-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?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

You just don't like scabs. Competition is bad amirite?

That is an exemplar of how perverted things get under socialism.

If someone shoots someone there has been a potential crime committed and certainly division of labor will make this determination more likely to be correct, just like a professional vet will be more likely to best determine how to treat your dog. But division of labor doesn't imply that socialism is the optimal solution, quite the opposite. How do you know who the best people and services are?

Socialism doesn't, socialism can't, and socialism has no interest.

Socialism can't compute.

Which is exactly why we have a rogue system today, it's producing a lot of stuff and none of it is what people want and none of it is justice.

You are correct that the state was historically, and is today, just the top gangs dressed up in suits. That doesn't justify their authority, however.

The function of the clergy, academia, and the media has been to try to convince people otherwise of course. This makes farming the tax cattle much more efficient.

Part of this indoctrination has been to tell us that we are the government, the government is just us, and it's authority is derived from us, therefore whatever it does is legitimate, it is just us after all.

This is of course a facile lie, but the principle is sound. It's not true, we both know it isn't true, but if the government is to be legitimate, if minarchy is to work, it should and must be true.

To fully clarify the example. Optimally, and I suspect in a free society under free law, you would be put on trial for shooting the man who you claim killed your daughter because there is a knowledge problem, we don't know if the circumstances you present are true. We are trying to promote justice.

But you are not on trial for being non union labor changing a lightbulb.

The crime in question is whether you killed an innocent man or not. The crime is not that you 'arrogated' the authority to do justice, because the authority comes from you in the first place.

Assuming the sanction would have been capital for the crime you claim the guy you shot committed, and assuming the evidence supports your claims, then yes we have now determined you have committed no crime.

If we punish you for being a scab, then that is a crime.

If you killed someone for something the sanction would not otherwise be capital, then yes there has been a crime committed. And in my personal view third parties, and certainly not the state, can never be sure enough of a verdict that capital punishment is in order.

We know for a fact people have been and are continually being convicted who are innocent. Of course this is inevitably and must progressively get worse under a socialized market.

We can expect under capitalism this would be far less common, just like we can expect much better food preparation hygiene in a private restaurant than a government school, if the restaurant gives people food poisoning they have a revenue problem.

If the cafeteria gives kids food poisoning they get a larger budget, clearly they were understaffed, and probably need a food hygiene safety officer.

And don't invoke Hammurabi, or Machiavelli, or Clausewitz, or Hobbes, et al. I don't suppose you would be impressed if I invoked Aquinas or Augustine in trying to demonstrate the validity of Christianity, so yes people justifying the Rule of Man do in fact write stuff justifying the Rule of Man. Stipulated. Would you be surprised if I told you Rothbard or Lao-Tzu or Spooner opposed the state? Jefferson and Voltaire were deeply suspicious of the state. Since you are clearly not as advanced a thinker as any of those worthies does that mean I win the argument?

Feel free to quote someone if they have a relevant point you agree with. Otherwise you aren't even doing the fallacy properly. Ad Vercundiam has a form. You're supposed to say "Hammurabi said X, therefore X is right you and thus you are a derp." You shortened it to "Hammurabi is smart and you're dumb!", may as well have said "Because Racism!"

Cyril's picture

I can't speak for or against an hypothetical anarchy

I can't speak for or against an hypothetical anarchy, but with the ever-more-leaning-socialist state you and I are so blessed to be living in (i.e., "free" stuff and free "safety" for "all", of course)

- and, er... RIGHT HERE, AND RIGHT NOW, btw(*) have you noticed ? (<< linky, linky!) -

only the very few whomever at the top (of dear almighty state) WILL - INDEFECTIBLY - end up being "judge, jury, and executioner".

If it isn't already, more-than-virtually the case, of course. Oops and dang!

I can only hope you don't happen to be among those who wish nothing but getting to that top and its select few Supermen - do you?

--

(*) 'coz, ya know, I care a lil bit about the reality I am living in, T-O-D-A-Y and I can see easily by my own eyes, although I'm no political genius, granted (sorry 'bout that, bear with me)

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

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

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

As Jan Helfeld

pointed out during his debate w Friedman, he was able to successfully sue a congressperson for 40k... Do you think a wealthy head of a defense agency is going to be forking over civil damages to a journalist in the patchwork of security agencies under anarchism? No, you'll get the justice you pay for, even worse than it is now.

Cyril's picture

You may have misunderstood me for long.

You may have misunderstood me for long.

I'm not even interested in trying "anarchy" just for the sake of it (if only because I still have a vague idea of what people actually mean with it), so I never really entered that debate you seem so obsessed with.

I don't believe in the idea of building a human society around abstract ideologies, which, for some, are only purely deceptive lip service to - WHATEVER - and to disguise the greatest plans of horrors in inhumanity that they actually pursue for only a select few - the same who think they are Supermen and smarter, better than anybody.

Instead, I do believe in simple and sound principles where my litmus test is :

could even a 6 year old grasp the concept without being a genius or be indoctrinated for over a decade+ by so-called "academics in social sciences" ?

I still don't understand the point of trying SO HARD to make a would-be-definitive rebuttal of anarchy (which has rarely been tried, if ever at all? and like I said, I am barely curious about) and "at all cost", so to speak, when it's the FREAKING EXACT OPPOSITE OF IT, that we have been, are, and (likely) will continue to be suffering all over the freaking place !

That is,

TOO BIG (and eventually, TOTALLY centralized, and TOTALLY arbitrary) governments.

"Arbitrary", adjective or noun, here's my favorite dictionary entry :

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G064

Where's the "TOO BIG" power in the hands of "TOO FEW" with anarchy?

Likewise, where's the threatening "centralization" of such power?

I fail to see.

But :

Again, again, and again, just forgetting anarchy completely for a minute, I would be perfectly fine if people could at least keep their Republics with a rule of law and beneficial, just, simple, sound principles such as the NAP, that the former (Republics) secures well enough (when they're allowed to last).

'HTH,

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

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

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

Anarchy must be refuted

Anarchy must be refuted befofe it takes over and smears the Ron Paul movement.

Ventura 2012

Cyril's picture

The intellect is fun to play with, but the real world & facts

The intellect is fun to play with, but the real world & facts ought to matter, too, IMO.

At work, I don't chase software bugs that never manifested themselves and/or nobody ever complained about, nor only remotely suspected there were some anywhere, anyhow.

I go after what is observable, unexpected, reproducible, and damageable for the user and/or the general health of the system, in functionality and performance.

In other words, I don't waste time with chimeras and speculations (even if I could find them amusing/entertaining) on what is also possibly wrong elsewhere, without one single ounce of evidence or clue about those.

That's off-topic and beyond what we can find wrong more or less easily, but usually (actually: always) with plenty of evidences coming shortly after a close investigation has started, precisely.

So, I won't go after anarchy for that :

http://youtu.be/LgraVpwiM6Y

any more than I would go after, say, the 49ers' fans and their drinking habits (et al.) after a game - won or lost.

I know the undisputable true, blatant culprit (even, often boasting and bragging about itself on how good it is) all damn too well, as it has been widely documented already, as it's made clear at the above YT link.

It's been called "democide" for a reason. I fail to find more of a would-be documented direct correlation with anarchy or its proponents, though. Funny, the word "government" has many more occurrences when that sort of account is considered, with sadness.

The only types of anarchy I witnessed (or heard of) going out of hands, once in a while, have mostly involved packs of young children left unattended by irresponsible adults, in various situations.

What I find amazing, though, is so many people still can't seem capable to acknowledge the infamy linked above as simply as it is, like when it's a car + truck wreck they would see AND hear happening right before their eyes, real time.

Who is going to say they were there and describe it as an apple + orange wreck?

Bezmenov once said some Americans should unplug the bananas from their ears.

I'd be less specific than him on "American" (because it's not just Americans) - but I would add, though, beyond the bananas and the ears :

and maybe also remove the potatoes stuck on their eyeballs, blocking the entire vision.

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

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

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

it's Bill3, the troll

Not sure if you realize that Bill3 changed his name again to Clanging Cymbal.

He is user 45504. If you hover over the username, you can see the link address in the lower left screen of your browser. Try not to feed it.

Trolls need kibble too!

Hehe, I know it's him.

I really doubt ignoring him will send him running, and I'm not sure that would be good anyway?

His arguments are easily demolished, and the casual reader who will be faced with these arguments by statists might be helped by seeing them so demolished.

He's a literary foil, who by making plausible, but easily debunked arguments gives us an opportunity to elaborate and makes our position look good.

If one of us just writes a piece on rights, or natural law, or the NAP, or justice, or whatever.. people won't be as inclined to read all that as they are to read the more or less contentious discussions we have with 3$BILL. Does that make sense?

Hadn't thought of it that

Hadn't thought of it that way, good point.

That seems to be a thing with you guys

Not having thought of stuff.

kibble

Cyril's picture

On orthogonality and compatibility of the NAP with Republics

"Sue claims..."

"Jones thinks..."

"Fred [...] feels..."

"Elvis [...] to defend..."

...

I don't know who is guilty and who is innocent.

But that's why people have tried, with limited success throughout History, written laws around the defense of rights and the rendering of Justice thru such laws (and Justice only) - within Republics, on a recurring and quite universal basis. Thus, far beyond the limited extent in space and resources of the gangs in your example.

Forms of government are orthogonal to the NAP, as much as they are with the laws of physics:

the NAP being only a principle, those forms either accept it as a desirable one, principle, to be followed in governance under rule of law, or to be useless and ignored, replaced by something more "socially planned" (here, "yuck!" is my intellectual and almost animal reaction to the latter, by now - Hint, Hint).

Republics have no fundamental (theoretical) issues to embrace it (the NAP) and formalize it in their written laws - at least "per their founding principles", precisely.

The (BIG) problem is:

MUCH observably - and MUCH "spectacularly", if I dare say - people can't seem to be capable to keep their Republics - and even less, the NAP (once relatively secured by the same Republics) - for very long.

The American people in 2014, included.

People only give themselves (or abandon themselves to) the governments they ask for - consciously or not.

If the American Republic has to die, so be it - I can only wish it won't, hence my relentless communication effort to ask your people to think twice about that:

* one can only hope to get what they have really paid for;

* one will always lose what they have neglected (or, have lost sight of - ) for too long.

Are SNAP EBT cards, free healthcare, and free entertainment on the Boob Tube more valuable than a Bill of Rights that fit on a single sheet of paper?

You, and your fellow Americans, you decide.

AFAICT, no doubts about that, is this unashamed, bragging traitor (and hundred others with him, also in office) certainly uses it (your Bill of Rights) as his/their toilet paper.

'HTH, &

Peace.

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

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

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

If only...

we lived in a NAP-free society based around strong centralized govt. There would be no gang/mafia violence, police wouldn't execute innocent helpless people, there would be no rapes, you could walk the most seedy neighborhoods fearlessly.

Dude, your hyperbolic rhetoric and intellectual parlor tricks are weak and boring.

A society comprised of people who believe in non-aggression would not require strict rapid eye-for-an-eye on-the-spot vengeance. They would capture and restrain suspects and bring them to a public arena for open trial.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

deacon's picture

Thanks for the help

I saw your comment in the modbox last night.
It has helped,I still have some issues,as does this comp :)
D

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

YW...

do you have a good malware scanner?

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

deacon's picture

Funny you should ask that

I had malwarebytes installed,something inactivated it,and removed the desktop icon.When you mentioned it,I went and found it,updated,then ran it,removed 39 pups? from this comp.
Thank you again for your help,I'd be in a world of hurt,if not for the people here on the DP
D

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

.

.

Everyone is dead.

No one is guilty.

General Butt Naked

and his army stand. Looks like his court was right; he won.

Oops,

I got the "salvation army units" confused with General Naked's army.

The rogue salvation army unit(s) were deemed "terrorists" and therefore easy to confuse with Butt's buddies, and as such it was the least strictly hypothetical part of your scenario.

Butt and company remain alive huh? Then they are the only ones left who can possibly be guilty. I could claim that they are, but having no direct access to these hypothetical people and events, I have no basis upon which to determine any guilt but my own. Butt shall remain forever peerless but to that which remains manifest in your own mind.

By the way, you may ask yourself too, what was is he "won"?