Philosophical survey

[heavenlyboy34]

If you vote for and elect a person who does evil, are you guilty by association? My first poll! :)

[FindLiberty]

If you knew about the evil before you voted, you are an accessory to evil. Let the random jury decide your fate!

[Truth Warrior]

Sane adult individuals are responsible and accountable for their actions, whether they admit it or not. ;)

[RockEnds]

That's why the Amish and Mennonites rarely vote. They believe they are morally responsible for the person they vote for, so they vote for no one just in case.

I think that's taking it a little too far. But I do think that people are responsible for the actions of someone who does what they have promised. If a candidate promises to institute or continue a bad policy or refuses to promise to end a bad policy, I believe those who vote for that candidate bear responsibility.

[heavenlyboy34]

Sane adult individuals are responsible and accountable for their actions, whether they admit it or not. ;)

lol! qft :)

[Aratus]

That's why the Amish and Mennonites rarely vote. They believe they are morally responsible for the person they vote for, so they vote for no one just in case.

I think that's taking it a little too far. But I do think that people are responsible for the actions of someone who does what they have promised. If a candidate promises to institute or continue a bad policy or refuses to promise to end a bad policy, I believe those who vote for that candidate bear responsibility.

true... they do... the total democracy of the soul

[nickcoons]

Sane adult individuals are responsible and accountable for their actions, whether they admit it or not. ;)

Are insane adult individuals not responsible or accountable for their actions? If not, then who is?

I like Murray Rothbard's argument of the parent-child relationship, that it is a trust relationship. The child still has self-ownership, and can exercise its rights fully as soon as it demonstrates that it is capable of doing so, (for instance, by moving out and getting a job). This is what would allow a parent to impose their will on their child (like telling them what time to go to bed).

This same sort of trust relationship could work if a sane person has custody over an insane person, so I'm not referring to these insane people. What about the ones that have no guardian? Who is responsible for them if they aren't responsible for themselves?

[Andrew-Austin]

My answer to the poll would be that it depends, but I voted no.


If you knew about the evil before you voted, you are an accessory to evil. Let the random jury decide your fate!



That puts far too much emphasis on the " importance of voting" in my opinion.

Only the mainstream media hypes up the "importance of voting" in our dysfunctional democracy to such a degree. People in the MSM like to imply that voting for someone gives them a "public mandate" to do as they please. I don't think such a mandate really exists, its more of a myth that certain powers like to perpetuate.

A hypothetical example I could throw out would be:
I vote for BJ Lawson to be President based on his current platform and oath to protect the constitution, and he wins the presidency. Once in office he then proceeds to invade Iran and declare martial law.

Sorry but my vote for President Lawson couldn't be described as an endorsement of these evils. If this philosophical rule/logic cannot be applied to all situations then the answer cannot be 'yes'.


If a candidate promises to institute or continue a bad policy or refuses to promise to end a bad policy, I believe those who vote for that candidate bear responsibility. I agree, at least partial responsibility.

[mediahasyou]

Is a man guilty who hires a serial killer?
Is a man guilty who hires another to rob a bank?

No double standards. Voting is immoral.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

If you vote for and elect a person who does evil, are you guilty by association? My first poll! :)

How difficult is it for a lobster to think rationally right before it is dropped into a boiling pot of water? I see a narrowing to meaning here. The more pain and persecution we suffer from our government, the more we narrow down to what is truly important. Having the time to banter about interesting things is just a sign that things haven't gotten serious enough yet. Our water is still being heated up. Things are still great for many of us.

[nickcoons]

Is a man guilty who hires a serial killer?
Is a man guilty who hires another to rob a bank?

Of course not.. people are responsible for their own actions. That is, the serial killer and bank robber are responsible for their action.


No double standards.

Agreed.

[Truth Warrior]

Of course not.. people are responsible for their own actions. That is, the serial killer and bank robber are responsible for their action.



Agreed. And the man that hires the serial killer and the bank robber is responsible for his actions of hiring them, if they were hired to kill serially and rob banks.

No double standards! ;)

[Conza88]

Of course not.. people are responsible for their own actions. That is, the serial killer and bank robber are responsible for their action.

Agreed.

You are getting mixed up, incitement with contract.

For example, you can't be blamed for "inciting hatred, or violence"

You worked people into a frenzy, but they are retarded enough to go do the deeds or commit the crime.

On the other hand, you have established a Contract with the person whom is going to do your bidding. ie serial killer

:) Responsible.

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks for the replies, y'all. You have some very interesting insights. :D

[nickcoons]

On the other hand, you have established a Contract with the person whom is going to do your bidding. ie serial killer

:) Responsible.

I'm not understanding your claim that a contract would make me responsible for the actions of another (assuming the contract doesn't specifically assign the responsibility to me).

So let's assume I hire a hitman to kill someone (and put aside for the moment the fact that the act of me hiring someone to do something like this is bad in all sorts of ways, and focus just on the responsibility aspect). By what reasoning am I assigned responsibility for his actions?

I am not the one initiating force, he is. To say that I am responsible implies that someone can now use force against me even though I have not used forced against anyone else. It also implies that a law against engaging in such a contract (which itself harms no one) can rightfully exist, creating a victimless crime. I'm unclear as to how an anarcho-capitalist can argue this point.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just trying to understand how you logically conclude that one can be responsible for the actions of others without explicitly assuming responsibility. It sounds like you're saying that the assumption of responsibility is implicit in the existence of a contract, but how?

[Conza88]

I'm not understanding your claim that a contract would make me responsible for the actions of another (assuming the contract doesn't specifically assign the responsibility to me).

So let's assume I hire a hitman to kill someone (and put aside for the moment the fact that the act of me hiring someone to do something like this is bad in all sorts of ways, and focus just on the responsibility aspect). By what reasoning am I assigned responsibility for his actions?

I am not the one initiating force, he is. To say that I am responsible implies that someone can now use force against me even though I have not used forced against anyone else. It also implies that a law against engaging in such a contract (which itself harms no one) can rightfully exist, creating a victimless crime. I'm unclear as to how an anarcho-capitalist can argue this point.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just trying to understand how you logically conclude that one can be responsible for the actions of others without explicitly assuming responsibility. It sounds like you're saying that the assumption of responsibility is implicit in the existence of a contract, but how?

I guess I was going from the viewpoint; the serial killer would be acting as your agent.

I'm doing Contract Law at the moment this term, got an exam in a week lol.

I'll copy and paste the slides, much easier.

The Law of Agency
The law of agency is primarily based on common law principles. There is no statute that relates directly to the law of agency.

An agency involves three parties:
Principal: A person who authorises/appoints another (an agent) to represent him/her
Agent: A person appointed/authorised by the principal to act on their behalf
Third Party: The other party involved in the transaction.

Definition of Agency
A relationship which arises when one person (the principal) authorises the other person (the agent) to act on the principal’s behalf.

Two important points about Agency in relation to the Law of Contract:

There is a contract between the Principal and the Agent which creates the authority of the Agent; and

Exercise of authority by the Agent leads to creation of PRIVITY between the Principal and the Third Party.

Type of Agent Description
Special or Limited - Agent can only make a particular type of contract or carry out a particular transaction on behalf of Principal.
General - Agent can make contracts of a class that are normal for this type of agency or do some act for Principal which is part of Agent’s ordinary course of business.
Universal - Agent can do almost anything Principal can do.


There are three basic types of authority that might occur between an agent and a principal.

Actual (Express) Authority
- Authority conferred by the Principal.
- The actual authority of an agent arises from the creation of the agency.
- Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties Ltd [1944] 2 QB Diplock J
“An actual authority is a legal relationship created by a consensual agreement…which creates contractual rights and liabilities.”

Now...! Whether that type of contract would be permissible in a Libertarian Society, I do not know... I'm still a bit ignorant in terms of the law in an anarcho-capitalist society, still learning and got lots of books to buy and read over the holidays after I get these exams out of the way... :)

But certainly in the current legal environment (mine anyway) I think it counts..

[Truth Warrior]

No Treason. No. VI, The Constitution of No Authority. (1870).* (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6)

[heavenlyboy34]

No Treason. No. VI, The Constitution of No Authority. (1870).* (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6)

thanx for the post, TW. This reminds me of the "Dennis The Peasant" scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0 :)

[nickcoons]

Now...! Whether that type of contract would be permissible in a Libertarian Society, I do not know... I'm still a bit ignorant in terms of the law in an anarcho-capitalist society, still learning and got lots of books to buy and read over the holidays after I get these exams out of the way... :)

But certainly in the current legal environment (mine anyway) I think it counts..

Most definitely in today's society someone who hires a hitman is considered responsible. I'm just trying to determine how, absent a clause in the contract the transfers responsibility from the hitman to the hirer, the hirer is responsible for the actions of the hitman. For that to be the case, it would have to be argued that there is something implicit (not explicit) in a contract that transfers responsibility. Then this begs the original question of "how or why?"

[Conza88]

Most definitely in today's society someone who hires a hitman is considered responsible. I'm just trying to determine how, absent a clause in the contract the transfers responsibility from the hitman to the hirer, the hirer is responsible for the actions of the hitman. For that to be the case, it would have to be argued that there is something implicit (not explicit) in a contract that transfers responsibility. Then this begs the original question of "how or why?"

Pretty certain I haven't argued that. I'd said via contract, or through the serial killer acting as an agent.

It terms of How or why.. plausibly you are not allowed to give threats you cannot carry out. This is in a libertarian society btw. So you can't threaten to bash someone; break non aggression axiom + property rights... because you can't possibly carry it out without breaking the law.

Pretty sure Walter Block addresses it here (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=80); in Reparations.

[Truth Warrior]

thanx for the post, TW. This reminds me of the "Dennis The Peasant" scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0 :) Spooner addresses contract, agency and responsibility very well in that linked essay.<IMHO> ;)

[nickcoons]

Pretty certain I haven't argued that. I'd said via contract, or through the serial killer acting as an agent.

Okay, then let's be explicit. Here's a sample (simplified) contract:

"I, [some name], agree to pay [some name] an amount of [some amount] in order to kill [some name]." Then signed at the bottom by both parties.

There is nothing in there explicitly transferring responsibility from the hitman to the hirer. Is the hirer responsible for the hitman killing the target?


It terms of How or why.. plausibly you are not allowed to give threats you cannot carry out. This is in a libertarian society btw. So you can't threaten to bash someone; break non aggression axiom + property rights... because you can't possibly carry it out without breaking the law.

Pretty sure Walter Block addresses it here (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=80); in Reparations.

Will take a look.. thanks.

[nodope0695]

Please refer to the orange text in my signature.....

[Fox McCloud]

depends; if the person has a long history of doing certain things that are highly questionable, and you know it, I'd say, partially (you're more foolish than anything else, IMHO though).

However, if the person seems good up front, and his record is clean, and you vote for him because of that, then he turns out to be a bad apple? Nope, no responsibility on your part.

we're all individuals.

[Conza88]

Okay, then let's be explicit. Here's a sample (simplified) contract:

"I, [some name], agree to pay [some name] an amount of [some amount] in order to kill [some name]." Then signed at the bottom by both parties.

There is nothing in there explicitly transferring responsibility from the hitman to the hirer. Is the hirer responsible for the hitman killing the target?

Well essentially, the contract is unenforceable in law. It is not binding, regardless if you write in a transfer of responsibility from hirer to hitman, because the said actions are unlawful. So you could never go to court saying; I transferred responsibility to the killer. The court wouldn't recognise it (the contract).

Basically, the way they see it - you have taken explicit steps (hiring a killer & listed the person you want killed) . In a Libertarian society, were I'm pretty sure as outlined in Reparations by Walter Block (will have to go re-listen to it & confirm) maybe you can comment if you've chosen to listen to it) but where you can possibly get punished for making threats you cannot do, obviously hiring a killer to kill someone is more than a threat; it's premeditation to have someone murdered, through your actions.

I dunno, I'm kind of in two minds with this one.. Going back and forth... I like a way Walter Block puts it...

Is - you can't go up to someone and go, "Give me all your money, or I'll kill you"...

And be like; "I never actually harmed the person, I just said give me all your money.." And he did...

The threat itself is an act of violence, coercion. You can't use "I never harmed the person" as a defence. Pretty much were the point comes; you can't threaten someone with something you cannot lawfully do. Obviously it wouldn't go to the extent of just words; like "I'll kill you (as a joke)" etc. there would have to be a real presence of threat there.

I do see the alternate point though; like the guy who incites violence, and the people who follow it are just stupid and its their fault for being swayed.

Kind of a fine line... but here I think it is different. As stated before; your actions have gone from: verbal with no presence of threat (inciting hatred) ---> actions greater than a threat (contract a killer)

I think thats the distinction. Anyway, this has been a bit of a muddled thought provoked post. Hopefully there is some article on lew, or mises, or somewhere that clears it up. There should be.

[nickcoons]

Well essentially, the contract is unenforceable in law. It is not binding, regardless if you write in a transfer of responsibility from hirer to hitman, because the said actions are unlawful.

I'm not suggesting transferring responsibility from the hirer to the hitman. I'm suggesting that the hitman, the one who is actually engaging in the activity, already has responsibility. What I'm wondering is if the contract didn't specifically transfer responsibility from the hitman to the hirer, what would.

Is - you can't go up to someone and go, "Give me all your money, or I'll kill you"...

And be like; "I never actually harmed the person, I just said give me all your money.." And he did...

But justice isn't about punishing the criminal, it's about making the victim whole. When a criminal is convicted of an act, his sentence should be full reparations. If someone is convicted of threatening violence, what is their punishment? What do they owe their "victim"?

I understand the practical ramifications of allowing threats because they are not themselves force or violence. I'm just trying to follow through logically how threats can be outlawed in a libertarian society when no harm has been done simply by the threat itself.

[The_Orlonater]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Politicians lie, well except for Paul.

[heavenlyboy34]

This has been a very interesting thread!

I don't think the hitman example works universally in the case of elections. Let's say our scenario is that Mr politician promises that he is a nice guy and the voters elect him under that assumption. If Mr politician commits a heinous act (such as murder), could the blame be placed squarely on the voter? :confused: (keeping in mind that the voters do not know of Mr politician's "evil" inclinations beforehand)

[Conza88]

I'm not suggesting transferring responsibility from the hirer [you] to the hitman [me]. I'm suggesting that the hitman [me], the one who is actually engaging in the activity, already has responsibility. If the contract did not transfer responsibility from the hitman [me] to the hirer [you], what would.

If the hitman was under duress maybe? You said you would hurt his family, kill him, etc if the hitman did not do it..


But justice isn't about punishing the criminal, it's about making the victim whole. When a criminal is convicted of an act, his sentence should be full reparations. If someone is convicted of threatening violence, what is their punishment? What do they owe their "victim"?

I understand the practical ramifications of allowing threats because they are not themselves force or violence. I'm just trying to follow through logically how threats can be outlawed in a libertarian society when no harm has been done simply by the threat itself.

I gather you didn't listen to Block's lecture... Did you? :)

[nickcoons]

I gather you didn't listen to Block's lecture... Did you? :)

Not yet. I had to get to sleep last night, and need to head to work shortly.