-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.

" to garner maximum

" to garner maximum area/power for taxation of their clients"... the very root of anarchism is voluntary interaction. they wouldnt have the power to tax you involuntarily without being charged with theft. thats the danger of govt as we have it. they can steal from us without another agency being able to charge them for said theft. theus the whole "monopoly of force" argument. now on to your confusion about conflicting DRO investigations... DRO A comes to a conclusion that conflicts with DRO B, we see this now with lawyer A vs lawyer B and we have juries or judges that act as a neutral arbiter to decide which is right or true. the same can be done in a stateless society, only DRO A and DRO B both decides on who will arbitrate their dispute and agree to abide by the decision of the arbiter. now if one of the DRO is decided to be in the wrong and doesnt honor the agreement, then they will most likely die as a business because word gets out that they are "sore losers" , so to speak, and cant be trusted to handle a case honestly.

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

your sec agencies

can do the same thing govt does now. duh

no they cant. our govt

no they cant. our govt assumes the power to steal our money under some bullshit claim of a "social contract" or being that we live in a certain geographical area with a constitution that outlines the power of a govt and some how validates it as voluntary because we democratically elected our representatives. a private DRO is at the whims of your voluntary payment because unless it has some stranglehold on your employer, how is going to steal my money? come to my door with guns? maybe, but that would only happen if he/they have such a poor business model as to think the money stolen from me will set him for life because the very next day theyll lose the rest of their customers when they find out that they are tyrannical thieves. govt gets away with this because they operate as a monopoly of force and there is no competition of their level to dispute the fact that they steal from us. in the free market, monopolies of that proportion wont exist unless they are 100% ethical in the eyes of their customers.

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

He isn't missing key premises

It is just that since he doesn't talk to you as much as I do he erroneously assumes you can retain a concept that was addressed a few paragraphs up.

Just because the moral authority and responsibility to do justice and not do injustice comes from your individual moral authority and no where else, it doesn't follow that we immeditely toss away all of the benefits of the division of labor.

You can delegate your authority to a firm, for instance. What you can't do is delegate authority and no longer have responsibbility. Without a state to shield you from consequences of injustice you do, or a firm you hire does, we won't have the cesspool of injustice we live in today.

That response does nothing

to address the jurisdiction problem, which would exist in any system where there's not a single legal standard with a single chain of appeals and final arbitration. Otherwise, anyone can claim their verdict is valid and start shooting, and not be in violation of the principle of non aggression.

WTF does jurisdiction have to do with justice?


Look at the 'justice' system we supposedly have and tell me who is naive?

There are thousands of innocent people in rape cages. Tens of thousands.

Who is naive?

I told you, argue principles or argue consequences. If you argue consequences tell me your fcuking metric because I don't see any single metric where your naive understanding of society works.

If someone is guilty of a crime they deserve to be punished. In your naive view anyone who says disobedience is a crime makes it so. In your naive view everyone in rape cages thus deserves to be.

What is your 'sophisticated' view of justice that makes those people in cages deserve to be there.

What is your 'nuanced' view of justice that makes it so your act of cowardly voting in an anonymous booth, makes that law that someone must be deprived of life for defying.

What is your metric of justice?

Rhetorical, if you had an answer you'd be a moral person.

Jurisdiction has plenty to do

Jurisdiction has plenty to do with justice. Justice is procedure as well.as substance. How can you accep NAP and believe otherwise, much less libertarianism.

Ventura 2012

Astoundingly wrong

Justice is justice. Procedure either makes justice more likely or it does not. Procedure does not make an innocent man's execution just. Procedure doesn't make an innocent man rotting in a cage because some pietist prick doesn't approve of the drug he injests just.

Anymore than when the supreme court said seperate but equal was Constitutional meant it was Constitutional, or when they uphold or refuse to hear gun control laws or rule Obamacare Constitutional makes it so.

Our fascist procedure is producing a hell of a lot of injustice, and when is the last time you saw it do justice?

You have really been done a number on haven't you? Not only ceded your thinking but your moral authority to some jerkwads in uniforms and robes.

What do you think makes you different from an animal? You gave it away without even a fight.

All this ranting over your own ignorance?

Where did I say justice was only procedure? It's both procedure and substance, I said that explicitly.

Ventura 2012

Still astoundingly wrong.

Justice has zero to do with procedure.

Procedure is good if it minimizes injustice and maximizes justice.

Procedure is bad if it does the opposite.

Our procedure is really bad.

But justice is not done just because procedure is followed. Justice is not done if an innocent man rots for disobeying an unjust law simply because the law and the proescution followed some procedure.

A man knows right from wrong.
A slave knows legal from illegal.
An animal knows the difference between allowed and disallowed.

The reason our system is so unjust is because we have a socialized legal system, and socialist monopolies always perform poorly. It is what they are designed to do. Because it performs poorly they try to tell you that justice is related to procedure, if they follow the procedural rules they make up (which they don't anyway) then that means justice was done.

It's a crock of siht.

Stop believing siht.

You're supposed to be a man and men have moral agency. Men don't accept injustice because some socialist apparatchik puts a sitcker on it saying 'justice'.

Are you the sort who thinks when the Supreme court opines about the Constitutionality of the unConsitutional crap du jure that government does that makes it Consitutional?

Why do you keep building up

Why do you keep building up strawman just to knock them back down?

"Justice is not done if an innocent man rots for disobeying an unjust law simply because the law and the proescution followed some procedure."

Who said or implied anything of the sort?

If you have substantive justice but no procedural justice then you have an injustice.

If you have procedural justice but no substantive justice then you have an injustice.

This is what the Founding Father's understood so well.

Let me give you a hypo that explain what I'm talking about:

A man is seen by multiple men shoot another man in the street. The police drag him to jail and shoot him in his jail cell.

Justice? Maybe substantively. But not procedurally. This man received no due process. You denied him his right to defend himself in court, to be heard.

Ventura 2012

Why do you keep building up

Why do you keep building up strawman just to knock them back down?

"Justice is not done if an innocent man rots for disobeying an unjust law simply because the law and the proescution followed some procedure."

Who said or implied anything of the sort?

If you have substantive justice but no procedural justice then you have an injustice.

If you have procedural justice but no substantive justice then you have an injustice.

This is what the Founding Father's understood so well.

Let me give you a hypo that explain what I'm talking about:

A man is seen by multiple men shoot another man in the street. The police drag him to jail and shoot him in his jail cell.

Justice? Maybe substantively. But not procedurally. This man received no due process. You denied him his right to defend himself in court, to be heard.

Ventura 2012

Still wrong and it's very depressing people can think this

I know a lot of people do but it's still depressing and people here shouldn't be this confused.

If the man is guilty of murder and the just sanction is shooting, yes, justice was done.

If the man was not guilty and he received a trial and is sentenced to execution, justice was not done.

Procedure has zero to do with whether justice is done in any particular case.

Procedure is good if it minimizes injustice.

Procedure is bad if it maximizes justice.

Just like a recipe is good if it tends to make good cakes.

But even with a good recipe, merely following the recipe doesn't make a bad cake good.

But in statist systems we say "The recipe was followed, thus we deem this this is a good cake!"


But worse, by calling injustice justice because procedure was followed we promote injustice.

After all, if procedure makes justice and procedure is followed, we always have justice amirite?

Whether cakes or justice or health care, or any other good or service under the sun, socialism produces worse outcomes than capitalism.

Now in your hypothetical the police summarily executing the guilty man is not a good thing.

Why? Justice was done right?

Yes, but the recipe has been damaged and will produce less justice in the future. Justice could as easily have been done by following the recipe. The cops are hired and trained to enforce, not to judge. The recipe is to have division of labor so each person will specialize in something so everything gets done better. The cops were right this time but could easily be wrong the next time, and are in any event not selected for the ability to judge. They have damaged the recipe and to ensure the recipe remains likely to maximize the justice produced by the system, the cops need some sanction.

What should the proper sanction be? I don't know. I would tend not to think they should be punished for murder in a socialist system like we have, but fired at least. Of course in a socialist system like ours there is no incentive to fire or punish bad actors, which is why we have so many.

In a capitalist firm I would say they should be fired, blacklisted and possibly even refused service from the firm even as a customer.

Ok, agree to disagee. I think

Ok, agree to disagee. This is now basically a pointless semantic argument, why are you frothing at the mouth then?

I think killing people without a trial is not justice even if it turned out they deserved it, you dont. Here, have a definition for your semantics:

Main Entry: jus·tice
Pronunciation: \ˈjəs-təs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French justise, from Latin justitia, from justus
Date: 12th century
1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.

maintenence or administration...

You and your MEANINGLESS, FRUITLESS semantic arguments make me want to throw up to be honest. I thought we were having an actual disagreement that could be learned from. I DESPISE wasting my time like this after a 16hr workday.

Ventura 2012

Faithkills is fun to knock around

But don't expect any learning. He couldn't follow an argument if it was tied to a bone in his nose. 80% of every comment is completely off point red herring/strawman, and often he will actually invert what you said completely and argue against the opposite of your point. Hopeless situation with Faithkills, but again, a good sport when battered around for an audience. Not a terrible writer either, but not much of a head on dem shoulders.

Well put, you can see mild

Well put, you can see mild schizophrenia within his posts.

Ventura 2012

Calling someone...

a dyslexic retarded moron is "well put"? Then tacking on "mentally ill" makes it even cooler?

Or, does the constant spew of vomitized ad hominems from you and BILL3 just lower the quality of discourse and bring embarrassment to Daily Paul (and yourselves)?

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~


Where did I claim he's a dyslexic retarded moron?

Lie much?

Did you miss FaithKills ad

Did you miss FaithKills ad hominems that came first? Seems like it.

Ventura 2012

I commented on...

you praising BILL3 for crude veiled ad hominem. As a minarchist I am more concerned about how our discourse appears and what impression it leaves on others outside the debate.

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Sorry, some of us just tend

Sorry, some of us just tend to attack our attackers. There can be no doubt that these anarchists spew venom and hate.

Ventura 2012

Suggestion: Be a man

This isn't a meaningless discussion. It's deadly important. That you think justice depends on whether or not some apparatchik follows a certain procedure or not, is a very dangerous confusion, and it is not accidental.

You are supposed to believe that, you are indoctrinated to believe that. But it's a little unusual for someone supposedly in the liberty movement to not think for themselves, and not only not think for themselves agree to the idea of not thinking for yourself as a general rule.

Because that is what we are talking about.

It's semantic yes, that hardly makes it unimportant though.

Because they defined away your moral agency when they claim justice is procedure. But you had to agree to this. Why you do is beyond me.

Justice is when guilty are sanctioned and when innocent are not. Procedure has zero to do with whether justice is done or not in any particular case.

Procedure has to do with whether the system produces more or less justice.

When you accept that procedure = justice, then on what grounds can you ever claim justice was not done? They just say, as they do all the time, "We followed procedure."

What is your retort? You don't even know what justice is, except one thing you seem to be sure of is that justice is procedure.

And since you can't articulate what is wrong with the system, because after all "they followed procedure" you can't complain and why would it not tend to get worse. Well obviously it does get worse.

Be human. Don't cede your moral authority to another man. What then makes you a man? A penis? A thumb?

Procedure does not define justice any more than a Supreme Court opinion defines Constitutionality. Both those ideas are dangerous.

Who defined justice as

Who defined justice as procedure only? What fantasy world are you living in?

Ventura 2012

Nice crawfish for a crawfish

Stand up for something for god's sake. You won't even stand up for giving away your own moral authority.

Fine what part of justice is procedure? What circumstance would procedure make justice?

Look at what I am doing. I am making unequivocal affirmative claims.

Procedure doesn't make injustice just, ever.
Procedure doesn't make justice unjust, ever.

This is what people who know what they are talking about do.

People who don't employ 'nuance'.

So tell me when does procedure have anything to do with justice, other than good procedure makes justice more likely and bad procedure makes justice less likely?

That is the relationship of a recipe to a product. A blueprint to a sound building. DNA to a human.

But you are proof that DNA doesn't necessarily make a rational or moral human just because it's DNA, and our society is proof that procedure doesn't make a just society, just because it's a procedure.

Faith, lemme ask you a question buddy

If a psychopath shoots someone in the face for fun, and then at his trial produces conclusive evidence that the victim was in fact also a psychopath, who himself had shot someone in the face the month earlier, is he guilty or not guilty?

Now you see why procedure is important, not just guilt. The victim was guilty, and its good that he was shot in the face. But, the perpetrator is guilty because he killed someone who he had no right to kill and had no proper jurisdiction to kill and no sure knowledge (beyond a certain reasonable threshold defined by law) that he had ever done any crime.

Psyhopathy is a red herring in this argument

Their mental state just confuses the argument. But yes if one person produces undeniable and undenied proof he killed the guy because that guy had killed someone else, and if the appropriate sanction was capital, why do you think justice wasn't done?

While its not a red herring

I did include it to add color.

He killed the guy because he wanted to kill the guy. On your view, his motivation is not a factor. He was able to prove later with his lawyers that the guy he killed was guilty of a capital crime. Under your view, as long as the victim is also guilty, then anyone can kill him and its not a crime.

Whence do you think the state got it's authority to sanction?

I know you will try to twist this so lets be clear. If the appropriate sanction is capital, and if the guilt of person in question is not debated, and if it was close in time to the crime in question, then of course justice was done.

The question of whether it's a crime is a separate matter, but in my opinion it certainly shouldn't be, given all those conditions. If crimes are equated to injustices then no, it shouldn't be.

So yes, if you get hauled in for shooting a man, then produce home security video which shows the guy killed your daughter, and no one thinks it's falsified, why should you be punished? In fact this didn't use to be in any way controversial, before we were so far down this fascist path. Everyone knew that peace officers were acting in place of people to promote justice.

Today, like any other union, the state is jealous of it's monopoly and despises any justice that may happen when it is not on the clock.

What magic do you think is imbued into uniforms that creates this moral authority to sanction? Are we not led to believe by folks such as you that the government is the people, by the people and for the people, and all that jazz? Are you telling me the state has moral authority not derived from the people?

Your real problem I suspect is you do not believe any of that jazz, and you take issue with the idea that a mere human arrogate the authority of your deity, the state.

Cyril's picture

+10 May I?


May I?


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

You're injecting circumstances into my scenario

that weren't there.

I said if someone shoots someone else, and can prove the victim had previously committed a capital crime at some point, then he has done no crime on your viewpoint.

In normal justice, he is a murderer because he killed someone without the right to do so, and simply being able to prove after the fact that the scum bag he killed also was a scum bag is not an exonerating circumstance.

The authority of the state came first from mere force, followed by eventual popular support and dependence on the abundance and plenty and peace that grew out of having a somewhat impartial force monopolist instead of cousin marriage, tribal war, endless feuds and no common rules, trial by combat and ordeal, etc.

It's division of labor and allows people not to have to constantly worry about traveling with bodyguards and hunting down people who harmed them for compensation.

You know, guys like Hammurabi who were more advanced in their views than anarchists.