Justice Under Anarchy

[NghtRppr]

Does anarchy mean that you can rape or kill whoever you like and get away with it? No, there will still be justice under anarchy. However, since it will not be supported by tax dollars, it will need to be paid for somehow. Who picks up the bill for justice? That's simple. It will be paid for by those receiving protection and also those that necessitate spending money in the first place i.e. the criminals. If you steal something, you will have to pay restitution, returning or replacing the item you stole, paying the costs of enforcing justice on you and also paying a fine to make it so that the incentive for stealing and risk of not getting caught vs. the risk of cost plus the fine, make it unprofitable, on average, to steal.

That's fine so far but it sounds like the rich will get more justice than the poor under such a system. It's a good thing nothing like that happens under our current system! (sarcasm) However, let's say that Bill Gates kills you and then writes a check to your family. Murder is just something else that rich people can buy now, right? Not quite. There's nothing stopping your family from killing Bill Gates and then handing the check back to his family. By killing people and paying for it, you are giving others the financial means to do the same to you!

Alright, what about the homeless? Many of them don't have families to pay so it seems like murder is free in that case. If you kill someone, there's still a claim against you and it becomes a sort of abandoned property. Anyone willing to enforce justice on you will be able to receive the payment that the family of the homeless person would have received. Also, if it's clear that you do this kind of thing for fun, there's a case to be made for locking you up so that you won't do it again. Self-defense is justified and imprisoning you would be a form of ongoing self-defense. You don't let up an attacker while he's still armed. The same goes for rich psychopaths.

Some might say "But, but, how can we put a price on human life?! I would never do that." Well, it would seem that millions of dollars is better than nothing. Anyways, there are already wrongful death suits. This would just be an extension of that. For the very dangerous, there will be prisons and many people would pay to keep them off the streets.

Is it perfect? No. No system is perfect. It's better than the current system, where we inflict evil on each other in the hopes of stopping other evil. Even though there will be problems, we can take comfort in knowing that we are living in a more just society.

[1715137414]

1715137414

[1715137414]

1715137414

[kiba]

What is justice and what does it means to have a just society?

[NghtRppr]

What is justice and what does it means to have a just society?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

[MoonShadow]

This still doesn't address the problem that I presented in the other thread.  If the parents harm their own child, who then is responsible for bringing justice?  What would define harm in this case under a state in anarchy?  After all, Islam openly permits a father to marry off his daughter at eight years old.

[NghtRppr]

If the parents harm their own child, who then is responsible for bringing justice?

The parents owe restitution to the child for the abuse. Anyone that wants to take part of that restitution for assisting the child would be able to do so.

What would define harm in this case under a state in anarchy?  After all, Islam openly permits a father to marry off his daughter at eight years old.

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.

[JohnDoe]

This still doesn't address the problem that I presented in the other thread.  If the parents harm their own child, who then is responsible for bringing justice? 

Nobody is responsible for "bringing justice". To say that we have a duty to protect the children is to say that we don't own ourselves, that we are slaves to a higher cause/purpose.

[NghtRppr]

This still doesn't address the problem that I presented in the other thread.  If the parents harm their own child, who then is responsible for bringing justice?

Nobody is responsible for "bringing justice". To say that we have a duty to protect the children is to say that we don't own ourselves, that we are slaves to a higher cause/purpose.

That's true but also irrelevant. Nobody needs to be responsible, inspired by some moral obligation or even charitable. They just have to be interested in making a profit for themselves. If there are people like that, and I think there are, then those people would be lining up to collect restitution on behalf of the victims of abuse. It's similar to how lawyers take cases on contingency.

[AntiVigilante]

[Tycho] paid out 150 BTC out of his own pocket due to a breach of security.

QED.

Anarchy just pwned every bloated government in existence.

[NghtRppr]

[Tycho] paid out 150 BTC out of his own pocket due to a breach of security.

QED.

Anarchy just pwned every bloated government in existence.

Rightly so. That 150 BTC was a small price to pay compared to the goodwill he gained for his enterprise.

[Chris Acheson]

Relevant:

Q. Without government cops, and government courts, and government prisons, who will stop unscrupulous criminals from robbing honest people blind?

A. We will.

[MoonShadow]

If the parents harm their own child, who then is responsible for bringing justice?

The parents owe restitution to the child for the abuse. Anyone that wants to take part of that restitution for assisting the child would be able to do so.

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.

What would define harm in this case under a state in anarchy?  After all, Islam openly permits a father to marry off his daughter at eight years old.

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.

Saying that children are the property of their parents doesn't solve the issue, I admit, but that is the functional default in every body of law in the world in any case beyond the scope of some legal statute established by a government.  A better way to say it is that the rights of the child are vested in the parents until the child has achieved the age of reason and is able to claim them.  But when does that happen?  In most modern states, that event is an abrupt transition from ward to citizen somewhere around the age of 19.  In nearly every case this is years behind the reality, as the age of reason is actually somewhere around the age of 13 for normal people, but can be as early as 8 for some and as late as never.  Nonetheless, there is no body of law that would say that this 5 year old child who was caged for months in her own crib is old enough to reason.  So who says that being caged is a violation of her rights?  We can both look at this and know that this is abuse, but what makes it criminal under an anarchy?  What profit motive would a private security firm have for taking this case, the parents didn't have anything to pay restitution with; and what they did have was already under due claim because of the theft that led to this discovery.

[NghtRppr]

Who gets to define abuse?

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

Can an 8 year old even consent?

A few can, most cannot.

If not, then who can on her behalf?

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.

A better way to say it is that the rights of the child are vested in the parents until the child has achieved the age of reason and is able to claim them.  But when does that happen?

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

Nonetheless, there is no body of law that would say that this 5 year old child who was caged for months in her own crib is old enough to reason.  So who says that being caged is a violation of her rights?

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.

We can both look at this and know that this is abuse, but what makes it criminal under an anarchy?

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.

What profit motive would a private security firm have for taking this case, the parents didn't have anything to pay restitution with; and what they did have was already under due claim because of the theft that led to this discovery.

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.

[em3rgentOrdr]

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

[NghtRppr]

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

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

[em3rgentOrdr]

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

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

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

[kiba]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

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?

[AntiVigilante]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

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?

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.

[JA37]

If you live on someone's property, you either follow their rules or you are free to leave.

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. 

Does anarchy mean that you can rape or kill whoever you like and get away with it? No, there will still be justice under anarchy.

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?

It will be paid for by those receiving protection and also those that necessitate spending money in the first place i.e. the criminals.

Since we all benefit from protection from criminals we should all pay the fee then? Let’s say, through a common fee?

There's nothing stopping your family from killing Bill Gates and then handing the check back to his family. By killing people and paying for it, you are giving others the financial means to do the same to you!

So, you’re somehow idolizing the clan justice that is in effect in lawless areas in the world?

[Tycho] paid out 150 BTC out of his own pocket due to a breach of security.
QED.
Anarchy just pwned every bloated government in existence.

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.

However, we can and should treat people how they would want to be treated if they were fully rational.

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?

[NghtRppr]

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. 

Following the rules or leaving applies only to homesteaded property.

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?

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.

Since we all benefit from protection from criminals we should all pay the fee then? Let’s say, through a common fee?

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.

So, you’re somehow idolizing the clan justice that is in effect in lawless areas in the world?

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

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?

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

[JA37]

Following the rules or leaving applies only to homesteaded property.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

[mewantsbitcoins]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

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?

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

[NghtRppr]

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.

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

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.

That's a form of aggression against my property.

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

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.

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

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.

So would someone who doesn't want medical attention because their imaginary friend told them not to be qualified as "fully rational"?

Yes, people are allowed to be wrong.

How about someone who is watching their kid starve, would they be concidered to be fully rational?

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

How about under the influence of drugs?

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

Temporary mental illness?

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.

[kiba]

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

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

[rezin777]

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

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.

[mewantsbitcoins]

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

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

I've seen a lot of people like you. It all ends in tears eventually. It is very unfortunate and saddens me deeply that few exceptions inspire millions of people to become cunts

[kiba]

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

So I shouldn't do certain things because some people might be out to get me.

What if I time travel back and save the Jews and the nazi comes out to get me?

[kiba]

I've seen a lot of people like you. It all ends in tears eventually. It is very unfortunate and saddens me deeply that few exceptions inspire millions of people to become cunts

Congratulation, confusing the messenger with the message.

Apparently, you never have to deal with a sneaky son-of-the-bitch socialpath.

[JohnDoe]

I've seen a lot of people like you. It all ends in tears eventually. It is very unfortunate and saddens me deeply that few exceptions inspire millions of people to become cunts

You couldn't answer the question so you resort to a personal attack. Try again.

[rezin777]

So I shouldn't do certain things because some people might be out to get me?

What if I time travel back and save the Jews and the nazi comes out to get me?

I said nothing about someone who is out to get you.

We were talking about non-aggression here weren't we? The nazis were the aggressors, so you have every right to attempt to save the Jews.

I'm suggesting that if you try to initiate force against someone, be prepared for force in return.

[BitterTea]

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?

Because if you murder and rape others, you are implicitly stating that that such behavior is acceptable. Therefore you have no argument when others rape and murder you. Do you want to be raped and murdered?

[mewantsbitcoins]

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?

Because if you murder and rape others, you are implicitly stating that that such behavior is acceptable. Therefore you have no argument when others rape and murder you. Do you want to be raped and murdered?

He can get away with it 

[mewantsbitcoins]

I've seen a lot of people like you. It all ends in tears eventually. It is very unfortunate and saddens me deeply that few exceptions inspire millions of people to become cunts

You couldn't answer the question so you resort to a personal attack. Try again.

What do you mean I didn't? My answer to the question why shouldn't he murder and rape while thinking he can get away with it is: It all ends in tears eventually. The rest is my personal view towards such members of society.

[kiba]

What do you mean I didn't? My answer to the question why shouldn't he murder and rape while thinking he can get away with it is: It all ends in tears eventually. The rest is my personal view towards such members of society.

What if I get away with it, every single time? Saying it's not ok, doesn't matters.

[mewantsbitcoins]

What do you mean I didn't? My answer to the question why shouldn't he murder and rape while thinking he can get away with it is: It all ends in tears eventually. The rest is my personal view towards such members of society.

What if I get away with it, every single time? Saying it's not ok, doesn't matters.

We are all free to choose whatever path we consider best. Good luck

[BitterTea]

What if I get away with it, every single time? Saying it's not ok, doesn't matters.

You can't. Eventually you will make a mistake, and someone will kill you in self defense. The world rejoices, and life goes on. If you can't be caught or stopped, then a state isn't going to be solve the problem and this is a pointless discussion.

P.S. Any other anti-statists watch Dexter and think about how much you'd rather hire him to take down the killer of a loved one than the police?

[rezin777]

What if I get away with it, every single time? Saying it's not ok, doesn't matters.

What about it? There is nothing that can be done. What is the point you are trying to make?

[JohnDoe]

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?

Because if you murder and rape others, you are implicitly stating that that such behavior is acceptable. Therefore you have no argument when others rape and murder you. Do you want to be raped and murdered?

Rape and murder would not be rampant simply because the risk of retaliation would be too high. The ones who go for it anyway would win a Darwin Award fast so there's no need for the non-aggression principle, only a sense of self-preservation is needed.

[rezin777]

P.S. Any other anti-statists watch Dexter and think about how much you'd rather hire him take down the killer of a loved one than the police?

Good luck getting me to wait for anyone else to take care of it. I can only hope this is a situation I never have to face.

[JohnDoe]

What do you mean I didn't? My answer to the question why shouldn't he murder and rape while thinking he can get away with it is: It all ends in tears eventually. The rest is my personal view towards such members of society.

What if I get away with it, every single time? Saying it's not ok, doesn't matters.

You probably can't. The rest of society will see you as a threat and band together to take you down.

[kiba]

You probably can't. The rest of society will see you as a threat and band together to take you down.

Ok. This is a better answer than "murder is wrong!!!1111"

Just to be clear, I am a normal human being, not a pyschopath or a socialpath.

[BitterTea]

Ok. This is a better answer than "murder is wrong!!!1111"

Just to be clear, I am a normal human being, not a pyschopath or a socialpath.

I don't know about normal.

I was pretty sure you don't condone rape and murder, you're just a skeptic of moral principles.

[rezin777]

Ok. This is a better answer than "murder is wrong!!!1111"

Just to be clear, I am a normal human being, not a pyschopath or a socialpath.

The better answer is everyone has the right to life. If you take someone's life, you give up that right.

[kiba]

.
The better answer is everyone has the right to life. If you take someone's life, you give up that right.

Stilling saying "X is wrong!" or "Y is wrong!". It's totally BS, man.

The universe doesn't give us rights, man!

[rezin777]

.
The better answer is everyone has the right to life. If you take someone's life, you give up that right.

Stilling saying "X is wrong!" or "Y is wrong!". It's totally BS, man.

The universe doesn't give us rights, man!

Yes, you are free to try and deny me my life, but I will defend it. Therefor I give the right to myself. And anyone else who values their life, and their right to live, will defend my life as well, just as I will defend theirs.

[JohnDoe]

The better answer is everyone has the right to life. If you take someone's life, you give up that right.

More like a non-answer since some of us don't believe in rights. If you got killed I would not retaliate just because you were denied of your "right", but because it is in my self interest to to take out the killer as he is a threat to me.

[rezin777]

More like a non-answer since some of us don't believe in rights. If you got killed I would not retaliate just because you were denied of your "right", but because it is in my self interest to to take out the killer as he is a threat to me.

So you only value your own life?

[JohnDoe]

So you only value your own life?

No, but I don't value yours.

Not sure what you are getting at though, are you saying I would have a duty to avenge your life?

[rezin777]

No, but I don't value yours.

Not sure what you are getting at though, are you saying I have a duty to avenge your life?

Of course not. I'm just trying to understand. I'm going to think for a bit.

[rezin777]

No, but I don't value yours.

OK. So, you would defend your life only for the reason of self-preservation?

Are there other lives you would defend, and if so, for what reason?

Would you defend another life if the loss of that life was no threat to you?

[JohnDoe]

OK. So, you would defend your life only for the reason of self-preservation?

Are there other lives you would defend, and if so, for what reason?

Would you defend another life if the loss of that life was no threat to you?

I would defend any life that is in my self-interest to defend. Some examples: I would defend myself for self-preservation, I would defend my daughter's life because she is my favorite person, and my dog's life because she is my second favorite person. I would defend my neighbors life because that would mean that they might do the same for me and we have a higher chance of survival if we help each other. I would defend Gavin Andresen's life because I want bitcoin development to continue smoothly. Finally I would defend Quentin Tarantino's life just because I really like his movies and would feel like I owe him that much.

[JA37]

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

Because a majority of us believes this to be the case, and we set the rules.

That's a form of aggression against my property.

So I'll just have to define you to be the agressor and then I can defend myself against it?
I know you don't agree with Intellectual Property, but if you take some of my work then I'll just declare you to be the agressor against my IP and "defend" myself against that, no matter that you don't agree that there is such a thing as IP? I can do that?

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.

Sort of a "Nice house you got there, shame if something were to happen to it" kind of deal? Inciting crime wouldn't be a crime in your world? Unless I declared that a form of agression against my property and defended myself against it?

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.

Yes, that's the gang mentality that I have a problem with. If murder is wrong, how can murder be right? I have no problem removing a violent individual from society for protecting it, but "an eye for an eye" should have been discarded a long time ago. I also think that in the interest of justice, a person who isn't violent but has commited murder should be locked up for some time as punishment for his crime, as a "restitution" for the victims family.
Say that I find out that someone raped my child. I don't catch him in the act, I find out sometime later. I then find and kill the rapist. It's clearly not defence, and I pose no threat to society other than to those who abuse my children. Should the rapists family be allowed to kill me? I don't think so. I do think I should spend a long time in jail though.

Yes, people are allowed to be wrong.
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.

In another thread you were adamant that contracts should be upheld, no matter what. I'm glad to see that you've started to see gray-scales. That was the point of the "shotgun blast".

If you're saying "Hey, look at this, this system is MUCH better, let's use this system instead!" then you will have to be the one with the explanations. We already have a system that works so well that it's in use all over the world. If anarchism is better, then explain it so well that I'd like to switch to that system. If you live in a democracy then form a party with the goal of dismantling the state and spread the gospel. If it's so great you'll have no problem. The market decides, right? Let the market, in this case voters, decide.

[rezin777]

I would defend any life that is in my self-interest to defend.

So, your self-interests are to protect those lives that you value. But you are not always there to protect those lives that you value. Do you believe in morals?

Would it be wrong for someone to take the life of one of those that you would defend? I have to assume your answer is no (since you don't believe in rights).

So, those with the power to protect themselves against retaliation can do as they please? Basically might makes right? Although you won't call it right. Might makes it so?

If someone wants to kill a person on your list, and you can't stop them, and no one else cares to stop them, we simply chalk that up as chaos?

I think we (humans) have a rational mind to make rational decisions that we can then base our beliefs on. I want to live, and I would rationally assume others want to live as well. In your case, I don't need to assume, you've told me you will defend your life. So this is the foundation of what I would call rights. Since people want to live, it makes sense to defend life from those that would take it at their discretion. If my daughter was in danger, and you could end that danger, I would hope that you do. I would certainly protect your daughter (or you for that matter) from someone who is putting you in danger, if I was capable of doing so.

So, I would argue that it is in your self-interest to defend the lives of like minded people, because those people would defend the lives that are in your self-interest to defend, when you aren't there to defend them. Who are the like minded people? People that believe in a right to life (and non-aggression)!

[mewantsbitcoins]

OK. So, you would defend your life only for the reason of self-preservation?

Are there other lives you would defend, and if so, for what reason?

Would you defend another life if the loss of that life was no threat to you?

I would defend any life that is in my self-interest to defend. Some examples: I would defend myself for self-preservation, I would defend my daughter's life because she is my favorite person, and my dog's life because she is my second favorite person. I would defend my neighbors life because that would mean that they might do the same for me and we have a higher chance of survival if we help each other. I would defend Gavin Andresen's life because I want bitcoin development to continue smoothly. Finally I would defend Quentin Tarantino's life just because I really like his movies and would feel like I owe him that much.

So if you recognize that people live in packs/societies and would defend each other and that you would not want to experience violence yourself, what is this argument about again?

[rezin777]

If murder is wrong, how can murder be right?

Initiation of violence is wrong. Once someone initiates violence against another, they accept it to be used against them.

[NghtRppr]

Because a majority of us believes this to be the case, and we set the rules.

So I'll just have to define you to be the agressor and then I can defend myself against it?

It seems you can't make up your mind whether it's just you that gets to make the rules or you and a bunch of people that agree with you.

I know you don't agree with Intellectual Property, but if you take some of my work then I'll just declare you to be the agressor against my IP and "defend" myself against that, no matter that you don't agree that there is such a thing as IP? I can do that?

That wouldn't be legitimate in my view.

Sort of a "Nice house you got there, shame if something were to happen to it" kind of deal? Inciting crime wouldn't be a crime in your world? Unless I declared that a form of agression against my property and defended myself against it?

It's not inciting crime to make sure everyone knows that you aren't being provided services by my company.

If murder is wrong, how can murder be right?

It's not murder if you take a life you own or kill someone in self-defense. Just like it's not destruction of property to smash up my own stereo. Under my previous example, if you kill someone and hand them back the check that means it still wasn't right, otherwise you wouldn't have had to pay back the money. You could murder and not have to pay restitution. In that sense, no, murder is still wrong.

Say that I find out that someone raped my child. I don't catch him in the act, I find out sometime later. I then find and kill the rapist.

That wouldn't be responding in a proportional manner. You don't kill a 5 year old for trespassing because she steps on your lawn to get her ball back.

In another thread you were adamant that contracts should be upheld, no matter what.

I held that valid contracts should be upheld. Picking up the hand of a comatose person, putting a pen in it and waving it around on a piece of paper to spell out their name isn't a valid contract. The same goes for all other non-fully rational people. I haven't changed my position at all. You're simply misrepresenting it.

If anarchism is better, then explain it so well that I'd like to switch to that system.

I'm not interested in converting you or anyone else. I'm simply defending anarchism against straw men.

[JA37]

It seems you can't make up your mind whether it's just you that gets to make the rules or you and a bunch of people that agree with you.

I am a firm believer in democracy. So I don't think your way of "I decide which rules to follow" is a good way. Rules are set by a majority, and followed by all.

That wouldn't be legitimate in my view.

So can I or can't I defend my intellectual property against your agression? I think it's valid, you don't.

It's not inciting crime to make sure everyone knows that you aren't being provided services by my company.

From your example above it did sound like your intention was to let criminals know that my house was unprotected. How is that not inciting crime?

It's not murder if you take a life you own or kill someone in self-defense. Just like it's not destruction of property to smash up my own stereo. Under my previous example, if you kill someone and hand them back the check that means it still wasn't right, otherwise you wouldn't have had to pay back the money. You could murder and not have to pay restitution. In that sense, no, murder is still wrong.

Ignoring that self defence could still be murder where I'm at, I have a problem with the "a life you own" bit. I don't agree that you can own anyone. And while killing in self defence sometimes is justifiable, killing someone for revenge would still be murder. The end result would be the same. One dead body and a lot of people suffering for it.

That wouldn't be responding in a proportional manner. You don't kill a 5 year old for trespassing because she steps on your lawn to get her ball back.

Agreed. It's not proportional. Can the rapists family kill me now?
What if I get into a barfight and pushes someone away who is bothering me. He falls over and hits his head, and dies from head trauma. His family can kill me now?
I don't agree that they now own my life and can kill me. Do you?

I held that valid contracts should be upheld. Picking up the hand of a comatose person, putting a pen in it and waving it around on a piece of paper to spell out their name isn't a valid contract. The same goes for all other non-fully rational people. I haven't changed my position at all. You're simply misrepresenting it.

Ah? Then we agree again. I also think that valid contracts should be upheld. Good thing we have laws that govern what can be put in a contract, right? 

I'm not interested in converting you or anyone else. I'm simply defending anarchism against straw men.

If you're not interested in converting anyone, why did you write the "Justice Under Anarchy" post?

[JohnDoe]

Do you believe in morals?

I don't know if they exist or not, that question is too deep down in the philosophical abyss for me, so I just say that I don't subscribe to them.

Would it be wrong for someone to take the life of one of those that you would defend? I have to assume your answer is no (since you don't believe in rights).

It wouldn't be wrong since I don't recognize right and wrong.

So, those with the power to protect themselves against retaliation can do as they please? Basically might makes right? Although you won't call it right. Might makes it so?

Yeah, I favor the law of the jungle. It kinda makes my position look stupid since government gets away with "might makes right" every day so I'm sort of legitimazing it. The difference though is that in my ideal society the individual is empowered instead of the group and is extremely hostile towards a rising powerful group. Basically whenever a powerful group forms and tries to impose their will on others, a bigger group would form from people that are feeling threatened solely to dissolve the first group. If everyone reasoned like this then society would be completely stable since everyone would strive to equalize their power with the rest to avoid becoming a target.

If someone wants to kill a person on your list, and you can't stop them, and no one else cares to stop them, we simply chalk that up as chaos?

I guess. If I'm powerless I'm screwed either way, no matter what kind of society we live in. Right now if the government decided that I'm a terrorist and locked me up for life, and everyone agreed, then what can be done? The powerful decided what's right and what's wrong for me. Same thing could happen in a non-aggression, right-to-life kind of society.

If my daughter was in danger, and you could end that danger, I would hope that you do. I would certainly protect your daughter (or you for that matter) from someone who is putting you in danger, if I was capable of doing so.

I would defend your daughter, but again, not because I felt responsibility to do so, but because I'm sensitive to child abuse so I would feel like shit for a long time if I didn't do anything. On the other hand, if I saw a beggar getting stabbed by 5 guys I would probably not defend him because the risk of getting owned myself is high and so it wouldn't be worthwhile saving someone I don't really care about.

[JohnDoe]

So if you recognize that people live in packs/societies and would defend each other and that you would not want to experience violence yourself, what is this argument about again?

At first I was arguing that there's no need for the widespread belief in the non-aggression principle, rules, morals and rights for the stability of an anarchic society. Common sense would do just fine as a self regulatory mechanism.

[NghtRppr]

I am a firm believer in democracy. So I don't think your way of "I decide which rules to follow" is a good way. Rules are set by a majority, and followed by all.

Which leaves the system open to tyranny of the majority, such as when the majority voted to allow ownership of black people.

So can I or can't I defend my intellectual property against your agression? I think it's valid, you don't.

According to me, you can't. According to you, you can. What are you looking for, some sort of infallible source of laws?

From your example above it did sound like your intention was to let criminals know that my house was unprotected. How is that not inciting crime?

I'm not encouraging the commitment of a crime.

Ignoring that self defence could still be murder where I'm at, I have a problem with the "a life you own" bit. I don't agree that you can own anyone. And while killing in self defence sometimes is justifiable, killing someone for revenge would still be murder. The end result would be the same. One dead body and a lot of people suffering for it.

I think my life is my property. I can give it away, sell it or be forced to forfeit it by taking another person's life.

Can the rapists family kill me now?

No.

What if I get into a barfight and pushes someone away who is bothering me. He falls over and hits his head, and dies from head trauma. His family can kill me now?

No, voluntary manslaughter is not the same as murder.

Good thing we have laws that govern what can be put in a contract, right?

No, it's not a good thing.

If you're not interested in converting anyone, why did you write the "Justice Under Anarchy" post?

It was inspired by the "It's because of crazy people like this..." thread. It's only meant to explain that justice could exist under anarchy.

[kiba]

Do I think morals and rights exists? Yes.

Do I think the universe mandate morals and rights? No. It doesn't care.

We human beings create morals, rights, and ethic. Our morals and conception of ethic originated from our evolutionary origin and evolve through culture. There's a reason we evolved this way, but sometime moral concepts become obsolete in our current environment.

Take the idea of egalitarianism and fairness. These concepts does more harm than good. Thanks to our collective education, we realize that price-gouging is actually economically beneficial.

[rezin777]

I would defend your daughter, but again, not because I felt responsibility to do so, but because I'm sensitive to child abuse so I would feel like shit for a long time if I didn't do anything. On the other hand, if I saw a beggar getting stabbed by 5 guys I would probably not defend him because the risk of getting owned myself is high and so it wouldn't be worthwhile saving someone I don't really care about.

I would defend others not because I felt a responsibility to do so, but because I respect life.

Anyway, thanks for the conversation. I think we agree in many places and have a few key differences.

[rezin777]

We human beings create morals, rights, and ethic. Our morals and conception of ethic originated from our evolutionary origin and evolve through culture. There's a reason we evolved this way, but sometime moral concepts become obsolete in our current environment.

Indeed, we should try to "trim the fat" as often as possible. 

[newIndia]

Is it perfect? No. No system is perfect. It's better than the current system, where we inflict evil on each other in the hopes of stopping other evil. Even though there will be problems, we can take comfort in knowing that we are living in a more just society.

yes it is true no system is perfect but think give a very good understanding of anarchy
http://libcom.org/library/what-is-anarchism-alexander-berkman-21

There is a song of Rabibdranath Tagore "Amra sobai raja amader rajar rajotte"  means we r all kings in our kingdom

[Trading]

I liked the Op care in trying to justify every coercive measure, but:
He is admitting that recalcitrant criminals would have to be locked up.
Court sentences (of reparation or imprisonment) would have to be enforced.
It would have to exist a repressive system of courts, police enforcers and prisons. I don't see much difference, beside the endorsement of proposals of privatization of those systems and making people pay for security and justice when they needed them, like the ones from Nozick, with the goal of abolishing taxes.
Besides, if the criminal didn't have money to pay for his judgement and incarceration (most don't), the system would work at a deficit or we would end at a system of vendetta, with all their escalating consequences and abusive self-decisions on the merits of our own cause (we excel at that). That is precisely the system it took thousand of years to overcome. In archaic roman times, the creditor could lock up the debtor on his own private jail until he or his family paid the debt.
Or it would be necessary to support this repressive system on taxes and have him controlled by the community and we would end up just where we are