1 vote

Does it violate NAP?

Arrest - seizing a person suspected or accused of a crime against his will and holding him captive.

Jury trial - How can the democratic vote or consensus of random people justify the inflicting of loss of liberty on a person?

Would NAP conforming security agencies be permitted to arrest and hold suspects for trial?

Arrest and trial are not self defense. In essence, a person is kidnapped and imprisoned on suspicion, pending a decision by some other people.

The principle of convincing some arbitrary number of people, beyond their subjective reasonable doubt, of the victim's guilt, is essentially a democratic principle. The principle assumes it is valid for one group of people to deny liberty or life to another person, and decide their fate, on the basis of a group consensus.

The punishment inflicted on the accused by the tribunal, to which he never consented to be subjected, is aggression. It is violence and coercion which is not in self defense. It works on the principle that twelve against one (the jury against the accused) is a sufficient ratio to override the rights of the accused.

Why twelve, instead of two, instead of two hundred?

Nothing in the arrest or trial of a suspect can be construed as self defense. It is, rather, the claim to jurisdiction over another person merely on suspicion and accusation, and the claim of a right to inflict harm or loss of liberty on that person, on the basis of what twelve random strangers think.

This applies equally to any security agency that a person has not voluntarily contracted to consent to. It too would be committing aggression in the process of arrest, trial and punishment.

It would seem to me that arrest on suspicion or accusation, as well as trial by any court to which the individual did not willingly subject himself by contract, would constitute aggression. This is so whether carried out by a security agency or by a publicly funded court, and so would violate NAP.

Furthermore, a person can always deny that they contracted to any such subjection (or to any contract, in fact). A contract based on signature is just a scrap of paper. If the alleged signer disputes it, that too must go before judgment, before a panel or tribunal of some sort, for a verdict.

The person is then essentially accused of breaking a contract, and so that accusation in turn is itself subject to a decision, necessarily by third parties.

This tribunal, or arbitration, suffers from all the problems described above for general trial where no contractual consent is claimed to have been granted.

On what grounds can one person, or group of people, override the claim of another person that they never agreed to a contract?

On what grounds can they then forcibly hold them to terms which they claim they never consented to?

It seems that any arrest or trial of another person inherently violates NAP, as all depend on validating aggression on the basis of some arbitrary consensus of other people, whether twelve or some other number.

Can a democratic principle of consensus ever nullify a person's right to be free of aggression?

If not, then all arrests and trials are invalid on NAP.

If it can, then that means the principle of consensus or democratic judgment is valid, as such.

If its valid for a group to decide the fate of an individual, this establishes the whole principle behind coercive government.

Pick your poison.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about? I simply pointed out your post makes the assumption a system of retribution "justice" is necessary and therefor there's a conflict with the NAP when, in fact, your original assumption is wrong and therefor this is no conflict. I answered every one of those questions with my response. What part did you not comprehend? You don't even define the logical fallacies correctly, you're just throwing out the names of a few randomly and hoping no one will notice you don't have a clue what you're talking about!

You're so desperately trying to hold on to your statist security blanket you reach new lows with every post. Keep it coming, I like shooting fish in a barrel sometimes so I can practice for the Huffington Post comments section.

Keep on trolling!

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

So there is retribution justice

just not a system of retribution justice?

My post never said that

a system of retributive justice is necessary. Quote it if it did!

It merely said such things are inconsistent with NAP.

The jury trial thing is a

The jury trial thing is a good point. We often say here that "there is no such thing as a positive right". Well, a jury trial most certainly IS a positive right. If somebody is arrested, and they are tried without a jury, then their rights have been violated.

What if no one wants to serve

What if no one wants to serve on the jury? If it's a "right" then it's justifiable to use force and violence to make people serve on the jury....and that's exactly what we do in Bill3's beloved system of "justice."

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

I agree, the right to a jury

I agree, the right to a jury trial is incompatible with a strict reading of the NAP. I think that's Bill's point too.

I already explained above why

I already explained above why it's a red herring because there's no need for trials and system of government revenge to begin with.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

No trials? Is this what you

No trials? Is this what you anarchists have been reduced to?

Ventura 2012

Did you read my post above?

Did you read my post above? Respond to that if you have any intellectual honesty.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Yes, why did you say no need

Yes, why did you say no need for trials? How else would you be able to discern truth in conflict?

Ventura 2012

Respond to my post above with

Respond to my post above (the I hate feeding the troll one) with a specific criticism then. What's the problem? What are you trying to avoid?

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

I'm trying to avoid coming

I'm trying to avoid coming to terms with how naive you are about how human society functions and has always functioned, even in anarchist systems.

I mean you said this: " Libertarians, the real ones at least, should understand that a system of punishment for retribution's sake by force and violence is wrong."

Do you deny the need for law?

What if the system is designed for deterrence, restitution and rehabilitation too?

Ventura 2012

What if pigs fly? Our system

What if pigs fly? Our system is sold on the basis of deterrence and rehabilitation and it does neither. Murderers murder despite it being illegal and prison only makes people more likely to re-offend when they learn how to be better criminals and can't get real jobs after a prison term. Fines? They almost never go to the victim, they go to the state.

Naivete is believing you'll be the magic person to design a system that will accomplish these goals and won't ultimately be corrupt and create more injustice by many orders of magnitude than those it pretends to address. You know, like what we have today. You're reaction is the knee-jerk reaction the state counts on; that people will sell out their liberty because of their primal need for revenge and a desire for "safety" above all else.

Even restitution to victims sounds noble, but it doesn't work in reality and simply creates moral hazard. Who, but the most naive person, will rely on a system of restitution to make sure their families are safe? Take getting killed in a car accident where another driver is at fault. Are you really counting on that other person to make your family whole again in the event that happens, or have you done the wise thing and insured yourself and family against the possibility of such a loss?

In the absence of the state and the moral hazard it creates people will protect themselves both physically and through insurance, contracts, escrow, and arbitration agreements. Those who won't enter into these agreements and protections with you, you shouldn't do business and if you do, you accept the risks. Those who won't provide their own security against violence have no right to then use violence against me to force me to pay for their security. Those with the means can pay to farm out their security to others if they like.

Yes, bad people will still do bad things just as they do today. The difference is we won't end up doing worse things in the name of stopping the impossible.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Oink!

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Ok, but the arbitrators will

Ok, but the arbitrators will be putting on trials right? They will hear evidence and come to a binding decision, correct?

Ventura 2012

I'm trying to avoid coming

I'm trying to avoid coming to terms with how naive you are about how human society functions and has always functioned, even in anarchist systems.

Do you deny the need for law?

Ventura 2012

Dirt NAP

for those who violate the NAP.

I'm a fan of the G-MAP. Gangsta Minimal Aggression Principle. See below.

Q: Can it be solved without violence?
Y: Solve it without violence.
N: Bust my Tec-9. If you try to wreck mine, fool, it's your bed-time.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com

Also author of Stick it to the Man!

http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Man-Richard-Moyer/dp/1484036417

I will state in this post as

I will state in this post as in your other identical post that you are still confused about what NAP is. It is the simple principle that I will never initiate force. If you harm me then I am allowed to what is needed to stop you and/or hold you accountable. (Some would say I am allowed to use minimum force necessary to do this and I would partially agree only in the sense of holding you accountable after the fact.)

In fact I would go as far as say that this post has nothing to do with NAP and the real question is the validity of our court systems.

If I harm someone then I am to be held accountable for my actions, regardless if it is while I am committing the crime by being shot or after by a trial. I agree that having a jury determine weather or not someone is guilty is not ideal, especially in today's corrupt court systems where they are lied to even by the judges. (as it is said often here instead of complaining how about proposing a possible solution or better alternative.) But that is why we have appeal systems, evidence, and laws against jury tampering. Also to be found guilty there should be no reasonable doubt. Now we could debate all day on what a reasonable doubt consist of, but I think most can agree it was to eliminate false accusations and circumstantial evidence.

I believe that if we fixed the court system and educate the population most of the problems would be eliminated. Starting with calling out the lawyers who pick and choose the jury based on biases each one has rather than having a random selection. Call it what it is and charge them for it, jury tampering. Next make it a crime for the judges to lie to jury (Wait isn't there something about lying under oath and jury tampering there already?)

I however feel that the jury should only be there to determine the guilt of the accused not the punishment. I think the punishment should be left only to the victim (or in case of murder closest relative). Since it is only the victim that truly knows the damage done by the criminal. Some may feel it is best to impose maximum limits, possibly based on the type of crime, similar to how our court system has now.(from my understanding of indentured slaves there was a 7 year maximum)
That could be debated at a later time, but the way I view it is a criminal forces the victim into a contract. Since it is by force, the original contract (lets say it was I get punched in the face and the criminal gets my wallet) is invalid. Now my wallet could be returned but you could never un-punch me, therefore as the victim I am the only one with the authority to renegotiate that contract and list a payment for it. Therefore as the victim I am the only one who can determine the punishment for the crime.

Yes, it is not ideal and a few decide the fate of many, but the only other solution I see is to shoot everyone for every minor crime during the act, or let them free.

Now assume I was arrested and it turns out I was innocent. This now invalidates the arrest and is in violation of NAP, since I never aggressed anyone first. If you think of how our court systems were setup, there is something in there to handle this already (when it works). This would be an unlawful arrest and I could then sue for compensation for it. Again in our failed court system it would probably cost most people more time and money than its worth to do this, but in proper system I should be compensated for all damages including expenses inccured to recoup those damages. But regardless the basis for seeking compensation is there.

This is why police are required to have an arrest warrant unless they reason to believe the person is in the act of commiting a crime or is about to commit a crime. In the case of the officer deciding to arrest soemone without a warrant it should be the officer (and possibly the department depending on trained procedures) that faces the consequences in an unlawful arrest case. If it is by an arrest warrant then it is the judge that signed the warrant.

Now of course the court system would pay out from taxpayer money and they get away free, but we are not in a very functional 'justice' system. If it were a free society the private police and security firm would bear the cost from profits, or have to pass it on to its customers who then may switch firms.

So now a question and suggestion directly to you Bill, since you like asking about NAP so much. First I would highly suggest reading more on NAP and its core principal.
Second, as I mentioned before it is commonly said on DP, if you are going to complain propose a solution. (I was always a huge fan of A Modest Proposal when I read it back in grade school) I am not saying you are directly complaining, you could be just trying to learn in which I encourage and hope you are taking something from these threads you spawn off.
So what is your solution? If you have a problem with NAP what would you propose as a modification to it? Or if you wish, what would your alternative be? While it is great that we hear from DPers discussing the points you make, I want to hear from the person who is bringing up the issues. You are welcome to pm me directly if you prefer to discuss your views in private, but I am sure many others here would like to hear them as well.

The posts are hardly identical

concerning completely different questions; one of legitimate functions of a legal or justice system, on NAP. The other, of the legitimacy of tactics in war that violate NAP.

In any case, you state I don't understand NAP. Could you quote me where you think I misunderstand it, or explain how? I think I understand it quite well.

Honestly, is it any value to the discussion just to say I don't understand it, but not specify how?

I feel my post was super crystal clear. Arresting someone on suspicion or accusation is obviously aggressive, since they're presumed innocent. Trial and imprisonment are majority or consensus decisions to violate someone's rights.

These are obviously aggressive actions against the accused party and are not self defense. They initiate force against the accused person.

If I came up to you on the street and tried to arrest you and old you captive for a trial of 12 people I selected, would you claim this is valid?

Pionts of contention

"Now of course the court system would pay out from taxpayer money and they get away free, but we are not in a very functional 'justice' system. If it were a free society the private police and security firm would bear the cost from profits, or have to pass it on to its customers who then may switch firms."

People hired to work in defense of people (or government workers) are insured, or bonded, so as to have the FUNDS needed to pay damages from crimes perpetrated under the color of law.

If that is not understood, understandable, beyond a reasonable doubt, then all these other words of moral principle is bound to be confusing.

Government (free market or NAP driven) can be easily understood as competitive insurance against harm by those who are driven by the opposite (AP) principle.

So the confusion ends up as a claim made by the AP guys where they say that taxes (investments in free markets) are involuntary (extortion payments in English = without the falsehood) and there is no other solution.

The AP guys offer the final solution. It is always the same final solution.

Obey

Joe

I am not following your point

I am not following your point here.

Yes some government employees are required to be insured/bonded. Others aren't.

How can you justify a forced tax in a free market? (are you even trying to claim they are needed?)
If I choose to pay someone such as police and investigators to handle disputes then that is fine. But forcing me to violates my freedom. If I live off in the country where I know my neighbors and never see strangers maybe I would choose to handle my own problems or pay a premium for someone to handle it after the fact. (Think of it as you would buying insurance, except the government has a forced monopoly on the policing business)

To be clear?

These words were published and then quoted by me:

"Now of course the court system would pay out from taxpayer money and they get away free, but we are not in a very functional 'justice' system. If it were a free society the private police and security firm would bear the cost from profits, or have to pass it on to its customers who then may switch firms."

What does the following words mean?

"...taxpayer money..."

What is the meaning of "...of course the court system would pay out from taxpayer money..."?

If you are speaking about a fraudulent version of money, as in "...taxpayer money...," and an extortion racket falsely called tax, as in "...taxpayer money...," then those words you wrote and I quote are not clear, they are false, or they are clear, or they are false, or they are clear, and you can explain what you mean with the words you choose, and you can follow, or not follow, the point you raise with your words.

Your words appear to be references made to a concept known as insurance, or bonding, as my words intended to offer, but forget about me, and the confusion of my words, and perhaps instead there can be words from another source used instead of my words here:

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm

"When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists."

That may not focus upon the point of bonding.

I can try to be more specific to your latest words:

"When a state, by and through its officials and

agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists.

You wrote:
________________________
I am not following your point here.

Yes some government employees are required to be insured/bonded. Others aren't.
________________________

If someone is not bonded then someone is personally responsible for paying the costs of their injuries that they do to the victims they personally injure.

Is that understandable?

If someone is working for public trust, public defense, public interest, public security, public benefit, and they personally cause injury to anyone (any individual member of the public), they are individually responsible for paying damages to those who are injured by that individual who is working for everyone in the public.

Is that understandable?

What happens if the injury done to those who are injured is an amount of injury that is well beyond the capacity of the individual who has caused the injury for that individual to pay for that injury done to those who are injured?

__________________________________
Principle--Ignorance of the law is not an allowable excuse for a law enforcement officer to use when exercising the power to enforce the law.

An officer must know and understand all of the processes which must be bonded before he can act on an execution of judgment.

An officer, although presumably acting in his official capacity, has no commercial escape or grace through a bonding company when the statute he enforces is not bonded against accidental misuse. When an officer commits an accidental misuse of his office or of a statute, or accidentally acts on an unbonded statute, the bonding company will pay on the bond only to the extent of a reasonable degree of error or accident; but nothing in the agreement between the bonding company and the bonded party shall be construed to free the official or officer from investigating and knowing whether or not his own actions or the statute acted upon or enforced were adequately bonded; and whatever portion of the damage claim remains after the bonding company has paid its reasonable obligation to the bonded party, shall be paid out of the assets of the municipal corporation and/or out of the real and personal property of the official or officer who misacted.
______________________________________________

Who pays?

You wrote:
"How can you justify a forced tax in a free market? (are you even trying to claim they are needed?)"

I do no such thing.

You wrote:
"If I choose to pay someone such as police and investigators to handle disputes then that is fine. But forcing me to violates my freedom. If I live off in the country where I know my neighbors and never see strangers maybe I would choose to handle my own problems or pay a premium for someone to handle it after the fact. (Think of it as you would buying insurance, except the government has a forced monopoly on the policing business)"

Your words indicate that you did not read my words. If that is true then it is not likely that you will read my words here either. I read your words.

Your words appeared to suggest that you know something about bonding.

The link offered to you is a link on the subject of bonding.

If you don't read my words, then perhaps you will read the words in the link, and then your words that look like you know something about bonding can be clearly expressed as words that inform the reader about bonding.

Again:

"Now of course the court system would pay out from taxpayer money and they get away free, but we are not in a very functional 'justice' system. If it were a free society the private police and security firm would bear the cost from profits, or have to pass it on to its customers who then may switch firms."

Bonding funds are collected from a source through a process.

You can call the process capitalism.

You can call the process free market capitalism.

The funds (power to purchase) flows from a place where those funds were produced into a bonding fund.

If you can, a challenge to you, if you will, report a source of funds that are then collected into a bond whereby this bond is then used as your words indicate.

Here:

"Now of course the court system would pay out from taxpayer money and they get away free, but we are not in a very functional 'justice' system. If it were a free society the private police and security firm would bear the cost from profits, or have to pass it on to its customers who then may switch firms."

Your words speak of "...bear the cost...," and therefore the challenge offered back to you, to be clear, is for you to explain who pays into this thing you call "...bear the cost..," and then we can see if you are speaking about bonding.

If you are not speaking about bonding, then are you speaking about something imaginary?

Joe

First off I will assume

First off I will assume english is not your first language. If it is then clearly you are saying specific words and phrases because of their legal context.

I am fairly new at the legalease speak used by the court systems but follow a few things you mention.

when I mention the court system paying out from taxpayer money, I am speaking of the money that is taken from workers checks or taken when purchasing money at a business. Whether it is an extortion or not is for another discussion.
The court/county/state is allocated some of this money to operate. If for some reason the court is required to pay a large some of money to settle a claim that money would come out of this pool (or from money collected by highway extortion).

Some government workers such as police may be required to have a form of insurance for such instances. Similar to a doctor having insurance for malpractice. I will not get into the discussion of insurance vs bonding because I only vaguely educated enough know there is a difference let alone debate on it.

As for the process I am referring to where an injured party seeks compensation for damages, whether it be against the government or an individual, this would be to seek remedy.

And while yes ignorance is no excuse, and officers should be held personally accountable for their actions, as the system stands right now they rarely do. Instead their department claims they were following procedures and pays for any damages out of taxpayer money rather than firing the cop and holding him accountable.

Whether or not that is the case doesn't matter now. I am not going to try and follow your if yes then no, if no then yes, if yes then no talk further. I was not trying to put my words in legalease speak, nor was I agreeing with or dismissing some of the practices mentioned such as taxpayer money. I was simply addressing the NAP issue and how Bill's points seem to deal more with the judicial system itself.

Language is not the problem?

"I will not get into the discussion of insurance vs bonding because I only vaguely educated enough know there is a difference let alone debate on it."

Your word choices appear as contradictions to me. Above is an example of your word choices indicating that you don't know the subject matter that previous word choices of yours suggest that you do know the subject matter; hence (perhaps) your assumption that English "is not your first language."

"If it is then clearly you are saying specific words and phrases because of their legal context."

How can I possibly trust in a common understanding of any words you choose?

Joe

BILL3 said...

"The NAP most certainly does preclude violence outside of self defense. That is, after all, it's definition. Non, aggression. Aggression is the use of force outside of self defense."

My response to this in a comment way down below:

"Etymology time...

A private DEFENSE agency in a free society arresting an initiator of violence IS a defense against the violence of the aggressor.

A private court in a free society assembling a jury trial to determine what measures need to be taken to prevent the aggressor from committing future aggression IS a defense against future aggression.

defense (n.) - c.1300, "forbidding, prohibition," also "action of guarding or protecting," from Old French defense, from Latin defensus, past participle of defendere "ward off, protect"

Summary: "defense" = "forbidding, action of guarding or protecting, ward off"

The NAP does not forbid individuals or free societies through private agencies from defending (guard, protect. ward off) themselves or others against initiators of violence. Therefore the NAP does not forbid arrests or jury trials in response to the the initiation of violence (aggression)"

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Who decides what defense is

Who decides what defense is and who the aggressor is? These things need to be adjudicated. Adjudication in a court that one party did not consent to is coercion and violates NAP. This is why there must be pre-consent in every case IF one is to have NAP UBER ALLES. I think you missed Bill's point.

Ventura 2012

So by your statement 'These

So by your statement 'These things need to be adjudicated. Adjudication in a court that one party did not consent to is coercion and violates NAP.'

I could commit a crime, say burn someones house down, in broad daylight with 50 witnesses, and as long as I don't consent to Adjudicate then I can walk free?
NAP allows for holding someones actions accountable after the fact. I am not the aggressor for seeking justice against someone, given I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Please see my response to the article directly above the one you responded to.

In the current system, the

In the current system, the man you mentioned would get A) a trial by jury, an attorney, and other due process, including B) the right to be tried only by a court in which he consented to jurisdiction(impliedly, by his presence within or actions affecting it.)

Now, which due process right is it that you wish to deny this man?

Ventura 2012

You were

so excited about this comment you posted twice. Sadly, it was so weak.

A private DEFENSE agency group of people in a free society [what does this undefined interjection have to do with the statement, its meaningless] arresting forcing an initiator of violence an accused person not committing any violence at the time when he is forcefully kidnapped IS a defense against the violence of the aggressor. is not defense, but force against a presumably innocent individual.

A private court in a free society group of people assembling a jury trial another group of people to determine what measures need to be taken to prevent the aggressor from committing future aggression hold a person captive while deciding whether his accuser is lying or telling the truth IS a defense against future aggression aggression against a presumably innocent person, followed by the denial of that persons liberty on the basis of the democratic consensus of an arbitrary group of people, acting as judges, with the right to deny others liberty, not in self defense.

...

The NAP does not forbid individuals or free societies through private agencies groups of people from defending (guard, protect. ward off) themselves or others against initiators of violence.

--

This last paragraph has nothing to do with the earlier ones, since it is about guarding or self defense, not about arrests and trials, which are aggression as defined by NAP.

See my response here...