-6 votes

Who is guilty on NAP?

Sue claims Bob raped her and stabs Bob in revenge.

Is Sue guilty or innocent?

Jones thinks Sue lied and is guilty, so hits Sue with a shovel to avenge Bob.

Fred, Bob's nephew, feels that Jones murdered Bob, and goes up behind Jones with a Trident and before he lets the tri-pronged instrument sink in...

Elvis shoots him in the back, to defend Jones from aggression.

Mark, Lou and Zerububbel Form a three person drumhead court to judge Elvis, who they captured holed up in an abandoned icecream truck outisde of Reno. They string him up from the nearest neon sign, and depart to their homes.

A rogue branch of the salvation army that dishes out hard justice decides this three person court was a mere lynch mob and hunts each of its parties down on bounty from the family of Elvis.

The family of Elvis and this rogue unit of the salvation army are deemed terrorists by the politician/warlord General Butt Naked, who convenes a task force to capture them for war crimes.

The entire salvation army unit, and even other units, are massacred on the absentia judgement of General Butt Naked's war crimes tribunal.

Who is guilty?

Everyone? No one?

Comment viewing options

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

Jan Helfeld! He believes in

Jan Helfeld! He believes in limited government. Lol

This post does a good job with pointing out one cancerous

tendency in our society - our obsession with judging people.

It's interesting, in a country where so many claim to be christians, that we have such an obsession with judging people and administering "justice" on this earth.

I'm not really that well read up on it, but isn't their that one parable where jesus tells everyone not to throw a rock at that chick?

Anyway, the point is the prince of peace represented forgiveness and not revenge. Think about it, this whole system of justice is nothing more than a false god.. the illusion that humans can do the work of god... And we're all worshiping it!!

What would Jesus Do?

Would Jesus beg for a state to judge people and punish people here on this earth? We all realize there is no communication between the state and heaven right? The state isn't divine. How can you consider the deaths in the name of the state anything except human sacrifice to the god called state? and everything less torture for it?

Yeah but

if we all acted like jesus, on the off chance that jesus was just some guy, we'd be pretty much sheep for the slaughter for those who don't act like Jesus. It's a big gamble. If Christendom acted like Jesus, probably would have been Islamized in short order, barring divine intervention.

That seems unlikely,

but its that fear that probably keeps most christians in a confused state of contradiction. It's an catch 22 in their minds; either follow the teachings of your savior in spite of irrational fears of assured destruction, or give in to their fears and live in denial...

and that's where bill3 comes in, to give them all the reassurance they need to stay a slave to the state.

dude

it has nothing to do with me. very few people have enough faith to suffer the consequences of living like jesus, as individuals. let alone whole communities. blaming me for that? get lost. find a set of beliefs that are strong enough that you don't require me to be your villain. you guys need to stop blaming me for your problems, it's creepy as fsck.

Haha, must have struck a nerve.

I'm just making observations. If you find something creepy about it, look in the mirror.

Anyway, you spend a lot of time on self promotion when promoting your contradictions so take a little credit for the fruits of your labor. You do really good work, but it's transparent.

you've confirmed a strong suspicion of mine

that people who use the phrase 'struck a nerve' are tools. :D

So that's the kind of logic

So that's the kind of logic that gets you to the confusing conclusion.. I knew there was an explanation for all this ;)

I would say that after the

I would say that after the rape, Sue would have now known that Bob is a continued threat to her future safety, thus killing him after the fact was a justified act of self defense in a stateless society.

I would also say that either Sue felt strongly enough that the rape was real or that she is the type that gets joy out of killing others. A few people with street smarts talking to her for about 5 minutes will be able to tell if she was victimized, or is lying.

Sue killing Bob seems a whole lot more direct, and cheaper, than spending a buttload of money putting Bob on trial. I don't want to pay for Bob's cable tv, 3 hots and a cot. Besides, the pigs will probably go and arrest a black guy instead of a white woman and put him on death row after falsifying DNA evidence in order to get credit for catching a scary killer, so they can get a promotion, and buy a new jetski to take out on the lake memorial day weekend.

P.S. Bill3, did you see the Vice Guide to Liberia? The General Butt Naked reference and all. During the 90's civil war they were pushing meat carts down the street selling human meat. They had warlords, which I believe is a form of small limited government, or minarchism. Conclusive proof that minarchism leads to human meat carts on the corners like hot dog carts. Stay away from minarchism or you will wind up with someone dipping your deep fried fingers in ketchup and chowing down.

I didn't say Bob raped Sue

I said Sue claims Bob raped her. You seem to think all rape cases are open and shut.

What if 5 "street smart guys" disagree about the claim with another "5 street smart guys?

I'm glad you mentioned falsifying DNA evidence. I'm sure private courts would never do that in any case. Just goes to show how these kinds of private court verdicts violate NAP, and so are not really acceptable on anarchism. They're aggression, not self defense.

I saw the Vice Guide. You can crow all day about how anyone who uses force is a government, it's just childish semantics. You've defined group violence as government. You've just defined away the problem of group violence on anarchism by calling it government any time that trip wire is crossed. You've offered way to prevent it and no explanation how it would be prevented.

So much for internet discourse.

Later, hoe.

It's because not all cases are open and shut

that socialist monopolies are a bad way to go.

They have every incentive to have bad procedures.

Capitalist security firms will be incented to minimize incarceration and capital punishment because they are expensive.

They will want to prevent situations which result in a violation in the first place, which is the opposite motive of a socialist monopoly that is incented to create problems only they may legally 'solve'.

Resolving any dispute will be expensive. When they occur, they will prefer a resolution in which both parties agree.

In the current system when any party disagrees with the outcome it doesn't matter. You can't find another provider.

The firms ultimate threat will the same as a monopoly, but it will wish to avoid it at all costs because of the expense. Many people simply do not approve of capital punishment and will not retain a firm that employs it, and possibly worse it opens them up to conflict with other firms.

Since people care about harm done to there will be little or no victimless crimes. You may care about pot smokers and be happy to pass laws against it, because you can force your neighbor to pay for enforcement. Your tax dollar is amplified a thousand fold because you can force people who not only don't approve of the drug war but drug users themselves to fund your crusade.

But when you have to pay the entire cost yourself, that will be that, in fact I can't see this even be a service offered.

Sanction will tend to please the victim because the victims are the customers. Unlike today, restitution to the victim will be the preferred solution where possible. Happy customers are returning customers.

Purely punitive sanctions will be avoided whenever possible, due to cost, liability, and since people are rarely satisfied with them.

In the current socialist monopoly the state takes their 'cut' first in a criminal court, which often negates any possibility of the victim being made whole in civil court. And of course there's most often no victim at all, just a shakedown.

Disputes are not always black and white.

The question is about outcomes. Procedures and systems either promote good outcomes or bad outcomes.

The incentive under socialist monopolies is to encourage bad outcomes so that more resources may be claimed and to maximize rent.

The incentive in capitalist competition is to promote the outcomes that most satisfy the customers in the least expensive way and to maximize profit.

Wal-Secure won't be buying bearcats for the hell of it, tasing customers for fun, jailing them without taxpayers to pay for it, nor putting people in jail for smoking pot.

sec agencies

will have identical incentives as governments, since they are the exact same thing: force agencies, above which there is no authority.

No

There is a fundamental difference.

People were indoctrinated with all sorts or apologia to accept chattel slavery. The printing press arguably ended the supremacy of that propaganda.

The dogma to support pro-rata slavery is similarly dying as we speak. The question is can they regulate and license the internet in time? They know they need to, they keep floating out an endless raft of bills, but can they, in time?

We are talking about a paradime shift. Once it happens, it's done. You understand, we need never lift a weapon. If we do lift a weapon, we already lost.

i know you understand, otherwise you wouldn't be here arguing.

You may be right in numbers. If there are many more evil people than good, then the shift won't happen.

But chattel slavery ended. I suspect the odds are in favor of good. Might be wrong.

But you can't afford the risk can you?

as usual

your yammering has no relation to the comment you're replying to.

Later, hoe? really, that's

Later, hoe? really, that's mature.

Isn't there a website called the Daily Limbaugh that fascists gather at to plot the restrictions on other people's liberty, and call it being realistic?

Seth

when you're pimpin for liberty, its a term of endearment.

let me just say that of all the anarchists on here, you're the biggest disappointment. had so much promise. it's sad to see a healthy intellect decay into such unreason.
bye.

LOL! Shouldn't this be under

LOL! Shouldn't this be under the humor section?

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

If Sue stabs Bob in the act,

If Sue stabs Bob in the act, its self defense. If Sue stabs Bob afterwords she could easily be convicted of murder. Even of Bob did it, rape is not punishable by death since its a violation of your liberty, not your life. It would be considered cruel and unusual punishment to infringe on someone's right to life if they've only violated someone's right to liberty. She would almost certainly have to pay some serious remuneration, mitigated for circumstances based on arbitrator's ruling to Bob's family. Bob's family could even choose to pursue a ruling that revokes Sue's right to life as she revoked Bob's. However given the circumstances, its hard to say what would happen in arbitration. On the other hand, she would also be awarded remuneration from Bob's estates for his crime against her.

This would certainly be a touchy case for the arbitration company, give that Sue was raped by Bob. My guess is they would mitigate her sentence to a punishment much less than what murder normally affords and call in an insanity plea or something in order to not loose their customer base when the public is outraged that Sue was banished to starve for avenging herself against her raper.

I guess the bigger question is; why do you assume this silly chain of revenge killings would be any more likely to in a voluntary society than in a gang-dominated one? Wasn't there a government in place during the Hatfield vs. McCoy feud? Do you think that just because people understand that taxation is the same as theft, they wouldn't demand and be willing to pay for legal service?

Is it only "legit" in your mind Bill when we don't have a choice of what legal services we use, and we have no choice about whether we pay or not? Where do statists get it in their heads that just because crime is not tolerated, that people wouldn't want the services provided by a government, and that entrepreneurs wouldn't want to get rich finding ways to provide them?

The ONLY difference between a free society and a government dominated one is that in freedom, we choose who we hire, in government, we are FORCED to pay for a shitty gang who does a shitty job while robbing and coercing us.

The question was about who was guilty

You're offering your opinion, which would be the opinion of one individual, or at best one arbitration or security agency. Others could disagree. Who decides? All think they're fighting aggression. You are just telling us what YOU would do as an arb guy or hired gun. There's no due process rights, no chain of appeals, and no final arbitrator on anarchism. Anyone can take up the cause of avenging aggression, and the only deciding factor is which side wins with force.

Why wouldn't Bob's family be

Why wouldn't Bob's family be able to ask for an appeal from a different arbitration company? These companies are all in good standing with their customer base because they provide reliable, accurate rulings to those who hire them. It is in the best interests of each company to be as close to 100% accurate in accordance with their society's governing principal, the NAP. Violence would be extremely expensive and unproductive to the company's bottom line, so a peaceful solution would be optimum. I have little doubt people would have a whole chain of appeals open to them in a trial.

No due process rights? Do you think that without a gang leveling force against people, we would simply decide we didn't want due process? People would no longer care or demand for their dollars to have legal protection from arbitrary accusations? If the majority of people decided that no one, fancy hat or not, had a right to extract money by force from others to pay for things they may not want (taxes), would you suddenly decided you didn't care about having legal protections? I wouldn't. Someone would certainly see an opportunity to make money by providing services that the gangs used to provide. Then someone else would, and the result would be better services for cheaper as companies compete to win the biggest share of the market.

In order for an arbitration company to deprive someone of their rights in a free society, they would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused is guilty of having initiated force against another unjustly. They would have to prove this to themselves, the public, their share holders and it would have to hold up to a diligent cross examination of other arbitration companies just HOPING that a mistake has been made so that they could discredit and then take the market share from a shamed arbitration company who convicted an innocent person, or set free a guilty one. This incentive to competing arbitration companies would provide customers with an inexpensive and robust appeal process because it is in the interest of competitors to find flaws in a ruling.

The pressure to perform in the most accurate and fair mode possible is vastly more intense for a private arbitration company than for the monopolized, corrupt protection racket we call our government "court system." For a company, their careers, businesses and future rides on EVERY ruling. For the gang, they could care less. Nothing EVER happens to a government court who gets it wrong and incarcerates an innocent person. Even if they have to pay a fine, who is floating the bill? You are. The tax cow. The gang just laughs at you and lives to violate another day.

There is a final arbitrator. The public and their wallets. The ultimate final arbitrator. Who is the final arbitrator in your system of government courts? Eric Holder? Barrack Obama? Or do you mean that every few years you, and a bunch of idiots who don't know a damn thing about anything that isn't on TV get to go to a booth and vote for whichever population gives them the most free stuff? That's worked out well for us so far.

Huh.

I'm trying to picture

the people of Wal-Mart and the DMV on your system, all hiring arbitration agencies. While it's quite a fun mental exercise, I just don't see it. Perhaps the top 20% in a walled off zone could do so without too many breaches of contract, but what of the other 80%? Well, there is a case to be made for the future heading in that direction. Murray has made such a case in The Bell Curve and Coming Apart. We shall see how it goes?! I am trying to think in terms of all the people holistically, still being a "society" of some sort, with everyone having a place, and one that isn't completely degraded.

Don't feel bad. No one is

Don't feel bad. No one is smart enough to predict or anticipate the trillions of micro economic decisions people make in the world each day. Its why central planning fails. The impossibility of this task often causes so called "leaders" to just get frustrated, throw their hands up and decide to just force people to do things their way. This fails too in the end, because then all of our choices wind up dictated by people who simply aren't smart enough to make them, and the whole thing fails and becomes tyranny.

The most compelling thing I can say is this: If humans overwhelmingly decide that theft is crime, even when its called "taxes," and when people decide as a species that we want our lives to be voluntary, rather than coercive, people will still want legal services, protection services and to have other services that the old gangs used to provide. They will be willing to pay for them. The largest market share will be the poor, so savvy companies will want to structure products that can capture the poorest among us.

If governments suddenly vanished and people suddenly embraced the philosophy of liberty, we wouldn't roll over and die. Those of us who pioneered ways to make it work would be rewarded with piles and piles of money.

Whenever I come to a stalemate

in a discussion, because two people are imagining different futures, I will fall back on an appeal to empiricism. If you really think what you're suggesting is viable, I think there is lots of room for experimentation. Recruit a billionaire, set up a system on these principles, and give it a go. I realize that you'll need state military protection at least until all the other countries are on board, and so I won't count it against you to depend on the state for now until you can be weened in a thousand or twenty thousand years, however long it takes. But let's see an internal system of anarchy apply to a general population, not just super self selected exceptions like the Amish. I want to see it, and I want to see it on reality TV on the Mollynukes YT channel, and I want to see it yesterday.

Ha, I don't know about

Ha, I don't know about reality TV, but keep your eyes on Honduras. I understand they are running an experiment like this down there.

Super easy. He's guilty of rape if he did it

What is remotely confusing about this?

You need to discipline your thoughts, because you don't understand the questions you are asking.

You are posing a knowledge problem, but you either honestly mistakenly think it is an ethics problem, or dishonestly are trying to confuse by posing it as an ethics problem.

If he's guilty he's guilty. If he's not he's not.

Figuring out the answer in each case is a different question, and systems to do so have been devised over time, ie courts, etc.

But this has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the principle.

And your silly hypotheticals based on improbably situations are just that because you are starting from the failure of a resolution of a knowledge problem. People weren't sure so they did really silly things, which they wouldn't do, and are rarely that unsure in the first place.

If you want to challenge the principle, do that.

It's even legitimate to challenge it on consequentialist grounds, as Jan has, though he is not well equipped to do this, by nature as a principled logician, or by knowledge as a person who hasn't studied economics. Though we may hope he will remedy this soon.

And if you do want to challenge it on consequentialist grounds you need some metric to measure the consequences against.

That is important because otherwise you are just blowing smoke. You're fundamentally saying, "the NAP is bad!", but not saying why or how we could know it is bad.

Then again.. why am I trying to explain logic to a progressive? What was it Heinlein said about teaching a pig to sing?

But you don't know he's guilty

and on anarchism, no one has jurisdiction. Everyone is judge jury and executioner. If you think Bob's guilty, and someone thinks he's not guilty, you both think you're justified to shoot at each other over Bob's life. Since you don't recognize a chain of higher appeals, you can't have a case-closed end to a conflict.

Your answer is such a naive answer, "if he really did it." Well, the groups of people with guns who judge the case weren't there, and people disagree about innocence and guilty. If there's no territory with the same law for all, no chain of appeals, no universal standards of evidence and burdens of proof and definitions of reasonable doubt.... then you get the scenario I outlined.

everyone is judge, jury and executioner?

where do you get this from? anarchism is based on voluntary actions man. so in turn, everyone cannot just assume authoritative action over anyone else without being guilty of aggression themselves. if one felt the rapist was guilty, then he doesnt automatically become fair game to kill him. now if you happened upon said rape and you had to assault, even kill him, to defend the victim that is different. all the people that assaulted or killed in the name of revenge are aggressors and are guilty of violating rights. under anarchism, there are arbitration courts run privately to handle restitution and justice where both victim and accuser is represented by firms theyve paid to protect their own rights. both parties come to terms voluntarily and justice is served. i really encourage you to actually study the "thinkers" who outline society in a stateless society rather than coming up with baseless scenarios to portray the fabled mad max society of anarchism. freedomainradio.com is a one stop shop for all your knowledge needs when it comes to actually taking a learned stance on the issue.

St.Amant, LA...Libertarian Party of Ascension Parish

This doesn't make sense

Under anarchism any person or group can label themselves an arbitration agency, decide someone's guilt and claim to be punishing them justly. everyone can claim to be judge, jury and executioner, or else no one can, and there's no higher appeal and no properly designated jurisdiction.

Also, your reply contradicts most other anarchists who say anyone can be hired or retained to seek redress against a suspect on the basis of the accusation of the victim. They claim if the wrong person is harmed, then there is liability etc., but that everyone can go collect a revenge bounty.

Your view is missing key premises. You haven't given any criteria for who gets to be an arbitration or security agency. It's anarchism, anyone can throw a sign up that they're an arb or security agency.

yes anyone can throw up a

yes anyone can throw up a sign and claim to be a DRO, just as any person today can claim to be a security company, but they have to have credibility in society for anyone to give their business to them. but lets say victim A purchases the new DRO on a whim and the new DRO goes and kills or arrests someone else on a false claim, they in turn are liable in society for being an aggressor without reason and would be subject to arbitration themselves. thats the same as today that is person A hires a bounty hunter to arrest/kill person B under a false claim. the bounty hunter has his own reputation to look after in order to get future business. without proper investigation, how can the bounty hunter/new DRO be sure this isnt a false claim thus endangering his business by acting unethical? now you can say, what if someone wanted revenge and just claimed themselves a DRO. thats fine but that doesnt make them exempt from prosecution from the victim's DRO for harming their customer unjustly. also, you forget the economic ostracism from society when word gets out this dude is a corrupt DRO thatll kill anyone without proper evidence, just as long as hes paid.

St.Amant, LA...Libertarian Party of Ascension Parish

Everything you just said agrees with my OP

Anyone can claim to be an arb agency, and anyone else can retaliate if they disagree with their decision. Everyone can decide that everyone else is an aggressor if they disagree about the evidence. Everyone is guilty and no one is guilty, there is no chain of appeal, nor legal jurisdiction, and no final arbiter.

If a DRO did its investigation and came to a different conclusion than another DRO, neither has jurisdiction and whatever decision is reached can be challenged by any other DRO until the end of time. No one is ever in the clear, there is no double jeopardy rule, no statute of limitations, and the only deciding factor in such a case is which DRO is more powerful.

All of this assumption that business interests would be the a active incentives is silly. These are force agencies in a world without government, therefore they have the same incentives that governments have, to garner maximum area/power for taxation of their clients.