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.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

You think government invented

You think government invented war? Lol.

Anyway, you made a statement about why there would be no monopoly and gave zero evidence to actually support it. The OP shows why competing court jurisdictions within a geographic area cannot uphold NAP. NAP REQUIRES consent to adjudication. Virtally no one will consent to criminal adjudiction without the threat of force, which can only come voluntary via express or implied contractual relationships in an anarchy. Any dispute over which agency has jurisdiction means that one party is being aggressed against, violating NAP. To avoid violating NAP, commumities must estsblish a legal code and coirt system that is consented to by all that enter that community. Hoppe and Rothbard understood this as a given. It is strange that due process of law 8 so alien to so many anarchists that claim to want liberty.

Ventura 2012

You have a whole bunch of confused

Except for this:

You think government invented war?

Umm yes, I think that. Correct.

Who do you think invented it? Which war was it that wasn't waged be governments?

That you can even for a second consider disputing this fundamental reality is testament to how successfully people have been programmed.

As for the rest none of that is true. The NAP doesn't 'require' consent to adjudication. The NAP certainly doesn't 'require' non competing jurisdictions. That's absurd. In your head the NAP requires a monopoly?

Let me spell it out. If you are breaking into my house I do not require your consent to defend myself.

I don't require your consent to hire my bud to protect my property in my absence, or hire Wal-Secure to do so.

I also do not require your consent to hire Wal-Secure to protect me from theft in the form of taxation because you want me to pay to protect you in some hairbrained socialist security scheme.

See, you don't value due

See, you don't value due process at all if you think that the guy that you CLAIM violated your property rights or whatever doesn't deserves his day in court. If you drag him into a court of your choosing (if at all) then his NAP rights are violated where he does not consent to the court system that you subscribed to. Therefore there must be one court system that can lawfully attach consent to bother parties. Rothbard and Hoppe understood this. Its not complicated. Your can't just dumb everything down to Judge Dredd and claim to be libertarian.

This may shock you but anarchist tribes went to war all the time.

Ventura 2012

What anarchist 'tribes' went to war?

What's an anarchist 'tribe'? People living in teepees riding horses with black banners?

About the best we had was in the middle ages when princes and kings went to war with each other and left the people more or less in peace. They fought over who got to tax the people but they left the people out of it. It wasn't fair but so long as the taxes weren't oppressive at least people could plan their lives. Who they paid taxes too didn't matter much. And they didn't actually even kill each other much because without a printing press their wars were on a budget and mercenaries want a lot of cash if dying is a real risk.

If this is what we had today it would be swell. Let the rulers and their mercenaries kill each other and leave us out of it.

But the primary and glaring and insane thing you said:

See, you don't value due process at all if you think that the guy that you CLAIM violated your property rights or whatever doesn't deserves his day in court. If you drag him into a court of your choosing

Ok first off do I think he doesn't deserve his day in court or am I dragging him into court? Lol wtf?

Second.. what the hell do you think happens now?

Someone CLAIMS you violated their rights and hauls you off into court.

That's it bud. This is the world you live in. Welcome to socialized law.

I mean how does a persons brain get so fkuced? Seriously you are living in some kind fantasy land if you think otherwise.

Except it's not usually hauled into court for violating someone's rights, it hauled into court for failing to obey an order from your masters.

You didn't violate anyone's rights when you drank a beer in prohibition and you didn't violate anyone's rights when you smoke a joint and you don't violate anyone's rights when you don't pay your taxes and you don't violate anyone's rights when you build a shed on your property without asking the county for permission and you don't violate anyone's rights when you provide some product or service without a license or zoning permit.

And where's your due process under socialized law? NDAA much? Administrative hearing much? No knock raid much?

I'm a fan of due process, which is why I'm opposed to socialized law.

If you actually bothered to

If you actually bothered to study anarchy before adopting it as an ideology, you wouldn't need to ask me to explain to you what anarchist tribes were.

You think what I said is "insane" because you are utterly and irreparablly ignorant of legal principles. Part of the validity of a court is jurisdiction. Dragging you into a court that I pay for regardless of jurisdiction (to the NAP_HEAD, "CONSENT") is not giving someone their day in court.

Secondly your argument that the current system is like anarchy is puzzling. What's the relevance? We are not promoting anarchy, you are. We are just pointing out the realities of it.My brain is "fvxkd" though, lol. You uneducated twat.

Attacking the current travesties is a base strawman and a misdirecition. I wonderror if you are here just to.argue.

Ventura 2012

Right. The only valid

Right. The only valid principle of justice, on NAP, would be a generous interpretation of 'self defense' that makes it legitimate to capture and try someone for being on private property. This avoids the consensus issue, but it opens the new issue that any individual can arrest and try any other for trespassing. Both would fit the description self defense, if trespassing is considered to be aggression. The person could actually just summarily execute or imprison, the trial would just the optional prerogative of the owner or else a show trial. It wouldn't establish any legitimacy on NAP, since a consensus or democratic vote does not endow a decision with legitimacy on NAP.

This Judge Dredd system necessarily follows

based on the ill-thought out claims of the anarchists on this site with their "competition in courts and defense agencies" claptrap. Most of the more serious anarchist thinkers posit city-state models like we laid out as necessary to anarcho-"capitalism".

I don't think the anarchists have really thought about the market value of due process of law in a society, and whether any shreds of it would exist in an ancap system. Would people really want jury trials and could the indigent actually afford it?

To the Founders, due process was a fundamental human right.

Ventura 2012

While editing my comment

I got 403'd, but I did want to salvage one point I was adding.

The validity of arrest and punishment, on NAP, relies exclusively on the concept of trespassing as aggression. By acknowleding one's property as legitimate, it can be called self defense to eject or punish someone violating it.

This brings into question of how any "property" definition can be legitimized except on the basis of group consent and verdict.

This leaves the NAP adherent or anarchist essentially without any possibility of retributive justice, since he can't stablish even his right to defend property except on the basis of group consensus.

He is left therefore only with direct, active self defense of his body and the area around him. Anything beyond that relies on group consensus to declare it legitimate.

He has no reactive or retributive justice option open to him that doesn't violate NAP. He can't arrest someone on suspicion, he can't establish the validity of his property claims except by violating NAP.

He is left only with active bodily self defense, like other animals, and social shunning, but no arrest or trial, even on private property.

If you think it over, you'll see why even on private property the arrest and trial violates NAP, because NAP cannot by itself establish its own property theory. The property theory that gets injected into NAP, as included in 'self defense,' has to be established or legitimized externally from NAP. This would then restore the validity of the group consensus on what is rightful or just property.


There would have to be a contract to form(legislate) and interpret(courts) a "legal code" of some kind that applies to all people and property within the jurisdiction of the contracted-for court system monopoly :p

Ventura 2012

"Arrest - seizing a person

"Arrest - seizing a person suspected or accused of a crime against his will and holding him captive."
Good point, as are the other ones you made. For the most part, Ancaps do not have a real plan for justice. I was told by one that all criminal cases should be treated as civil cases. Along with all parties contracting with a private judge, etc. If I was accused of a crime, I would get one of my buddies to start a private court.


Got me thinking...



Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Is this post

the death knell for NAP as a serious concept?

Not yet

Although Jan Helfeld already disproved the universality(though not desirability) of the principle. It is, however, the death knell for the idea that there would be no monopolies on judicial functions in an anarchist society.

Ventura 2012

I think

I've successfully reduced NAP as an internally self consistent principle to acts of bodily self defense, and social shunning.

It can't legitimize property, contract, arrest, trial or verdict. All of these rely on group consensus as a valid basis for denying liberty to an individual or punishing them.

If this validity is granted, then it establishes the validity as such of group consensus as a basis for denying others liberty or inflicting harm on them.

Twelve may be sufficient for criminal trial, while one hundred, or some percent majority, would be sufficient for something more drastic like quarantine, or draft.

But once the principle is established that group consensus is a valid basis for violating the liberty of an individual outside of self defense, then the cat is out of the bag and can't be put back in. The principle is either valid, as such or not.

If it is not, then NAP is reduced to bodily self defense and shunning/boycott.

This does not sound the death knell for NAP, for those few who are willing to accept this diminished version of NAP, like Seamusin or maybe Micah, but it is dead as a serious political concept once it is clear it cannot validate property, contract, arrest, trial or verdict.