />I am starting to think that a lot of libertarians are my enemies. Worse than statists in many instances.Matt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-25467866090652694252016-01-16T13:40:15.215-05:002016-01-16T13:40:15.215-05:00The inevitable result would be the destruction of ...The inevitable result would be the destruction of civil society. The reasons for this are simple enough. If someone doles out a punishment that others deem disproportionate, then there are two likely outcomes. Either<br /><br />1) They will take the property owner to court. The judge or jury will, having thought that the punishment was disproportionate, ignore the evidence and convict the Ad Libertatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13565375241577900448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-8789179392775022482016-01-16T13:22:16.564-05:002016-01-16T13:22:16.564-05:00As I think about this more, I keep returning to a ...As I think about this more, I keep returning to a couple of thoughts:<br /><br />1) When does "penalty" cross the line into "initiation of aggression"? Libertarian theory does not hold an answer to this question, to my understanding; we even cannot settle on a definitive line regarding what "aggression" is in the first place (not that I find it necessary to do so).<bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-71326744504482564982016-01-16T12:34:46.838-05:002016-01-16T12:34:46.838-05:00"But there is no objective measure of proport..."But there is no objective measure of proportionality and that is the problem. "<br /><br />Well, I'm offering that replacing the apple is objectively proportional.<br /><br />I didn't realize "proportionality" was thought out to the degree you just mentioned as a philosophy, I was speaking generically using the them.<br /><br />Writing extemporaneously, I suppose any Nick Badalamentihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14015961786370759940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-29506700223121860482016-01-16T12:02:38.681-05:002016-01-16T12:02:38.681-05:00No, there isn't a problem. What you have here ...No, there isn't a problem. What you have here is a solution looking for a problem. Various cultures over centuries have reached a cultural consensus about what kinds of crimes receive what punishment. For the crime of theft, the middle eastern Muslims remove the hand. We handle it differently but both are culturally appropriate and have the consent of the people living under these norms. <br Matt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-24583134855932282542016-01-16T11:06:48.060-05:002016-01-16T11:06:48.060-05:00Proportionality advocates don't mean a return ...Proportionality advocates don't mean a return to an earlier state. That is, if A is stolen then return A. They mean a "proportional" penalty plus A. Taking a candy away from a child in addition to returning an apple would be viewed be many as proportional as opposed to killing the child. But there is no objective measure of proportionality and that is the problem. Robert Wenzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296920597416905488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-86919728048507680352016-01-16T10:39:07.588-05:002016-01-16T10:39:07.588-05:00I really like your response, thank you for it.I really like your response, thank you for it.Nick Badalamentihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14015961786370759940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-75235435736707489412016-01-16T10:36:07.621-05:002016-01-16T10:36:07.621-05:00"But based on what theory? There is just no w..."But based on what theory? There is just no way to determine another person's value scale. That is fundamental. Others may view the farmer's value scale as wrong from some perspective but it can not be said that he doesn't hold it. On what basis can you override the rules on his property?"<br /><br />Well, you touched on it- "proportionality". Setting aside BlockNick Badalamentihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14015961786370759940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-91444343539014012202016-01-16T08:52:10.303-05:002016-01-16T08:52:10.303-05:00Exactly. Yet the reverse is true as well. That i...Exactly. Yet the reverse is true as well. That is, the offender should not be able to unilaterally determine what constitutes fair compensation to the victim. Nor should some meddling outside group of people claiming they possess an "objective view" of what penalties are just. RW very insightfully points out this is impossible according to the subjective theory of value. [Would Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-38308202204545420272016-01-16T00:11:25.211-05:002016-01-16T00:11:25.211-05:00Why would there not be private, impartial business...Why would there not be private, impartial businesses that judge disputes? Private police that communities pay to enforce laws. Jails/work camps to punish aggressors based on the victims preference (so far as he is a consumer of the service).<br /><br />It's almost as if you guys are thinking bounty hunters, police, courts, judges, lawyers and jails would not exist in a free society. There theageofnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16684732649465149601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-45604390923120225562016-01-15T23:43:27.014-05:002016-01-15T23:43:27.014-05:00"You guys sound like a couple of central plan..."You guys sound like a couple of central planners determining penalties. This violates the fundamental Austrian principle of subjective value..."<br /><br />And so does the legal concept of "property." How is property defined in civil society if not by some universal, uniform, objective legal standard? Or is property determined by subjective value? Where does that lead? Not toSpencer Fanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18403526865526817137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-78529739157335296842016-01-15T23:24:27.829-05:002016-01-15T23:24:27.829-05:00Robert, would a child who steals and eats an apple...Robert, would a child who steals and eats an apple be subject to the death penalty, if the farmer who owned the apple desires it? The child is not on his property anymore, but he did steal and irretrievably damage the farmer's property. After all, subjective value means the farmer could have valued that apple immensely - who is anyone else to judge the value? <br /><br />If that's Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08340471191018052788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2890852736639676808.post-50159041474713963922016-01-15T22:10:25.054-05:002016-01-15T22:10:25.054-05:00"...if there are no previously stipulated pen..."...if there are no previously stipulated penalties, the property owner should determine penalties on his property"<br /><br />Unilaterally? This is deeply problematic. A religious extremist could insist on beheading or enslavement for merely glancing at a married woman while on his property. To him, legitimate. To the guest, unacceptable and insane. But would a libertarian have toAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com