Topic: Justice Under Anarchy - page 3. (Read 21518 times)

If you can get away with it, and it doesn't go against your morals, go for it. It doesn't matter what kind of government we have or what type of society we live in if that's the case.

You should be prepared for the consequences when the day comes that you don't get away with it though.

Why should I follow that rule? What if I can get away with it?

Why is murder wrong other than the fact I said so?


That's a form of aggression against my property.


Unless, of course, the people running the private security firms are going to want to discourage that by working together to compile lists of unprotected properties. When your name/address doesn't show up on the list, you'll be on the criminals' lists instead.


If you take my stereo, you ideally owe me my stereo plus restitution. If you can't give me my stereo back, you owe me a stereo of equal value. If you take my life, you ideally owe me my life plus restitution. Since you can't give me my life back, you owe me a life of equal value. Since all human lives are of equal value and since you can only give me your life, you owe me your life. Since I'm dead, you owe my family your life. How can someone that commits murder protest any of this? If you don't like it, don't murder people. I don't have much sympathy for murderers.


That's not enough information. Are they doing it because they are mean bastards or because they are crazy?


That depends on how much under the influence. Did they smoke a joint or did they smoke an ounce of PCP?


Obviously not, until the temporary mental illness passes.

Is this all you've got, a shotgun blast full of questions in the hopes that I can't answer them? If I can't answer every question to the smallest detail then "Aha! Anarchism can't work!"? That would be an argument from ignorance. You can't just ask questions and hope to stump someone. You have to make an actual argument for why it can't work.

Don't do to others what you don't want done to you

I don't understand why this is so other than the fact that you said so. But as it is off-topic we'll just leave that unexplored.

I get to pick which rules to obey? So if I don't agree with the rules not to empty my toilet into your your drinking water supply I can do it without any consequences? Interesting.

I'll just have to find somewhere to live where everyone else around me pays to have guards patrolling and I'll be fine.

Not at all. I have something against "they kill someone from our gang, we kill some from theirs" mentality.

So would someone who doesn't want medical attention because their imaginary friend told them not to be qualified as "fully rational"? How about someone who is watching their kid starve, would they be concidered to be fully rational? How about under the influence of drugs? Temporary mental illness?

Following the rules or leaving applies only to homesteaded property.


You agree to the rules beyond anything that isn't entailed by non-aggression. If you don't agree, you don't have to follow them. Rape and murder would be prevented under self-defense.


It's not a matter of who benefits. It's a matter of who is protected. You can refuse to hire any private police protection and run the risk associated with it.


Do you have something against paying restitution to victim's families?


If you aren't fully rational, you can't consent therefore you can't enter into any contract.

Funny, I seem to have made this argument in another thread regarding taxes, but then you weren’t so keen on following the rules or leaving. But since this isn’t about this I’ll just rejoice in the fact that we agree on something, again. 


Who sets these rules under anarchy? Is there a common law book that all follows? Who updates it, and under which conditions can and should it be updated?
What? You’re saying that this has anything to do with justice? An operating expense? And are you implying that governments don’t compensate those who are wronged? Mine does. Perhaps your government just sucks.

Except if they signed a contract. I think I can get a child to sign just about any contract. You’re a firm believer that any and all contract should be followed, right?  Or are some contract void because the person wasn’t fully rational?

Maintaining a contradictory behavior (defined by the universe) puts pressure on the functioning ability of the person, his immediate environment, his near environment, his extended environment.

Best is no illness in any of them. Worst is illness in all of them. Let Eris sort it out. LOL.

Why should humans follow this concept of non-aggression principle? Why should we follow a rule of ethic that prohibit murder, rape, and so on?

ok, fine.  But maybe someone who got filthy rich from engaging in entirely voluntary exchange would have been better for your argument, no?

That's completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

Bill Gates is probably a bad example since most of his wealth is (indirectly) a result of intellectual property.

It's the initiation of violence. Are you now going to ask me who gets to define violence?


A few can, most cannot.


The only people that can consent on your behalf are people that you have given that authority to, a lawyer or financial adviser for example. However, we can and should treat people how they would want to be treated if they were fully rational. Upon reaching full rationality would she be upset that she hadn't been allowed to get married to that person? If so, she should be allowed to do so. If not, then not. There's nothing special in the case of a child. They are just another person with diminished rationality. It would be no different from stumbling upon a person that's lost a lot of blood lying unconscious in the street. Do they want you to give them a blood transfusion? Probably, unless they are a Jehovah's Witness. In which case, you should stop the bleeding but otherwise let them die if only a blood transfusion can save them. In the former case it would be immoral not to give them blood transfusion. In the latter case it would be immoral to give them one. You treat nonrational people how they would want to be treated if they were rational. Is it a custom for women to get married at the age of 8 and the ones that aren't allowed to, live a life of misery and regret? In that case, let her marry. We need to focus less on forcing our personal opinions on others and more on trying to help them achieve what they would want to achieve.


There's no fixed age. Different people mature at different rates. All age based limits are going to be arbitrary.


Upon reaching full rationality would the child be thankful for being caged in a crib for months at a time? Probably not. Even if so, that would be the rare case and it's better to err on the side of caution and assume that she won't grow up to and realize she's been a masochist since birth.


Without consent and having to assume that she's not a masochist, torturing a child is aggression, just as if you were torturing an adult.


They would be forced to pay restitution out of whatever they earned in the future and they would be kept track of until they paid it off. Anyways, this is getting more into implementation which is really an entrepreneurial decision. Imagine if shoes had always been made by the government and I suggested we privatize it. You could fire off a bunch of questions such as:

Would everyone make their own shoes?
If not who would make the shoes?
How many would be made?
What colors would they be?
What would they be made out of?
How much would they cost?
...
..
.

The answers that I could give wouldn't be exact. I could just tell you that like most things, such as computers, tennis rackets and pizza, they could be made better by people that were motivated by profit and loss rather than motivated by special interests and swaying votes. If I were forced to answer all your questions down to every last detail, nothing could be done privately and everything would be the domain of government.

Who gets to define abuse?  Again I must bring up the example of Islam and the 8 year old daughter being married.  Certainly we would agree that if the father were forcing his daughter into marriage then she would have a claim against him, but what if she is convinced that marriage is what 8 year olds are supposed to do?  She's eight.  Can an 8 year old even consent?  If not, then who can on her behalf?  By any legal standard, the normal person who can consent for anything on behalf of a child is the parent.  The only exception are statutes defined by government decree.

Children aren't the property of their parents. If you live on someone's property, you either follow their rules or you are free to leave. If you have diminished rational capacities, either from age, disease or defect then others can intervene on your behalf. If you are unable to consent then you should be treated the way you would like to be treated, if you were able to consent. Obviously, we can't perfectly predict what people would want if we were them but we can assume they don't want to be tortured or starved, which more than adequately covers your examples.