Justice Under Anarchy

[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.