Topic: What's so special about the NAP? - page 18. (Read 20467 times)

Exactly. That's its problem.

I've read your posts a few times by now.  And, while I get that you are dissatisfied with the NAP, I still can't seem to determine the 'basis' of your complaint.

You don't like the NAP.  That's clear.  But why?  What does it matter to you?  You don't like being restricted to non-aggression?  You feel there are instances in which you should initiate force against others who have not caused you harm?  You think NAP adherents should not be able to defend themselves?  You think they should join you in aggressing against others?  You think the NAP is inadequately equipped to protect individual freedoms, and you have a better method?  Fine.  Name some examples.

While you're at it, go ahead and give us an historical example of this ideology (NAP) "seizing power".  Gandhi?  And what system is "on it's way to collapse?"  Bitcoin?  In that vein, please define "public good" and "society" while you're at it, and expound upon the threats faced by each.  What imminent emergency do we face?  Economic stagnation?  Peak oil?  Moral decay?  Overpopulation?  Governmental insolvency?  Environmental degradation?  Islamo-fascism?  Global warming?

You obviously don't understand the NAP, based on your comments here and your other threads.  I'm not sure how to rectify that.  It's a single axiom.  Maybe you should think about it some more.  I'm not sure why you continually claim NAP has "no fixed meaning".  The meaning is extremely simple.  And its application is straightforward and highly consistent.

You have a poor understanding of information theory.  You believe that, since "modern society is complex," it therefore should be governed by a "complex" philosophy.  This is naive stupidity.  And, again, getting beyond it requires some abstract reasoning ability and the will to employ it.  Complexity breeds inconsistency.  Somehow you have convinced yourself otherwise.  And for some reason you think a forum full of programmers is going to agree with you.

So, do this then.  Make the NAP more complex, and we'll discuss the results.  What would you prefer?  The Golden Rule?  Direct Democracy?  Hammurabi's Code?

You forgot one: Don't let harm come to others due to one's own self interest, negligence and ignorance.

Unfortunately, self interest, negligence and ignorance are key features of NAP.

So well spoken. There's nothing worse than a vacuous mind filled with one liners, overly eager to preach a solution without even having the desire to understand the world and the problems that exist. The libertarians here are rebels all fired up but they don't actually have a workable plan, nor a sense of what's important, other than their own narrow minded self interests.

Right there.


Now that... That does scare me.




So, according to Dictionary.com, sophistry means a "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning." Overall this sounds more like your arguments, since mine are quite simple, not subtle or tricky at all:

No person has the right to initiate force or fraud on another person. Don't hit, don't bully, don't steal, don't lie. Sounds like what Mom told me growing up.

I own me, you own you, I do not own you, and you do not own me. Doesn't get simpler than that. In fact, that is the basis of all other property rights.

Where did I use them interchangeably?

My position is that both the NAP and the SO are sophistical ideology and have no concrete or fixed meaning and are therefore worthless in this or any discussion.  They mean something to you and something else to someone else and neither of them is right or wrong because it is undefinable jargon.  They are a poor substitution for understanding anything, nor are they true axioms by which a moral, social, economic or otherwise human conversation is actually conducted upon.

It looks like all the philosophers that I have mentioned and their wrestling of the question of the validity, structure and accordance of the State with the ideals of Justice have met their match.  That being you, and your N.A.P. and S.O..  It is sad that Libertarianism breeds such arrogant indolence.

It doesn't matter how much I read or how much history proves this farcical ideology intellectually bankrupt and bereft of morality; nothing can prove such faith-based ideologies false if you are unwilling to see them.  I guess this means "you win".  Congratulations.  Feel better?  Did you solve any problems?  Are we no longer in a global economic meltdown of unparalleled proportions?  No, you say?  All that is still there and your talking-points didn't solve anything?  Well I can't say that I'm surprised.

What I have to remember is that when dealing with victims of demagogy one must remain sympathetic.  The people are too lazy to do the required work in reading to actually have a modicum of historical understanding, and too proud to admit when they have been duped.  With Libertarianism, it's just a never ending series of "doubling down".

I guess I am not afraid, but emphatically concerned, with "the power of the people".  Because I see the people avidly doing everything to destroy themselves; and even cheering their own destruction with sadistic glee.  I'm concerned about the people's stupidity.  I'm concerned about their gullibility.  I'm concerned about the psychopaths that they elect.  I'm concerned about their lack of morality.  I'm concerned with their apathy about their own future and their children's future.  I'm concerned when I read history and have insights into how far and degenerated our republic has become; I'm concerned with the fact we're nearing WWIII and the population is too stupid and cattle-like to mobilize anything to stop it.  I'm concerned because all these things affect me and affect the continuation and well being of my species on this planet, among other reasons.

Yes, these things all concern me.  This populace is incredibly ripe for totalitarianism, and it is coming and will arrive if all the population has to offer in their defense is the bloated jargon and hollow rhetoric of these Libertarian doctrines of the N.A.P. and S.O..  It's time to grow up.  It's time to become intellectual and learn for the sake of learning.  This society is in desperate need of wisdom, not rhetoric and empty-headed ideological kamikaze-lemming-dupes that are willing to destroy themselves and their society to  please the patron saints of the Austrian School or whatever other demagogue they worship.

There is nothing to fear from the "responsibility that comes with freedom" in your limited Libertarian sense.  It is total detachment.  Cold and uncaring.  It is the deadness of apathy toward your future and the future of humanity.  No dear sir, my actions are guided by a love for my fellow humans, such is my want to save them from their own stupidity and free them from the clutches of demonic demagogues who have destroyed their ability to think and made them ideological slaves and will soon make them slaves in the very real and literal sense if nothing is done to stop it.

NAP <> Self Ownership.

The concepts are closely related, but they are not useable interchangeably, as you have attempted to do here. However, "Autonomy" is a good synonym for self ownership.

Maybe if I can understand your position, I can explain it better to you.

What exactly do you have against the Non-Aggression Principle and Self ownership?

First of all you can't choose all your relationships, you can't choose where you were born, who your parents were, what your class and social standing was, you can't choose much of anything as a child or as a minor.  But you do see increasing levels of choice as a person gets older and more mature.  If what you mean by "self ownership" is being able to choose the relationships that you have the power to choose then that's fine, it's been called "autonomy" in the past, why make up new terms for it?  Also, how does one determine how much they have been influenced by their surroundings?  As I like to say: "The eye cannot see itself without some assistance", meaning that you are perhaps the worst qualified person to determine how much your environment effects you as well as I am with mine.  You can determine these things by exploring your own mind and by altered states of consciousness.  We do know that certain behaviors that people are exposed to, especially children, lead them to have certain dispositions; and that people likewise create and terminate relationships with others because of their beneficial or detrimental affects on their persona.  The truth is that we are constantly absorbing everything around us and that only the most vigilant of minds is hyper aware of this process.


How reductionist.  There is a little lost in the translation here, I'm not talking about "brain" as much as I'm talking about "mind".  Also I'm not talking about who changed who's mind as much as who 'owns thoughts' or what "self ownership" could possibly mean in the realm of the mind and then not seeing any useful application of that slogan.  I'm talking Platonic noosphere, the realm of ideas, and the fact that Self Ownership has no basis for existence in this realm.  You choose what you want to believe, that's fine to the extent that it is true, but I'm talking about the thoughts themselves.  Also, there are many things that people believe on presumptions that are false and are instilled there at a very early age.  Were those instilled there by choice?  Whose choice?  If what you mean by Self Ownership is that you make up your own mind or you choose what to believe then that is really the beginning of another conversation regarding Choice.


How very "rugged" of you but what a hot load of garbage.  If you were a slave in ancient times you would not only have the freedom in the first sense but you wouldn't even know how to read, reason or barely think as you were crushed and plowed under a slave's workload.  If you didn't find it "tolerable" then you could get whipped, tortured, raped and/or murdered.  Would you have found all this fair because you were told "I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do"?  This type of rhetoric less than worthless, it's toxic.  Also, at what point do become fully liable for your actions?  From birth?  How do grievances between individuals get resolved if neither of them will resolve it, and their conflict is disruptive and destructive to the rest of the society?  


Wow.  It's back to the spirit of the Aristotle Identity Principle.  Simply by stating that you are indeed a separate organism than myself biologically, doesn't prove anything whatsoever.  It doesn't illustrate how S.O. is a moral concept, because once again, not only is ownership a social phenomena but so is morality.

Again, you didn't illustrate how this term carries any useful or meaningful or politically worthwhile connotation.  It was synonymous with "autonomy" in the individual sense, it was deferred to another mystification of Choice in the mental, it was ignored and responded to with a steaming pile of rhetorical nonsense in the social sense, and morally was simply reiterated for effect.

Looks like it's a 0:4 knockout against the NAP S.O. {typo, correction}.  A K.O. against the S.O., if you will.  Maybe there is some potential for it in the realm of Choice, but I guess we'll see.  Stay tuned.

Throw as many words at it as you want, but you can't change the fact that those "rough people" (they sound like bikers, but you don't specify) are, as you admit, great people as long as you don't aggress against them.

You say that we are "terrified of government power in the abstract". No, we know specifically what we despise (not fear) about government power. It is based on aggression, even when it claims to protect rights, it is violating them.

Perhaps it is you who are afraid, not of government power, but of the power of the people. Or maybe it's more simple than that. Perhaps you're simply afraid of the responsibility that comes with freedom.

The NAP-sters want to have their cake and eat it too.  They don't understand that what seems morally evident to them is not self-enforcing.  They disregard all history including present history.  But it's even worse than that, for if everyone within a NAP-utopia agreed that the NAP was the “universal law” it still wouldn't solve anything; there still would be a need for government and there still would be a need for a system of law as the complexity of modern society is beyond anything the NAP could ever possibly account for.  There is a sort of implicit fallacy in the NAP that echoes the fallacy of democracy.

Such ideologies could only gain popularity and traction in a declining democratic society, a democracy that Hamilton warned us about.  In a democracy the people are but supple clay in the hands of various demagogues and are abused as such to our collective detriment.

Like I said earlier, the NAP is caveman-level philosophy.  I mean that with only the slightest degree of embellishment.  That statement isn't meant as some type of empty pithy insult; I say that because I've known (and know) some very rough people, that is multi-felons for drugs and violent crime; that said, they are some of the most generous and well-meaning people that I've ever met.  They live by a simple, solitary, rule: "Don't Fuck With Me" (that differs from the NAP only in language but not at all in spirit).  If you do that you'll have a great time with them and they'll give you the shirt off their back if you need it if you are a 'brother'.  But by the same token, they simply don't get along with modern civilization, they don't see the need for so many laws (whether they are legitimate laws or not is irrelevant and they refuse or simply don't have the inclination or ability to consider these questions sufficiently), and besides the complexity of laws the deeper problem is that they can't ever agree to consign themselves having someone else being 'above' them.  Having power over them is something that they are terrified of and can't see the legitimacy for and, perhaps more importantly, its emasculating to be under someone’s dominion.  The "Clan" mentality among these populations is so evident that if you can't see it you have no skills of sociological analysis and should take up other pursuits.  The lesson here is that people that basically already subscribe to the NAP already exist and they aren't enlightened higher-beings, they are criminals and don't have a non-existent utopian social order they have factions and tribes and clans and gangs.  I've seen it personally, up close, I've lived with it, I've mingled among it and that's what's going on in those circles.  Modern society is too complex for these people, and strikes at the heart of the fallacy of democracy; that being that if left to “the people” as a universal mass, will best govern themselves.  These people have no interest in these civil matters and I would say that it would naive and silly for us to expect them to. 

The same meme exists with the Libertarian doctrine.  You have people that have little to no patience, inclination, humility or intelligence (or any lack of a combination thereof) that are trying to gumption social issues with the information they already have - which isn't much (not to say anything toward the vast amount of 'unlearning' false ideologies that we are all begin our lives buried under in our present degenerate culture).  It's all too complicated and they don't like any power above their own authority.  I think part of the power and authority has to do with old-fashioned irrationalism, but one cannot ignore the prevalence of these doctrines among men of a certain age range.  That all these doctrines play to the male energy of self-sufficiency, responsibility, power, authority and respect cannot be ignored.  These doctrines cynically exploit traditional male virtues by transforming them into crude caricatures; then play on these societally induced virtues but attempt to cleave them from any subsequent responsibility to the society that instilled them as morals in the individual to begin with.  The modern emasculated male, lacking any male interactions that haven’t been destroyed and/or commercialized and sold back to him as a product, wants these male virtues and the Libertarian doctrine pretends to provide it by selling that archetype of John Galt or otherwise the Ubermensch that inhabits the pages of these doctrines.  They don't teach you how real strength comes from unity, combination of action and inter-relational support and how every real hero that actually existed had the support to be heroic equally because of their strength but also of the strength that they got from their wives or friends or family and the culture and people they loved and sought to protect, defend and lead.


The NAP’s bedfellows might seem strange at first, if you aren't aware of the cynical reasons that Libertarianism (and classical Liberalism) were created for.  Let's see how the "Don't Fuck with Me Principle" and the NAP are related specifically.  The DFWMP is a clannish, tribal version of it for primitives that have 2 problems with that system (the bewildering complexity of the system and the fact that there is power over them) while the NAP is basically the same thing wrapped in Brahmin language but serving the existing oligarchy and power establishment.  Both these groups share this one principle thing: they are terrified of government power in the abstract.  The elite see the potential for it to remove their undue privileged (and rightfully so) and the primitives see it as a way that it restricts their personal freedom (which may or may not be happening, saying nothing of the public good).  In this NAP-induced mindset, the public good is never considered, the survival of the society is never considered, the future projection of the society is never considered, the greater potential that can exist is never considered, the level of individual equality of the system is never considered, the external threats to the system cannot be addressed; and why when these ideologies have seized power they system collapses and destroys itself in short order.  And, unfortunately, we are well on our way in this collapse for this very reason.

But all the while, the oligarchy and the primitives who both profess this style of doctrine are doing it for radically different reasons.  In fact, these doctrines were created by oligarchs to rally the primitives to their side, to fight against ‘government power’, not specific policies not this issue or that, not power outside the limits of the Constitution but the power in the abstract sense.  That any equalizing force in government that could subdue the universal, historical constant that is oligarchy is something that oligarchy has universally been against.  The ruling class (oligarchy) always seeks to do two things with regard to the State: control it and/or destroy it.  If it can’t be controlled destroy it.  If it can be controlled then you must destroy the will for power in the universal population; and the NAP does just that.

I'll address each of these points individually.


What is owned in the relationship between two people is not the person, but the relationship itself. I am my mother's son, to be sure, but that does not define me, only my relationship with my mother. Likewise, I do not own her, simply be cause she is "my" mother. Also, while this relationship has influenced my personality, probably to a greater degree than I am aware of, it is not the sole influence, nor probably even the greatest. I have self ownership because I can choose which relationships I allow to influence me, and indeed, which I allow to even exist.


If I write a computer program, and sell or give it to you, and you run that program on your computer, do I own your computer while you run that program? or the section of the hard drive where you have it installed? Since you are now reading my words, do I now own a small section of your visual cortex? If you remember them, do I now own that part of your memory? No, of course not. You own the hardware, no matter the software you choose to run on it. I have self ownership because I can decide whether or not your arguments are persuasive enough to convince me, and if they are, it is I who changes my mind, not you.


To answer this one, I refer you to a quote by Robert A. Heinlein:
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
I have self ownership because I control my actions, and no one else does. Even those things I do because I am forced to I, do, and not someone else. Duress does not remove choice, it merely makes one choice (or all others aside from one) extremely unpalatable.


Absent any other people on the planet, indeed self ownership does lose meaning. But since I am not the only person on the planet, and neither are you, then self ownership remains a valid concept. I own me, and by extension, you (and not I) own you. I have self ownership because I am not you, and you are not me. We are separate individuals.

The idea of self-ownership is just a brief little poem, a little blurb of sophistry, it has as much meaning or non-meaning as the person who wants to listen to it instills in it.  It is a sophism not only on the word "ownership" but also "self".  I think this term has four connotations, all of which are not even really false as much as the term 'self-ownership' doesn't mean anything in the only contexts in which it could potentially mean something; those being the individual, the mental, the societal and the moral.

That's why I brought up Aristotle's Identity Principle, it's another non-theory.  Simply restating your conclusion as the assumption (or vice-versa) is circular logic; the same exists in the idea of "self-ownership".  These arguments both are a type of rudimentary 'begging the question'.  {Edit}  It occurred to me that the worst thing about the Identity Principle, and SO is that they pretend to claim some level of Absolute Truth.  {Edit}

First the individual.  If you exist in society you 'belong' to many different relationships and many 'belong' to you.  You are your mother's son - see the ownership?  You are your child’s father - again do you see the ownership?  As a minor you are under their authority both legally and for all practical purposes - at what point are you fully 'your own'?  While none of these people own you in a literal sense, as such, you are not a slave; but your life, personality, and existence are largely (if not principally) influenced by these relationships.  You define who you are by the these relations.  So in the sense that the individual is 'free' from societal 'ownership' doesn't appear to be at all true.  That is to say nothing of the fact that language, culture, opportunity and many other things come the society you live in which belong to everyone (they are public) and simultaneously nobody 'owns' them in the individual sense.  So, in what sense do you fully have "self-ownership" in this context?

Then the mental.  Indeed, I am trying to convince you that your Libertarian ideology is flawed and that it is a menace to yourself and our society and you are trying to do the inverse because it clearly does matter what people other than yourself think.  And if I can change your mind (or vice versa) or even put an idea there that wasn’t there before, then there is an interplay of ideas in which nothing can be said to be fully 'yours' or fully someone else's (putting aside actual creativity for this argument).  I mean this in the following sense: take Plato's Forms; if we both imagine a circle, who does it belong to?  If ideas are not owned, then that aspect of your mind cannot be 'owned', as such, and therefore the main context of your subjective experience in this existence isn't something that you 'own'.  But, it is also something that you do not not own; it's just that the idea of 'ownership' in this sphere (which encompasses all others) is silly.  To what sense could you have "self-ownership" in this context?

Sociologically, if you mean that you are free as a slave is not free then that is something that doesn't rely on you, solely and personally as much as it does to do with the society and your ability to influence it.  Meaning that if you were a slave and slavery was socially acceptable then would you have "self-ownership"?  If slavery was illegal and shunned in the society you were in then you could be relatively certain of you not being a slave. Whether you own yourself in this literal sense depends not on you, but on the society you live in and your ability to influence it.  Your 'societal opportunity' is a combination of your willingness fulfill do and the societies ability to provide in which a distinctive line between to the two is near impossible to establish, yet is the interplay between these factors.  So do what sense do you fully have "self-ownership" in this context?

Morally if you were the last person alive on the planet the idea of ownership becomes worthless.  It would be a term no longer with any meaning.  Therefore ownership implies that there is another 'non-you', and in this sense the term 'self-ownership' means what exactly?  That which expresses ownership as a self-identifying moral property is fairly bizarre in this context.  I'm not even sure how to process it as both morality and ownership are broad inter-human interactions while the context of 'self-ownership' as it morality goes internal to the individual where ownership (something between individuals) and self (something that is defined by numerous things external to itself, as I illustrated above) cease to mean anything.  In this sense, "self-ownership" is a sophistical paradox.  So, as a moral argument, "self-ownership" doesn't actually seem to convey any meaning.

Also, in case there’s any confusion, I certainly don't own you.  Although by preaching such primitive garbage as "self-ownership" it appears that you are clearly not your own master.  In all these above areas it's not that "self-ownership" is false, it is just that it doesn't mean anything, or means whatever the ideologue wants it to mean; such is the nature of sophistry.  Such is the nature of ideology.  It, "self-ownership", is just another undigested shibboleth of the Libertarian dogma.  It is a confusing juxtaposition of words meant to confuse and befuddle its victim into a comatose state of 'non-think'.  Those forever unable to break down the term "self-ownership" actually represent a type of mental slavery to an ideology that you didn't create and was made just for the purpose of turning well-meaning people into inert political blobs.  The promoter of "self-ownership" thinks that he is proscribing solutions to the above facets of the human experience and yet he is not.  He thinks, by this token representation of faux moral philosophy, he has solutions for mankind's problems - he has them not.  By proclaiming "self-ownership" the Grand Conversation of policy and civics and morality are all aborted and brought to a premature halt; he that "owns himself" is unable to journey on the road to truth and self-discovery for he believes he has all the answers to that question by the imposition of two words stapled upon each other.  Cicero?  Plato?  Aristotle?  Machiavelli?  Jefferson?  Madison?  Hamilton?  Franklin?  These people have wrestled with the idea of moral philosophy and the role of the state over the millennia and we are to believe that someone has discovered the solution to all of this by the “NAP” and the principle of "self-ownership"?  

I’ve got a reading list about a mile long if you want to actually begin your civics discussion and break out of these ideological prisons.  A ‘prison break’ for all the captives of the Libertarian doctrine is long overdue, we need your help in saving our republic, and literally can’t do it without y’all.

How so?

You've clearly spent a great deal of time thinking about this, which is a shame, since you're totally wrong.

You make an interesting point about the golden rule being better because it imposes a positive obligation to to good. Interesting, but flawed. The NAP only prohibits initiation of the use of force, it does not prohibit, for example, charity. You can do good, but you cannot be forced to do good. Basic libertarian philosophy holds that only obligations which you yourself have agreed to are valid. Note that agreeing with the NAP does not preclude belief in the Golden Rule.

The rest is just BS. I do have one question though: If you do not own yourself, who does?

The NAP as a moral axiom has a lot of severe and workable problems, it is basically moral philosophy for cavemen and really says a lot for the level of moral and intellectual degeneration in our present population.


*  The NAP acts as a perverted and inverted form of Golden Rule.  Where the Golden Rule is defined by positive action "treat others as you'd like to be treated" the NAP seeks to define morality as what is NOT done between individuals.  It was actually a huge leap forward for human morality when Jesus furthered the Golden Rule, while the NAP reflects the sort of dark age 10 commandments where nearly everything can be defined by what is called negative morality; that is, being virtuous by what you do NOT do rather than what you DO.  The moral degenerate nature of Libertarianism is that it attempts to please this side of man, that would rather not have any "skin in the game" by the complexity of making moral decisions in life, that he can be "good" simply by doing nothing.  It's funny, if you take the NAP to its logical conclusion that this is the "morality" of alienation and atomization; that is, that if you lived on a farm, completely off-the-grid and had no human interactions the NAP would claim that you are the paragon of virtue.  The perversion here is that the further you remove yourself from human interaction the more 'safe' you are with regard to this bizarre 'morality'.  For what is morality but justice between individuals?

*  The NAP ignores (quite willfully and for political reasons) the role of the modern state as a part of modern civilization, not some type of parasite sucking off the people but the collective will for justice among the people, at least this is what it has the potential to represent, and has represented in the past and can represent in the future; and that the existing oligarchy in any nation has nightmares about the Government being the servant of the people and not the ruling class.  And that the modern person is as much a product of civilization and therefore the Nation-State as much as it is a product of them.  Destroy the State and it will be recreated by the people, attempt to destroy the people and the State will retaliate.  People are no longer the romanticized Robinson Crusoe's or 'rugged individuals', as such, nor did such individuals ever actually exist.  The social system that historically predates what is considered the modern State was Feudalism, and the morality and laws and ideology of Libertarianism is really nothing but an attempted return to that "heyday" of oppression and elite dominion.  This type of atomization that the NAP ultimately is advocating for would lead to a new Dark Age as it attempts to destroy the complex nature of society by an inflamed use of the word "force" and "aggression"; as Hayek sought to destroy sociological discussion and history by the use of the word “collectivism” and as Fredric Bastiat sought to destroy the American System of Political Economy by use of the word “plunder”.  As much as the modern male in our emasculated culture dislikes to hear these words, they are true: "you are not wholly self-sufficient and owe your present life, culture, wealth, station, comfort and everything else to the society you live in to the existing society/culture and therefore its government ".  Sorry, you are not Robinson Crusoe or John Galt, those were both and always will be fictional characters.  You did not spring from the mud fully formed, but were once a helpless infant and had the culture, language, and social norms of this (or whatever) society instilled into you to some degree or another.  This gets at the non-idea of “self-ownership”, which is about as stupid of a ‘theory’ as Aristotle’s Identity Principle.

*  We ignore that the NAP and all the other Libertarian ideology is a political doctrine that was crafted for cynical political purposes.  It looks at Rothbard, Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, Bastiat and others as if they had no political motives and simply were disinterested scholars floating above the earth.

It’s actually worse than this, but that’s all for now.

Well, then I would point out that one of the benefits of no government is no jurisdictions, and no concerns about extradition.

As it happens no.  The employees that do the actual killing are on a flight to Moscow, Karachi, wherever long before arrest warrants get issued.

Are they getting in trouble for it?

They shoot one another and stuff.  There was a dramatic poisoning with Polonium a while back.  You would not want to be standing between the goons of the owner of Chelsea FC and the guy he stole the money to buy Chelsea with off   Pakistani "community leaders" are found dead and the killers have flown to Karachi. 

I'm not sure why you are asking.  These guys are what they are; products of lawless societies where a killer instinct and a sound grasp of accounting is what's needed for incredible success.  Moving to London doesn't change that.  Provided its not foreign states settling scores on the streets of London, its not really an issue to lose sleep over.