Hired Killer - Looking for clarification from a libertarian view

[nickcoons]

If someone hired a hitman to commit a murder, does the hiring party share in the responsibility for the murder? If so, why? Each of us is supposed to be responsible for accepting the consequences of our own actions, and the hiring party has killed no one.

I'm looking for the libertarian view on this one. I'm fully okay with the hitman taking on the full responsibility, since he is the one that committed the murder, and at first glance I can't see any reason why the hiring party would be responsible for the murder. However, I'm wanting to make sure that I haven't overlooked anything.

[heavenlyboy34]

Follow the money, as deep throat would say...just as a politician is guilty for the crimes his soldier commits, so too the hiring party is ultimately responsible. You see, the hiring party in your scenario is much like a financier for a criminal gang. I imagine that this person's punishment would be less severe in a laissez-faire society, though. Good question! :)

[nickcoons]

Follow the money, as deep throat would say...just as a politician is guilty for the crimes his soldier commits, so too the hiring party is ultimately responsible. You see, the hiring party in your scenario is much like a financier for a criminal gang.

Politicians are responsible for the actions of their soldiers because they use the threat of force ("follow orders or else..."), whereas the parties in my scenario are involving themselves in a voluntary transaction.

I agree that the hiring party in my scenario is much like a financier for a criminal gang, but that doesn't help answer the question, unless you assume that the financier is also liable. But if you assume that, then you would use the same premise to answer my question, a premise as yet unprovided.

If the hiring party is responsible for the murder, then is someone in possession of child pornography responsible for the molestation involved in creating the photo? Is an employer responsible for the actions of his employees? If the answer to any or all of these questions is "yes", then what is the meaning of "personal responsibility" if all of these actions impose responsibilities on parties who did not take these actions?

[heavenlyboy34]

Politicians are responsible for the actions of their soldiers because they use the threat of force ("follow orders or else..."), whereas the parties in my scenario are involving themselves in a voluntary transaction.

I agree that the hiring party in my scenario is much like a financier for a criminal gang, but that doesn't help answer the question, unless you assume that the financier is also liable. But if you assume that, then you would use the same premise to answer my question, a premise as yet unprovided.

If the hiring party is responsible for the murder, then is someone in possession of child pornography responsible for the molestation involved in creating the photo? Is an employer responsible for the actions of his employees? If the answer to any or all of these questions is "yes", then what is the meaning of "personal responsibility" if all of these actions impose responsibilities on parties who did not take these actions?

Only if the owner of said pornogaphy ordered the molestation done. If the material exists and the end consumer just finds it enjoyable...it's difficult to place blame on the end consumer. But that's kind of a different situation because the victim of an assassination is dead, while a number of different things could happen to the "victim" of an instance of child porn.

I'll try to add more in the morning. Nice chatting with you, Nick. :D

[M House]

Man where the fuck do people get these arguments?
Hirer=responsible
Hiree=responsible
Just because it's a "professional" doesn't make you immune to being an accessory or whatever to murder.

[nickcoons]

Man where the fuck do people get these arguments?
Hirer=responsible
Hiree=responsible
Just because it's a "professional" doesn't make you immune to being an accessory or whatever to murder.

Who said anything about a professional? I'm trying to find out how a "hirer" is responsible for a murder he didn't commit.

[heavenlyboy34]

Man where the fuck do people get these arguments?
Hirer=responsible
Hiree=responsible
Just because it's a "professional" doesn't make you immune to being an accessory or whatever to murder.

Me? I always start with finding the victim. ;):)

[M House]

Well if you really like letting hirer go free in this case, you'll love the direction we've been taking lately with our military and pmcs.

[nickcoons]

Only if the owner of said pornogaphy ordered the molestation done. If the material exists and the end consumer just finds it enjoyable...it's difficult to place blame on the end consumer. But that's kind of a different situation because the victim of an assassination is dead, while a number of different things could happen to the "victim" of an instance of child porn.

I'll try to add more in the morning. Nice chatting with you, Nick. :D

Thanks for your comments thus far.

[danberkeley]

If someone hired a hitman to commit a murder, does the hiring party share in the responsibility for the murder? If so, why? Each of us is supposed to be responsible for accepting the consequences of our own actions, and the hiring party has killed no one.

I'm looking for the libertarian view on this one. I'm fully okay with the hitman taking on the full responsibility, since he is the one that committed the murder, and at first glance I can't see any reason why the hiring party would be responsible for the murder. However, I'm wanting to make sure that I haven't overlooked anything.

My initial response:
An individual does not have the right to murder someone. Therefore, the "right" to murder cannot be delegated to another individual. Therefore, any contract between the employer and the hitman is invalid. I do not see how the employer CAN be rightfully prosecuted for the murder.

However, an individual does have the right to commit suicide. Therefore, an individual can hire another individual to kill the first individual (assisted suicide). Therefore, a contract created whereby an individual agrees to pay back a loan before a given date and agrees to be killed for not paying back the loan if the loan is not paid back by the given date.

Gambler: I need a loan
Loan Shark: I will loan you some money, but I will kill you if you do not pay me back by a certain date.
Gambler: Okay.

UPDATE: Since Loan Shark has a right to kill Gambler if Gambler does not pay back the loan by a certain date, then that right can be delegated to another individual (Hitman).

[nickcoons]

Well if you really like letting hirer go free in this case, you'll love the direction we've been taking lately with our military and pmcs.

This was addressed in post #3.

[nickcoons]

My initial response:
An individual does not have the right to murder someone. Therefore, the "right" to murder cannot be delegated to another individual. Therefore, any contract between the employer and the hitman is invalid. I do not see how the employer CAN be rightfully prosecuted for the murder.

This sounds as if you're arguing against holding the hirer responsible. Since the contract is void, it's as if the hirer never hired the killer and the killer was acting on his own. Am I interpreting you correctly? Is it conceivable that the hirer would be liable for something, trying to delegate something away that was not his?[/QUOTE]

[danberkeley]

This sounds as if you're arguing against holding the hirer responsible. Since the contract is void, it's as if the hirer never hired the killer and the killer was acting on his own. Am I interpreting you correctly?

Yes.


Is it conceivable that the hirer would be liable for something, trying to delegate something away that was not his?

Yes. (See my example about the Loan Shark and the Gambler). But not for the murder commited by the Hitman. The Hitman could sue the Loan Shark for fraud. As in, if the Loan Shark claimed that he had the right to kill the Gambler but did not, then the Hitman could sue the Loan Shark for fraud. But the Hitman would still be liable for murder.

[TastyWheat]

Where in the hell did you come up with this question? I swear, I thought of the same thing a few days ago and I just never got around to posting it.

Anyway, my opinion is that being a conspirator carries a certain amount of liability too. If two cars come up beside you and a car in front of you slams on its breaks, thereby causing a wreck and suing for damages, I think the other drivers should be prosecuted if it was all determined to be set up. Yes, it doesn't follow the maxim of "no harm no crime" but those who are willing to facilitate crime once are likely to do so again. However, I would hope such laws against conspiracy and accessory would be very specific regarding intent and involvement, so that mere observers are not prosecuted for failure to help those in need.

[Pauls' Revere]

Off the cuff I say yes. Premeditation is involved when hiring the hitman for the purpose of killing. = Murder first degree

[TastyWheat]

If the hiring party is responsible for the murder, then is someone in possession of child pornography responsible for the molestation involved in creating the photo? Is an employer responsible for the actions of his employees? If the answer to any or all of these questions is "yes", then what is the meaning of "personal responsibility" if all of these actions impose responsibilities on parties who did not take these actions?
Good example.

Another good example may be purchasing items you know to be stolen. If someone tried to sell you a stereo, serial numbers scratched off, obvious signs of forced removal, and refusal to provide any information as to the provider of said stereo, and you purchase the stereo are you an enabler? The crime has already been committed, but are you subsidizing and encouraging their behavior by allowing them to profit from it?

Simply put, you are a supporter of the crime if you pay for the fruits of its labor. In the case of the car stereo above, it is much more difficult to prove I am aware of it being produced illegally. I want a stereo, I want it now, I don't ask questions. Call me an unwitting buyer, but not a subsidizer. However, if I purchase child pornography, something that pretty much everyone should know is illegal, then I am subsidizing the creation of more child pornography and more youth exploitation. I think the penalties for purchasing illegal material should be much more lenient than the production, but encouraging crime by patronizing it is also a crime.

In the modern age though, that can lead to some grey areas. If I visited a child pornography site and I clicked on one of the ads on the site, thereby increasing ad revenue of the site, am I subsidizing the website and its production of child pornography? Also, if I buy child pornography from someone who bought the pornography before me, am I still subsidizing the crime?

[tremendoustie]

If someone hired a hitman to commit a murder, does the hiring party share in the responsibility for the murder? If so, why? Each of us is supposed to be responsible for accepting the consequences of our own actions, and the hiring party has killed no one.

I'm looking for the libertarian view on this one. I'm fully okay with the hitman taking on the full responsibility, since he is the one that committed the murder, and at first glance I can't see any reason why the hiring party would be responsible for the murder. However, I'm wanting to make sure that I haven't overlooked anything.

If you hire someone to commit a crime, you are both guilty. I don't see a conflict between libertarian principles and this view at all. If you act with the intention of causing the initiation of violence against another person, you are guilty.

It doesn't matter if you're pulling a trigger, intending that the pin should hit the bullet, intending that the bullet should hit your target at high velocity, inflicting damage upon him/her, or if you are paying money to a hit man, with the intention that that hit man will pull a trigger, with the intent that that would cause damage to the person.

Acting with the intent to initiate violence is rightfully illegal.

[tremendoustie]

Politicians are responsible for the actions of their soldiers because they use the threat of force ("follow orders or else..."), whereas the parties in my scenario are involving themselves in a voluntary transaction.

I agree that the hiring party in my scenario is much like a financier for a criminal gang, but that doesn't help answer the question, unless you assume that the financier is also liable. But if you assume that, then you would use the same premise to answer my question, a premise as yet unprovided.

If the hiring party is responsible for the murder, then is someone in possession of child pornography responsible for the molestation involved in creating the photo? Is an employer responsible for the actions of his employees? If the answer to any or all of these questions is "yes", then what is the meaning of "personal responsibility" if all of these actions impose responsibilities on parties who did not take these actions?

Gawd, why always the child porn issue :confused:.

You are responsible for the illegal actions of others if you are aware of them, and facilitate/support them. If you buy child porn you are purchasing goods produced through molestation, and so supporting the molestation -- just as knowingly buying goods produced through slavery, or knowingly buying stolen goods is supporting and facilitating the slavery or theft.

The employer is only responsible for the actions of employees if he is aware of them and facilitates them. Thus, if unbeknown to my boss, I sneak out on my lunch break and steal someone's radio, my boss is not responsible. But, if he issues me an assignment to go steal said radio, he is responsible.

I think it's quite clear.

If I pull a trigger, intending the action to initiate harm against another person, it is rightfully illegal.

If I secretly stick a bomb in a package, and get someone else to send it, intending the action to initiate harm against another person, it is rightfully illegal.

If I hire a hitman, intending the action to initiate harm against another person, it is also rightfully illegal.

[Conservative Christian]

If you hire someone to commit a crime, you are both guilty. I don't see a conflict between libertarian principles and this view at all. If you act with the intention of causing the initiation of violence against another person, you are guilty.

It doesn't matter if you're pulling a trigger, intending that the pin should hit the bullet, intending that the bullet should hit your target at high velocity, inflicting damage upon him/her, or if you are paying money to a hit man, with the intention that that hit man will pull a trigger, with the intent that that would cause damage to the person.

Acting with the intent to initiate violence is rightfully illegal.

I agree.

Example 1:

A wealthy terrorist decides to hire people to blow up Jewish synagogues in a different U.S. city each week for a year.

Three hundred innocent people are killed in the first three bombings, whereupon the police are able to apprehend the perpetrators. The perpetrators identify the individual who hired them.

However, the police are bound by nickcoon "logic", thus they aren't able to arrest the terrorist who hired the bombers. So the terrorist just goes out and hires a few more killers, and the synagogue bombings resume, killing hundreds more people.

There's no way to stop the bombings, because in a nickcoon world, the "employer" can't be held responsible.

------------

Example 2:

A man decides to have his ex-wife, children, and every member of her family murdered.

He hires a hit man, who kills the ex-wife. The police catch the killer, who identifies the man who hired him. However, the police are bound by nickcoon "logic", thus they're not able to arrest him.

So he simply goes out and hires another hit man, who promptly kills the children. There's no way to stop the killings, because in a nickcoon world, the "employer" can't be held responsible.


.

[nickcoons]

If you hire someone to commit a crime, you are both guilty. I don't see a conflict between libertarian principles and this view at all. If you act with the intention of causing the initiation of violence against another person, you are guilty.

It doesn't matter if you're pulling a trigger, intending that the pin should hit the bullet, intending that the bullet should hit your target at high velocity, inflicting damage upon him/her, or if you are paying money to a hit man, with the intention that that hit man will pull a trigger, with the intent that that would cause damage to the person.

Acting with the intent to initiate violence is rightfully illegal.

Strictly speaking, hiring someone is not initiating force, even though you are hiring someone else to initiate force, and the act of hiring is not a violation of rights. My question is by what principle is the responsibility of the initiation of force transferred from the person actually committing the crime to the person hiring the criminal?


You are responsible for the illegal actions of others if you are aware of them, and facilitate/support them.

By extension:

- If you are raising money to purchase weapons to attack someone, and you are doing this by selling cookies, and I know about it, and I buy cookies, then I am liable for the actions that you will take in attacking someone.

- If I suggest to you that should burglarize someone's house, so I'm therefore aware of the crime and supporting it, then I am liable for the criminal actions.

Is that what you're saying? Then I ask again, what is the meaning of "personal responsibility"?


If you buy child porn you are purchasing goods produced through molestation, and so supporting the molestation -- just as knowingly buying goods produced through slavery, or knowingly buying stolen goods is supporting and facilitating the slavery or theft.

Does this not then place the responsibility of the actions of others on me, burdening me with the responsibility of making sure that the actions of others simply by associating with them?


The employer is only responsible for the actions of employees if he is aware of them and facilitates them. Thus, if unbeknown to my boss, I sneak out on my lunch break and steal someone's radio, my boss is not responsible. But, if he issues me an assignment to go steal said radio, he is responsible.

I think it's quite clear.

If I suggest to you that you break into someone's house and steal their TV, and you do it, am I liable? If not, is it because your boss gave you money and I didn't? What if I said, "I bet you $100 you won't do it," and you did, so I owed you $100 for the act? Am I liable now?


Example 1:

...[snip]...

Example 2:

...[snip]....

Thank you for the examples, but these are far too practical, and the question is philosophically-based. What I'm looking for is a philosophical answer as to how it is justified that responsibility is imposed upon the hiring party, not for examples of why not imposing responsibility on the hiring party is bad.. I can come up with those on my own :).

[nickcoons]

Let's try this another way...

In a free society, everyone is responsible for their own actions. And every action is allowed, except those which violate the rights of another. You can smoke pot, drink yourself silly, or sunbathe nude on your own property; and as long as you are not violating anyone's rights or breaching any contracts, then no one can rightfully stop you from engaging in those activities.

So, if someone hiring a hitman is responsible for the resulting murder, then it would have to be argued that:

- He has violated someone's rights, or
- He has breached a contract.

If you agree that the hiring party has fulfilled neither of the above two criteria required for punishment, yet you want to punish him anyway, then you are not advocating a free society. I advocate a free society, so in order to suggest punishing this person, I would need to know who's rights he has violated, or what contract he has breached. I am looking for arguments that support this case from that perspective.

[M House]

You're making murder into something complex and it's not. If you want to hire a hitman because you don't want to get your hands dirty with the deed yourself, go ahead. I actually see the hirer as more of the murderer anyway. Seeing how many people will just do whatever they want for buck these days. Also a lot of people argue for unrestricted capitalism in the strangest places. Why not have hitmen when they are "professionals"? But the hirer picked the tool, method, and delivery.

[AutoDas]

So you think unrestricted capitalism would breed this sort of business activity? If the hitman thinks this is the best way to earn a living then I'd be worried more about the state of the economy.

[M House]

Um unrestricted capitalism aka legal hitmen+crappy economy=why not?

That is if you just won't call a murderer, a murderer.

[Brian4Liberty]

Let's try this another way...

In a free society, everyone is responsible for their own actions. And every action is allowed, except those which violate the rights of another. You can smoke pot, drink yourself silly, or sunbathe nude on your own property; and as long as you are not violating anyone's rights or breaching any contracts, then no one can rightfully stop you from engaging in those activities.

So, if someone hiring a hitman is responsible for the resulting murder, then it would have to be argued that:

- He has violated someone's rights, or
- He has breached a contract.

If you agree that the hiring party has fulfilled neither of the above two criteria required for punishment, yet you want to punish him anyway, then you are not advocating a free society. I advocate a free society, so in order to suggest punishing this person, I would need to know who's rights he has violated, or what contract he has breached. I am looking for arguments that support this case from that perspective.

The hirer violated the murdered person's rights. The Hirer is a murderer. The hitman is the method. Like instructing a robot to go perform the murder, or using any other indirect method.

Above and beyond that crime, the hitman is a human, and thus is responsible for the action of carrying out the murder. He also violated the murdered person's rights.

Both are responsible.

[danberkeley]

The hirer violated the murdered person's rights. The Hirer is a murderer. The hitman is the method. Like instructing a robot to go perform the murder, or using any other indirect method.

Above and beyond that crime, the hitman is a human, and thus is responsible for the action of carrying out the murder. He also violated the murdered person's rights.

Both are responsible.

Are you saying that robots and hitmen are the practically same? And if so, do they have the same rights?

[tmosley]

If you hire someone to kill someone, then you are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. Conspiracy is generally given equal weight with the actual murder charge, I believe.

You can only participate in a conspiracy before the crime is carried out. If your involvment starts after the commission of the crime, the worst thing you can (or should be able to) be charged with is accessory after the fact. The punishment for that crime is always less than that of the crime itself.

I'm not a lawyer though, so I can't be sure.

[AutoDas]

Um unrestricted capitalism aka legal hitmen+crappy economy=why not?

That is if you just won't call a murderer, a murderer.

Fear the evil capitalist economy. Hitmen are waiting to take orders! Or not.:rolleyes:

[danberkeley]

If you hire someone to kill someone, then you are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. Conspiracy is generally given equal weight with the actual murder charge, I believe.

You can only participate in a conspiracy before the crime is carried out. If your involvment starts after the commission of the crime, the worst thing you can (or should be able to) be charged with is accessory after the fact. The punishment for that crime is always less than that of the crime itself.

I'm not a lawyer though, so I can't be sure.

This begs the question; in a libertarian society, would conspiracy be illegal? And, if so, wouldn't conspiracy be a thought crime? And, if so, who is the victim in a thought crime?

[Brian4Liberty]

Are you saying that robots and hitmen are the practically same? And if so, do they have the same rights?

Not relevant to the first issue (hirer is a murderer). Could be any indirect method or tool...

Second issue about the guilt/freedom of the robot hitman, it would depend on the robot. How advanced? Built with Asimov's laws? As of today, that would be a hypothetical science fiction discussion...a simple, order taking robot is the same as a gun. Neutral. Only the user is "guilty".

[tremendoustie]

Strictly speaking, hiring someone is not initiating force, even though you are hiring someone else to initiate force, and the act of hiring is not a violation of rights. My question is by what principle is the responsibility of the initiation of force transferred from the person actually committing the crime to the person hiring the criminal?


Strictly speaking, I am saying that it is. To hire someone to kill someone is to act with the intent that your action will cause the initiation of violence. Just as, pulling a harmless little trigger is not in itself violent, but the intent is that the trigger will cause the hammer to hit the pin will cause the gunpowder to explode, causing a piece of metal to fly at the victim at high velocity, causing harm. Thus, the person who pulls the trigger has acted with the intent that their action will cause the initiation of violence.



By extension:

- If you are raising money to purchase weapons to attack someone, and you are doing this by selling cookies, and I know about it, and I buy cookies, then I am liable for the actions that you will take in attacking someone.


Yes, if you give money to me with the intent that I will use that money to initiate violence, you are also responsible.




- If I suggest to you that should burglarize someone's house, so I'm therefore aware of the crime and supporting it, then I am liable for the criminal actions.


If your suggestion is made with the intent that it will cause me to initiate violence against someone else, then yes, you are also responsible.



Is that what you're saying? Then I ask again, what is the meaning of "personal responsibility"?


Personal responsibility means the same thing it always has. You are personally responsible for your actions which are made with the intent that they will cause the initiation of violence against another person. If you hire a hitman to kill someone, both you and the hitman are personally responsible.




Does this not then place the responsibility of the actions of others on me, burdening me with the responsibility of making sure that the actions of others simply by associating with them?


Not at all. If you're my buddy, and I go act violently, you are in no way responsible just for associating with me. If you tick me off and I go take it out on someone, you are also not responsible. If you unknowingly provide me with the means to commit a crime, you are also not responsible. You are only responsible if you act with the intent that your action will cause the initiation of violence.



If I suggest to you that you break into someone's house and steal their TV, and you do it, am I liable? If not, is it because your boss gave you money and I didn't? What if I said, "I bet you $100 you won't do it," and you did, so I owed you $100 for the act? Am I liable now?


If you made the bet with me with the intent that that bet will cause me to initiate violence by stealing someone's TV, then you are also responsible.



Thank you for the examples, but these are far too practical, and the question is philosophically-based. What I'm looking for is a philosophical answer as to how it is justified that responsibility is imposed upon the hiring party, not for examples of why not imposing responsibility on the hiring party is bad.. I can come up with those on my own :).

Yes, that is what they are. The point was to illustrate the principle.

I said:



If I pull a trigger, intending the action to initiate harm against another person, it is rightfully illegal.

If I secretly stick a bomb in a package, and get someone else to send it, intending the action to initiate harm against another person, it is rightfully illegal.

If I hire a hitman, intending the action to initiate harm against another person, it is also rightfully illegal.


My point was to explain that what makes the act illegal is not whether I act through the intermediate of an inanimate object, like a gun, or through the intermediate of an unknowing accomplice, like in the mail bomb case, or through the intermediate of a knowing accomplice, as in the case of a hitman.

The question is, have I committed an action, the purpose of which is to cause the initiation of violence against another person?

[heavenlyboy34]

By your logic, are YOU a criminal for paying the taxes that pays for the equipment and salaries of soldiers and staff who kill and harm others plus damage property? :confused:;) (if I may go off topic a moment)


Strictly speaking, I am saying that it is. To hire someone to kill someone is to act with the intent that your action will cause the initiation of violence. Just as, pulling a harmless little trigger is not in itself violent, but the intent is that the trigger will cause the hammer to hit the pin will cause the gunpowder to explode, causing a piece of metal to fly at the victim at high velocity, causing harm. Thus, the person who pulls the trigger has acted with the intent that their action will cause the initiation of violence.



Yes, if you give money to me with the intent that I will use that money to initiate violence, you are also responsible, as an accomplice.




If your suggestion is made with the intent that it will cause me to initiate violence against someone else, then yes, you are also responsible.



Personal responsibility means the same thing it always has. You are personally responsible for your actions which are made with the intent that they will cause the initiation of violence against another person. If you hire a hitman to kill someone, both you and the hitman are personally responsible.




Not at all. If you're my buddy, and I go act violently, you are in no way responsible just for associating with me. If you tick me off and I go take it out on someone, you are also not responsible. If you unknowingly provide me with the means to commit a crime, you are also not responsible. You are only responsible if you act with the intent that your action will cause the initiation of violence.



If you made the bet with me with the intent that that bet will cause me to initiate violence by stealing someone's TV, then you are also responsible.



Yes, that is what they are. The point was to illustrate the principle.

I said:



My point was to explain that what makes the act illegal is not whether I act through the intermediate of an inanimate object, like a gun, or an unknowing accomplice, like in the mail bomb case, or with a knowing accomplice, as in the case of a hitman.

The question is, have I acted with the intent that my action will cause the initiation of violence against another person?

[tmosley]

This begs the question; in a libertarian society, would conspiracy be illegal? And, if so, wouldn't conspiracy be a thought crime? And, if so, who is the victim in a thought crime?

Participation in a conspiracy requires action, so it's not thoughtcrime. Taking an action such as hiring a hitman clearly meets that standard. Probably conspiracy itself wouldn't be a crime, unless it went through.

For example, just talking about shooting up a school isn't (or shouldn't be) enough for prosecution. Helping some guys get together guns and bombs, then not going to school that day while not telling authorities would also qualify you as a member of a conspiracy. If they kill a bunch of people, you will probably be liable for some of that guilt. Depending on your role, you would probably get a different sentence, as determined by a judge. Someone who hired a hitman would have full participation, and would probably get the same sentence as the killer, whereas the school shooter who chickened out, but didn't tell might only be liable for 10-25% of the sentence of their would-be cohorts.

[tremendoustie]

By your logic, are YOU a criminal for paying the taxes that pays for the equipment and salaries of soldiers and staff who kill and harm others plus damage property? :confused:;) (if I may go off topic a moment)

I'm being forced to do so at the threat of violence against myself, so no. Although, I greatly respect those who refuse to pay taxes on those grounds.

If taxes were voluntary, and I chose to pay them with the purpose of enabling people to initiate violence against others, then yes, I would be responsible in that case. (In my view of course).

[dsentell]

The hiring party does share the responsibility with the hitman.

The first thing that came to my mind was the conspiracy angle, which (if proven) would likely impose the same sentences on the hiring party and on the hitman.

Another angle to ponder is that the hitman is actually the weapon of the hiring party . . .

[danberkeley]

Participation in a conspiracy requires action, so it's not thoughtcrime. Taking an action such as hiring a hitman clearly meets that standard. Probably conspiracy itself wouldn't be a crime, unless it went through.

You are contradicting yourself. First you say that conspiracy requires action, then you say doesn't.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

So Alan Greenspan is not responsible for printing money, because hes not manning the printing presses himself, he just hires people to do it.

[tremendoustie]

So Alan Greenspan is not responsible for printing money, because hes not manning the printing presses himself, he just hires people to do it.

Lol, nice twist :)

[danberkeley]

So Alan Greenspan is not responsible for printing money, because hes not manning the printing presses himself, he just hires people to do it.

Greenspan is responsible but can he be rightfully prosecuted?

[tremendoustie]

Greenspan is responsible but can he be rightfully prosecuted?

Well, you know my view is that he absolutely can. The fact that he acted through his employees does not change anything.

Actually, I'm not sure he should be imprisoned as much as just fired and his position eliminated, but I suppose that's another discussion ...

[BenjaminRosenzweig]

Under the Productionary Ethics Possibility—the possibility that principles, values, and moral law are a product of gene-culture coevolution—responsibility is an essential social mechanism most commonly used to ensure social cohesion, safety, and better living conditions for valued members of society. When it comes to personal responsibility, a quintessential libertarian seeks to strike a balance between liberty and safety.

I know that Classical Liberals such as Voltaire and Montesquieu have made deep, highly complex philosophical arguments as to why we are personally responsible for forming contracts (whether vocal or written) with another human being that have the expressed intent of infringing upon the rights of others—I could find them if you want.

However, given that gene-culture coevolution only gives us the foundation of ethics (of principles, values, and moral law), not the actual substance, the answer of how the community should determine the use and extent of such social mechanisms as "personal responsibility" is determined by your own personal value judgment. The "right answer" is your own. Whether it is wise or not, that depends on what you want.

If you desire a Nation in which people are personally responsible for forming contracts made in the interest of murder, then it is wise for you to support (hopefully, continue to support) the legislation that makes it so.

If you desire a Nation in which people are not responsible for malevolent contracts, support repealing them. Though if you were to be successful, I'd suggest buying a small arsenal.



Under the possibility that there exists a God or gods of some sort, you would have to consult religious texts.

[Fox McCloud]

if someone hired a person to kill another person....while the one who commit the actual action of violence should be prosecuted, so should the person who hired him out...after all, the action wouldn't have happened if the original person didn't want someone else dead.

nail both their butts to the wall.

[Kludge]

The hirer is definitely responsible.

This would be similar to asking if someone who shoots another is guilty. You cannot say the bullet did the killing.

Both the direct and indirect murderer should be charged with murder in the first degree.

[BenjaminRosenzweig]

Also, while a contract made in the interest of committing a crime is unenforceable by law it' still considered a contract.

[nickcoons]

Here are a couple of the answers that I liked, however...


The hirer violated the murdered person's rights. The Hirer is a murderer. The hitman is the method. Like instructing a robot to go perform the murder, or using any other indirect method.


To hire someone to kill someone is to act with the intent that your action will cause the initiation of violence. Just as, pulling a harmless little trigger is not in itself violent, but the intent is that the trigger will cause the hammer to hit the pin will cause the gunpowder to explode, causing a piece of metal to fly at the victim at high velocity, causing harm. Thus, the person who pulls the trigger has acted with the intent that their action will cause the initiation of violence.


The hirer is definitely responsible.

This would be similar to asking if someone who shoots another is guilty. You cannot say the bullet did the killing.

...there is one item that they all miss, which I believe to be important.

The premise is this. A murderer is responsible for murder, even though his weapon did the killing, because the weapon was under the control of the murderer. Therefore, the hirer is the murderer, and the hitman is his weapon, so the hirer is also responsible for the murder.

This is saying that both the hitman and the gun are the weapons of the actual murderer. But there's an important distinction. A hitman has free will, which is why he is responsible. The user of a gun is responsible for what the gun does because a gun has no free will (all the same is true of a robot programmed to take orders). A hitman has free will, which is why he is responsible for his actions. The person that hired him has no control over him, as he has control over a non-human object.

Unless it is argued that entering into a contract binds the hitman, and therefore gives the hirer control of him as per the terms of the contract; "I pay you to do a job, you accept, so you have no free will in this matter." But then this only works if it is argued that such a contract is valid (if it's not, then the hirer is not exercising control over the hitman, and the hitman is solely responsible because he is acting of his own free will). If the hitman is bound by a valid contract, carries out the act, then the hirer is responsible for murder because he committed the murder using the hitman as a weapon who was acting without free will as bound by agreement, so the hirer is charged with murder. But then the hitman, acting without free will, just as a gun, is not responsible.

I apologize to anyone that thinks I'm being intentionally dense.. I'm really not. It seems the only answers I can get about why the hirer is responsible is because he intended something, or because he conspired to do something. However, intention really is irrelevant in a free society. If I throw a baseball through your window on purpose, or I'm playing catch and it lands through your window accidentally, my intention means nothing; I'm responsible for restitution just the same. So answers based on the hirer's intent just won't do. His actual actions initiate force against no one, so this is where I'm currently hung up.

[danberkeley]

It seems the only answers I can get about why the hirer is responsible is because he intended something, or because he conspired to do something. However, intention really is irrelevant in a free society. If I throw a baseball through your window on purpose, or I'm playing catch and it lands through your window accidentally, my intention means nothing; I'm responsible for restitution just the same. So answers based on the hirer's intent just won't do. His actual actions initiate force against no one, so this is where I'm currently hung up.

Me too.

[tremendoustie]

Here are a couple of the answers that I liked, however...







...there is one item that they all miss, which I believe to be important.

The premise is this. A murderer is responsible for murder, even though his weapon did the killing, because the weapon was under the control of the murderer. Therefore, the hirer is the murderer, and the hitman is his weapon, so the hirer is also responsible for the murder.

This is saying that both the hitman and the gun are the weapons of the actual murderer. But there's an important distinction. A hitman has free will, which is why he is responsible. The user of a gun is responsible for what the gun does because a gun has no free will (all the same is true of a robot programmed to take orders). A hitman has free will, which is why he is responsible for his actions. The person that hired him has no control over him, as he has control over a non-human object.

Unless it is argued that entering into a contract binds the hitman, and therefore gives the hirer control of him as per the terms of the contract; "I pay you to do a job, you accept, so you have no free will in this matter." But then this only works if it is argued that such a contract is valid (if it's not, then the hirer is not exercising control over the hitman, and the hitman is solely responsible because he is acting of his own free will). If the hitman is bound by a valid contract, carries out the act, then the hirer is responsible for murder because he committed the murder using the hitman as a weapon who was acting without free will as bound by agreement, so the hirer is charged with murder. But then the hitman, acting without free will, just as a gun, is not responsible.

I apologize to anyone that thinks I'm being intentionally dense.. I'm really not. It seems the only answers I can get about why the hirer is responsible is because he intended something, or because he conspired to do something. However, intention really is irrelevant in a free society. If I throw a baseball through your window on purpose, or I'm playing catch and it lands through your window accidentally, my intention means nothing; I'm responsible for restitution just the same. So answers based on the hirer's intent just won't do. His actual actions initiate force against no one, so this is where I'm currently hung up.

I don't think intent is irrelevant, I think it's highly relevant. If I accidentally kill someone, it's very different from intentionally murdering them.

Say I trip and fall, accidentally knocking over a large dresser, which falls and kills someone. Should I be sent away for life, same as if I had burst in with a gun and murdered them in cold blood? Of course not.

Or, say I send someone some food with peanuts in it, not knowing they are allergic, and they die. Or, say I send them perfectly fine food, but they happen to choke on it. Or, say I inform them that I saw birds nesting in their chimney, and they fall and break their neck while trying to fix it.

There are an infinite number of ways in which I can set in motion a course of events that leads to a person's harm. The difference is, if I intentionally push the dresser over onto the person with the intent to harm them, or if I pull a trigger with the intent to shoot them, it is murder, and not an accident -- and there is absolutely an important difference -- a difference absolutely based on intent.

You are right that restitution is the same no matter whether the window is broken on purpose or by accident, but that is a civil matter. There is also a very legitimate place for criminal penalties, which absolutely should distinguish between the ball thrown intentionally, and the one thrown by accident.

Criminal penalties can be thought of as using violence in self-defense against those who would do you harm. A burglar will not break into your house if he knows you will shoot him if he does, nor will he do so if he knows he will go to jail afterwards. Neither your gun nor the jail cell will be used until after your door is broken down, but both protect your door from being broken down in the first place.

It would make no sense to promise to shoot anyone who breaks your door accidentally, because there is no disincentive needed to prevent true accedents -- by definition they are unintentional. Similarly, it makes no sense to promise to send people to jail who commit true accidents. Only restitution is needed.

[nickcoons]

I don't think intent is irrelevant, I think it's highly relevant. If I accidentally kill someone, it's very different from intentionally murdering them.

Say I trip and fall, accidentally knocking over a large dresser, which falls and kills someone. Should I be sent away for life, same as if I had burst in with a gun and murdered them in cold blood? Of course not.

Or, say I send someone some food with peanuts in it, not knowing they are allergic, and they die. Or, say I send them perfectly fine food, but they happen to choke on it. Or, say I inform them that I saw birds nesting in their chimney, and they fall and break their neck while trying to fix it.

There are an infinite number of ways in which I can set in motion a course of events that leads to a person's harm. The difference is, if I intentionally push the dresser over onto the person with the intent to harm them, or if I pull a trigger with the intent to shoot them, it is murder, and not an accident -- and there is absolutely an important difference -- a difference absolutely based on intent.

You are right that restitution is the same no matter whether the window is broken on purpose or by accident, but that is a civil matter. There is also a very legitimate place for criminal penalties, which absolutely should distinguish between the ball thrown intentionally, and the one thrown by accident.

Criminal penalties can be thought of as using violence in self-defense against those who would do you harm. A burglar will not break into your house if he knows you will shoot him if he does, nor will he do so if he knows he will go to jail afterwards. Neither your gun nor the jail cell will be used until after your door is broken down, but both protect your door from being broken down in the first place.

It would make no sense to promise to shoot anyone who breaks your door accidentally, because there is no disincentive needed to prevent true accedents -- by definition they are unintentional. Similarly, it makes no sense to promise to send people to jail who commit true accidents. Only restitution is needed.

The distinction between "civil" and "criminal" does not exist in a free society. Full punishment consists of restitution (and perhaps covering the costs involved with proving guilt) and nothing more. There is no reason to throw someone in jail for them to sit idly as a form of punishment.

Given that, I think I disagree with all of your examples. If you kill someone accidentally or on purpose, you should face the same consequences.

If you provide someone with food, it is their responsibility to make sure the food is "compatible" with them, and to reject it based on their trust of your judgment and ability to provide them with food. If I'm allergic to peanuts, then the responsibility of not eating peanuts is mine. I wouldn't accept food from you unless I both knew that you were aware of this and trusted that you wouldn't give me peanuts.

I'm not even sure how the birds and chimney applies. If you told someone they had birds in their chimney, and they fell off the roof when attempting to take care of this, then I don't think you're responsible even if you intended them to fall or hoped they would when checking out the birds, unless you pushed them while they were up there.

I understand your comments about the deterrent factor of criminal penalties, but restitution (which is rarely, if ever, properly used in society today) provides the same deterrents. If I seek to throw a baseball through your window intentionally, the fact that I'll be responsible for the clean up, replacement window, and its installation is a suitable deterrent. If I am in a position to throw a baseball through your window accidentally, the same deterrent will work to reduce my potential negligence by making me more cautious so that I avoid your window altogether.

[tremendoustie]

The distinction between "civil" and "criminal" does not exist in a free society. Full punishment consists of restitution (and perhaps covering the costs involved with proving guilt) and nothing more. There is no reason to throw someone in jail for them to sit idly as a form of punishment.

Given that, I think I disagree with all of your examples. If you kill someone accidentally or on purpose, you should face the same consequences.

If you provide someone with food, it is their responsibility to make sure the food is "compatible" with them, and to reject it based on their trust of your judgment and ability to provide them with food. If I'm allergic to peanuts, then the responsibility of not eating peanuts is mine. I wouldn't accept food from you unless I both knew that you were aware of this and trusted that you wouldn't give me peanuts.

I'm not even sure how the birds and chimney applies. If you told someone they had birds in their chimney, and they fell off the roof when attempting to take care of this, then I don't think you're responsible even if you intended them to fall or hoped they would when checking out the birds, unless you pushed them while they were up there.

I understand your comments about the deterrent factor of criminal penalties, but restitution (which is rarely, if ever, properly used in society today) provides the same deterrents. If I seek to throw a baseball through your window intentionally, the fact that I'll be responsible for the clean up, replacement window, and its installation is a suitable deterrent. If I am in a position to throw a baseball through your window accidentally, the same deterrent will work to reduce my potential negligence by making me more cautious so that I avoid your window altogether.

But, you did not cover the example where I fall and accidentally knock over a dresser, which kills you. Shall I be put away for life for this, or, what would restitution for the death look like? If restitution for murder is monetary, should I be free to go murder whomever I like, as long as I pay their relatives some amount of money afterwards? So, Bill Gates gets to knock off whomever he likes, with little or no impact to his finances?

Restitution does not provide a sufficient deterrent, even in those particular cases where restitution makes more sense, as in property damage.

For example, say I make my living going around looking for open car doors and stealing radios, and looking for open houses, and stealing the appliances and valuables. If I am ever caught on a particular job, I need only hand back what I am currently stealing.

"Oh dear, you've caught me making off with all your jewlery. Well, here you go, take it back -- I'm off scott free to the next job!" There's nearly no deterrant at all in many of these cases.

You must recognize that people have a right under the law to use violence to defend their property. One of the main goals of this defense is deterrance -- whether a theif be deterred from entering a home for fear of being shot, or for fear of being put in jail -- the use of violence as a deterrant is legitimate. Once you intiate violence, you expose yourself to a potentially violent response, and once you violate the rights of others, you forfeit some of own rights to a certain extent.

Given that this type of response is the right of the victim (of course, within reason), one must ask whether this response is beneficial. Clearly, it is beneficial, as a deterrant.

In another sense, those who intentionally commit a crime harm others beyond the material damage. If I am mugged at gunpoint, I have lost more than just my wallet. I have also had my peace violated, I have had to undergo the threat of violence -- my liberty for that time was also compromised, as well as my privacy. It is right that those who intentionally act with violence against others lose more than only the material goods they have stolen -- not to mention that there are many crimes, like murder, for which real restitution can never be made.

[nickcoons]

But, you did not cover the example where I fall and accidentally knock over a dresser, which kills you. Shall I be put away for life for this, or, what would restitution for the death look like?

You should be required to provide restitution (whatever that is) whether the act was accidental or purposeful.


If restitution for murder is monetary, should I be free to go murder whomever I like, as long as I pay their relatives some amount of money afterwards? So, Bill Gates gets to knock off whomever he likes, with little or no impact to his finances?

Restitution need not be monetary. In the case of property crimes, it makes sense that it is. In the case of murder, it does not. I don't know what proper restitution would be in such a case. Dr. Ruwart provides one possibility:

http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Category=13&id=340


Restitution does not provide a sufficient deterrent, even in those particular cases where restitution makes more sense, as in property damage.

For example, say I make my living going around looking for open car doors and stealing radios, and looking for open houses, and stealing the appliances and valuables. If I am ever caught on a particular job, I need only hand back what I am currently stealing.

"Oh dear, you've caught me making off with all your jewlery. Well, here you go, take it back -- I'm off scott free to the next job!" There's nearly no deterrant at all in many of these cases.

I think you and I have a misunderstanding. In other threads, I've gone to length to explain proper restitution, so I won't do it here again (you can probably find some of those posts by searching the forums for "work prisons"). Here are some other good resources:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap13.html
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap16.html

Upon reading this, you will see that, as I mentioned before, criminals would be responsible for restitution as well as all costs involved in their capture, prosecution, and enforcement to repay their debt. This total amount would likely exceed ten-fold the original amount gained by the criminal.


You must recognize that people have a right under the law to use violence to defend their property.

I do.


One of the main goals of this defense is deterrance

I would disagree. The goal of defense is... defense. If the potential of a victim defending himself exists, and that potential acts a deterrent, that's a welcome side-effect.


whether a theif be deterred from entering a home for fear of being shot, or for fear of being put in jail -- the use of violence as a deterrant is legitimate. Once you intiate violence, you expose yourself to a potentially violent response, and once you violate the rights of others, you forfeit some of own rights to a certain extent.

It is not the use of violence, but rather the potential use of violence, that acts as a deterrent. If violence is used in self-defense, then it's deterring abilities have obviously failed.


In another sense, those who intentionally commit a crime harm others beyond the material damage. If I am mugged at gunpoint, I have lost more than just my wallet. I have also had my peace violated, I have had to undergo the threat of violence -- my liberty for that time was also compromised, as well as my privacy. It is right that those who intentionally act with violence against others lose more than only the material goods they have stolen

But here in your example, it is the act that's important, not the intention. If someone mugged you at gunpoint by accident (let's assume for a moment that this is possible), then your experience, and therefore your justification for claiming that the one committing the violent act must lose more than the material goods they have stolen, is the same.


not to mention that there are many crimes, like murder, for which real restitution can never be made.

I agree that you can't bring back the dead.

[tremendoustie]

You should be required to provide restitution (whatever that is) whether the act was accidental or purposeful.



Restitution need not be monetary. In the case of property crimes, it makes sense that it is. In the case of murder, it does not. I don't know what proper restitution would be in such a case. Dr. Ruwart provides one possibility:

http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Category=13&id=340


So, you think that if someone accidentally causes the death of another person, it would be just for the family of the victim to put them to death? If I suffer an unexpected stroke while driving, and my car hits someone through no fault of my own, I should be put to death. If I slip on some ball bearings on the street, causing one to fly off and land under another person's foot, and they fall and die, I should be put to death. If I tell a funny joke to a person who (unbenownst to both him and me) has a weak heart, and he laughs himself to death, I should be put to death.

I think most reasonable people would view this as absurd, for one good reason. Intent DOES matter. To put someone to death intentionally is NOT proper compensation against a person who caused death accidentally.

What's more, you mix up the ideas of restitution and reciprocity. What you speak of here is not restitution in any sense -- it is reciprocity. If I killed a person accidentally, and I could bring them back to life, but I would have to die myself -- I think I should have to do it -- it is the right of the victim that I should do so. This would be restitution -- correcting the impact of my act -- which I think is my clear moral responsibility. However, I do no think that reciprocity, especially in a manner that does not differentiate between accidents and intentional violence, is in any way moral, or a natural right.

If you break my arm accidentally, through no fault of your own, I have every right to expect you to pay any medical expenses needed to restore my arm. It is a strange morality indeed that says I would then be justified in intentionally breaking your arm.




I think you and I have a misunderstanding. In other threads, I've gone to length to explain proper restitution, so I won't do it here again (you can probably find some of those posts by searching the forums for "work prisons"). Here are some other good resources:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap13.html
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap16.html

Upon reading this, you will see that, as I mentioned before, criminals would be responsible for restitution as well as all costs involved in their capture, prosecution, and enforcement to repay their debt. This total amount would likely exceed ten-fold the original amount gained by the criminal.

I do.

I would disagree. The goal of defense is... defense. If the potential of a victim defending himself exists, and that potential acts a deterrent, that's a welcome side-effect.


Yet, what about my example where the thief is caught red handed by the residents he is trying to steal from, and voluntarily gives the stolen goods back at this point, so as to avoid further punishment? In this case, there have been no costs incurred in aprehension, prosecution, etc. I could endlessly steal without fear of negative consequences as long as I am sure to drop the loot at the first sign of trouble, and leave no evidence.

You rely only on inefficiencies in the system to provide deterrance. For example, if the justice system were completely efficient, and little or no costs were incurred in the enforcement of justice, there would be no deterrant -- the thief would only have to return what he has stolen.

Or, suppose there were a device that only expels a thief from your residence, without causing them harm. Your view is that everyone should use this gun for "self defense", since it is more efficient -- it causes minimum additional harm.

Yet, suppose I am a thief. If I am looking at a row of houses, and I know half of the owners have pistols and would shoot to kill, while half are absent. I would never steal from any of those houses, because I would not risk a one in two chance of injury or death.

Now, suppose half of the owners only have the ability to expel me from their residence, and nothing more. I will gladly rob, since I know if I get unlucky on the first try, I can simply continue until I find a defenseless victim.

In your system, if fully efficient, there is no deterrant at all.



It is not the use of violence, but rather the potential use of violence, that acts as a deterrent. If violence is used in self-defense, then it's deterring abilities have obviously failed.


Yet, one must be willing to use it if there is to be any deterrant effect. If I never were willing to harm anyone in self defense, or send them to jail, there would be no deterrant. It would be absurd to say, to someone who has committed a crime, "well, I tried to deter you with the possibility of jail, but it obviously didn't work, so there's no sense in sending you there now". If I take that policy in each case, there would very quickly be no deterrant at all. The deterrant is for other criminals who would act violently otherwise, and, for that criminal, lest he commit future crimes.



But here in your example, it is the act that's important, not the intention. If someone mugged you at gunpoint by accident (let's assume for a moment that this is possible), then your experience, and therefore your justification for claiming that the one committing the violent act must lose more than the material goods they have stolen, is the same.


Sure, but it is still the intent that matters. Say somehow, through no fault of their own, a person's gun because lodged so that it was pointed at me, and the only way available to prevent it from firing would be for me to give my wallet to the person, and for him to throw it at the gun. I would be in the same situation -- I would be in danger, and it would be necessary for me to give up my wallet in order to be safe.

Yet, I think most people would realize that this situation is quite different. Assuming the situation turned out ok, and I got my wallet back, I would likely sigh in relief, laugh about it, and move on. I would not do so if the person had intentionally robbed me at gunpoint, and it would not be justice for me to only get my wallet back.

When violence is intentionally committed against you, it is very different, and very much more harmful, than an accident. Anyone who has been a victim of violent crime knows there is a big difference.

[tmosley]

You are contradicting yourself. First you say that conspiracy requires action, then you say doesn't.

Taking actions that result in death is not the same as taking actions that do not result in a death. If there is no crime, there is no conspiracy, it's just talk. If the crime is committed, then the conspirators share in the sentence. There isn't a contradiction.

[Brian4Liberty]

Here are a couple of the answers that I liked, however...

...there is one item that they all miss, which I believe to be important.

The premise is this. A murderer is responsible for murder, even though his weapon did the killing, because the weapon was under the control of the murderer. Therefore, the hirer is the murderer, and the hitman is his weapon, so the hirer is also responsible for the murder.

This is saying that both the hitman and the gun are the weapons of the actual murderer. But there's an important distinction. A hitman has free will, which is why he is responsible. The user of a gun is responsible for what the gun does because a gun has no free will (all the same is true of a robot programmed to take orders). A hitman has free will, which is why he is responsible for his actions. The person that hired him has no control over him, as he has control over a non-human object.

Unless it is argued that entering into a contract binds the hitman, and therefore gives the hirer control of him as per the terms of the contract; "I pay you to do a job, you accept, so you have no free will in this matter." But then this only works if it is argued that such a contract is valid (if it's not, then the hirer is not exercising control over the hitman, and the hitman is solely responsible because he is acting of his own free will). If the hitman is bound by a valid contract, carries out the act, then the hirer is responsible for murder because he committed the murder using the hitman as a weapon who was acting without free will as bound by agreement, so the hirer is charged with murder. But then the hitman, acting without free will, just as a gun, is not responsible.

I apologize to anyone that thinks I'm being intentionally dense.. I'm really not. It seems the only answers I can get about why the hirer is responsible is because he intended something, or because he conspired to do something. However, intention really is irrelevant in a free society. If I throw a baseball through your window on purpose, or I'm playing catch and it lands through your window accidentally, my intention means nothing; I'm responsible for restitution just the same. So answers based on the hirer's intent just won't do. His actual actions initiate force against no one, so this is where I'm currently hung up.

In general, people don't accidently hire hit men... ;)

The hitman is very similar to a gun or non-Asimov robot. They are defective as a human, and they can be used like a tool. They are more dangerous than a gun. They are more like dangerous wild animals. If I release a starved grizzly in your locked bedroom, I go to jail, the bear gets put down.

[BenjaminRosenzweig]

"Unless it is argued that entering into a contract binds the hitman, and therefore gives the hirer control of him as per the terms of the contract; "I pay you to do a job, you accept, so you have no free will in this matter." But then this only works if it is argued that such a contract is valid (if it's not, then the hirer is not exercising control over the hitman, and the hitman is solely responsible because he is acting of his own free will). If the hitman is bound by a valid contract, carries out the act, then the hirer is responsible for murder because he committed the murder using the hitman as a weapon who was acting without free will as bound by agreement, so the hirer is charged with murder. But then the hitman, acting without free will, just as a gun, is not responsible.

I apologize to anyone that thinks I'm being intentionally dense.. I'm really not. It seems the only answers I can get about why the hirer is responsible is because he intended something, or because he conspired to do something. However, intention really is irrelevant in a free society. If I throw a baseball through your window on purpose, or I'm playing catch and it lands through your window accidentally, my intention means nothing; I'm responsible for restitution just the same. So answers based on the hirer's intent just won't do. His actual actions initiate force against no one, so this is where I'm currently hung up."

Ruwart's "Healing Our World" is a great resource, thanks for posting the link. This is certainly a serious problem in need of a solution; maybe you could send an email to Dr. Ruwart and ask her what she thinks?

My suggestion would be that illegal contracts may be "void" in the sense that they are unenforceable by law but the injured could still seek restitution for the action of creating them. "Void" contracts still constitute contracts according to the definition of "an agreement between two parties in which they exchange benefits and/or detriments." For instance, if you bribe a journalist to put something in a newspaper both you and the journalist should be made to repay the newspaper for the damage to its quality/integrity. Merely creating an illegal contract that infringes on another person's rights would not be criminal but if it is carried out then the injured party should be able to seek restitution from every party to the contract.

But then, what of intention? If you're not going to consider intentions then what does it matter that you've transferred a criminal intention onto another person via payment?

What of someone promises, on radio or television, $10,000 to the first person that can set a public library on fire. That's not even a contract; that' simply providing incentive for others to commit a crime. What then?

Perhaps the exchange of goods for illegal services would be illegal in a free society? Isn't exchanging goods an action?



Of course then, you run into the problem of someone convincing another person to kill. Say you have an eighteen year old son and you ask him to kill someone and he complies.

What if you ask your ten year old child to physically assault another child? What if your five year old child accidentally starts a fire in your house which ended up spreading so that it eventually burned down every house in the neighborhood? Would you be liable in the first example but not the second?



It seems that this hypothetical political system in which criminal intent is never considered may not function well in today's society. But perhaps someone has thought of a novel solution? Otherwise, the consideration of intent would have to remain within the scope of law enforcement and prosecution. I'll definitely be reading more Libertarian texts to see what others have said on this.

[Number19]

The hirer violated the murdered person's rights. The Hirer is a murderer. The hitman is the method. Like instructing a robot to go perform the murder, or using any other indirect method.

Above and beyond that crime, the hitman is a human, and thus is responsible for the action of carrying out the murder. He also violated the murdered person's rights.

Both are responsible.I haven't read the entire thread just yet, but Brian4Liberty has the right answer. You asked earlier for the philosophical underpinning for holding the hirer responsible, and this is it. The gunman is the instrument or tool for committing the crime. If you personally use a gun and shoot someone, well, you didn't actually kill the person. The bullet did. But you made the decision to pull the trigger. The gunman is the instrument which you conscientiously use to commit murder.

This thread has had a sub-topic - child pornography - which is not a very good example to use when discussing libertarian philosophy. There is no such crime from a libertarian perspective, so you are mixing apples with oranges.

[Number19]

This is a true story.

When I was a kid, before high school, we had an abandoned farm house nearby deep in some woods. The house still had some wall paper on some of the walls, and behind the wall paper was a wind barrier made from old newspapers - the now defunct Houston Press - dating from around 1910, I don't remember exactly, but it was before 1920. Well, I collected an intact page of the advertisements and what had caught my eye was that one of the ads was placed by a member of "the criminal element". The ad was one column wide by about 4" and listed (as best as I remember) the following rates for hire:

Beat someone up............$5
Break fingers...................$10
Break an arm...................$25
Break an arm and a leg....$50

..right on up to the final line...

Kill someone....................$500


Different times, for sure.

[tremendoustie]

This thread has had a sub-topic - child pornography - which is not a very good example to use when discussing libertarian philosophy. There is no such crime from a libertarian perspective, so you are mixing apples with oranges.

There are many libertarians, like me, who absolutely think child porn is a legitimate crime. Please don't cast your opinion as the official "libertarian perspective" in this way, it is likely to mislead people.

However, I do agree that it's not a good example for this discussion.

[Mini-Me]

If someone hired a hitman to commit a murder, does the hiring party share in the responsibility for the murder? If so, why? Each of us is supposed to be responsible for accepting the consequences of our own actions, and the hiring party has killed no one.

I'm looking for the libertarian view on this one. I'm fully okay with the hitman taking on the full responsibility, since he is the one that committed the murder, and at first glance I can't see any reason why the hiring party would be responsible for the murder. However, I'm wanting to make sure that I haven't overlooked anything.

I haven't read the thread yet, although I've skimmed through some of the responses (and I'll be incorporating a variation of one of tremendoustie's examples in my own post)...but I just wanted to offer my thoughts on this:

I've considered this very question myself, and I think I've finally come up with a pretty consistent worldview here. To start off, I think we can compare your "killer for hire" example to the example of corrupt politicians. Politicians don't actually pull the trigger on people overseas, steal citizens' money via taxes, directly spy on people, or throw people into prison for non-crimes. Instead, they implement policies that someone else executes. Are the legislative and judicial branches thoroughly exonerated from all wrongdoing? Is the President himself even exonerated from all wrongdoing, considering he generally does not directly violate anyone's rights? Are the only people responsible the lowly mooks at the bottom who carry out the dirty work - and perhaps the greater mooks that punish insubordination, etc.? While the coercion and threats of aggression for insubordination go all the way up the chain of command, it's a stretch to think that the President himself ever makes a direct threat against the lives or liberty of his generals, cabinet members, etc. (a threat that he will carry out with his own hands/feet/guns/machete/etc., that is). However...would it really be correct to say that politicians and ringleaders bear no moral responsibility for their policies, and only the executors of such policies own any of the blame?

To take that example further, consider the separation of "essential" duties in carrying out executions of criminals, which is an expansion of the principle behind a firing squad: The premise behind the firing squad is that if everyone fires at the same time, nobody knows who actually struck the victim or fired the killing shot, so nobody has to feel the full weight of guilt. Everyone feels like they played only a small role in the execution (true), so they don't need to feel fully responsible (questionable). Do you agree that they should not feel fully responsible? Does only the final person in the chain of events (or the person who fired the killing shot) bear responsibility? Or do they all instead share responsibility equally, divided amongst themselves? Alternately, do they each individually bear the full responsibility for the entire execution? Personally, I believe one of the latter two is the case, and I'll spend the rest of this post explaining my reasoning. You can read the whole thing, or you can skip right to the conclusion, which I have under the heading, "BOTTOM LINE."

To start, I think the answer lies in exploring this idea: Moral responsibility is related to order-of-events and causal responsibility (both direct and indirect), but they are separate concepts. Even speaking only of moral responsibility, I see two types:
Am I morally responsible now for compensating whoever was harmed by my actions (directly or indirectly, depending)? This is tricky, and it's made even trickier by the way that we must come up with the "least unfair" simple set of objective rules and principles that we can consistently apply in practice.
Did I actually do something immoral? Coming from the standpoint of deontological universal morality - but not necessarily absolute morality, which is different from universal morality - we can approach this question based on which deliberate actions you took in and of themselves, and/or we can approach it based on motivations/intentions. In terms of making moral judgments about a person, both are equally important.

This thread seems mostly concerned with the first question, but I'll try to explore both. The stock libertarian criteria for determining the first form of moral responsibility seems to be, "Did you cause harm directly or indirectly?" The primary assumption is that the only thing that matters is whether you violated someone's rights, regardless of whether it was intentional or not. The secondary assumption is that if you caused harm directly, you did violate someone's rights, whereas if you caused harm only indirectly, you did not violate anyone's rights. I think the very premise of this thread is to discuss whether or not that simple question alone is enough to properly evaluate moral responsibility. In my opinion, it makes a good starting point for criteria that can be consistently applied (for objectivity), but it's ultimately nothing more than a rough approximation...and because of that, certain corner cases can highlight weaknesses in such a simple litmus test. In exploring where each type of moral responsibility lies, I'll break things down into several common cases, depending on whether you caused harm deliberately or accidentally, whether you did so directly or indirectly, and what motivations actually drove you to take such a course of action (in the cases where it was delibate):
ACCIDENTAL, INDIRECT HARM, motivation not applicable: What if you indirectly cause harm to someone without intending to? For example, you could accidentally run into a guardrail on the road one day and twist it out of shape, making it jagged and dangerous. You may take responsibility and pay the bill for the repairs, but the next day, before anyone has a chance to fix it, some kid accidentally cuts himself and bleeds to death. The kid would not have died if not for your actions, so you are indirectly causally responsible for his death...but the kid also would not have died if he was more careful, or if he chose to play basketball rather than take a walk, or if his parents had grounded him, etc. In the first sense of moral responsibility (do you owe a debt to the victim?), the libertarian response distinguishes rights violations from non-violations by direct causation vs. indirect causation. Since your actions did not directly cause harm to anyone, the general libertarian response is that you in no way carry any moral debt. Technically speaking, nobody has violated another person's rights, assuming we define the rights to life, liberty, and property as the rights not to be physically interfered with in your person or property by another individual (which stems from the fundamental principle of equal self-ownership). Sometimes "shit just happens," and considering all the trillions of factors that causally affect the outcome of every situation, this is a very practical answer as well. Charity aside (as well as insurance, etc.) it's unfortunate that unlucky people must deal with and pay the price for the bad things that happen to them...but it would be much worse to force someone else pay the price when it is not only not their fault but not their problem either. Besides, it would be an extraordinarily difficult, costly, and error-prone practice to assign blame for mishaps based on indirect causal contribution (and we'd have to define some arbitrary limit for number of blame indirections, considering an omniscient observer could trace it step-by-step all the way back to the big bang). As far as determining culpability for this category of mishaps goes, the standard libertarian litmus test works very well. In the second sense of moral responsibility (were your actions immoral?), you are completely absolved of guilt as well: You could not have reasonably expected such consequences from hitting the guardrail the day earlier (and it were accidental anyway), so your actions in and of themselves were not immoral. Similarly, you had no evil intentions, so it's not like you can be rightly judged as a horrible person.
ACCIDENTAL, DIRECT HARM, motivation not applicable: What if you directly cause harm to someone on accident? For example, you could carelessly become distracted while driving a car and then accidentally run over someone...or you could even suffer a sudden heart attack which causes you to accidentally run over someone. In this case, you're directly violating someone's rights, even though it's not on purpose. In the first sense of moral responsibility (do you owe a moral debt to the victim?), the libertarian response is that you do owe a debt to the victim, because you directly caused harm by violating their rights (albeit accidentally). It is certainly easier to assign blame to one person in this instance than it is in the former instance, which is probably why we do so, but saying you are definitely morally responsible is really just an approximation made out of convenience. If you caused the accident because you were reckless, self-absorbed, etc., then you are certainly morally responsible for the accident, and you legitimately owe the victim a debt (even though your actions were not actually criminal; because you did not deliberately intend to harm anyone, "an eye for an eye" here would be a grave miscarriage of justice). However, what if you really did have a heart attack? In that case, the accident was entirely out of your control and not your fault. You are really no much more morally responsible for this accident than a gun is for a murder (although guns don't stupidly overeat and clog their arteries, if that in fact caused your heart attack, but that's why I say "no much more"). You may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time, just like your victim...in other words, such a situation can be nothing more than an unfortunate pileup of "shit happens," victimizing everyone involved. No matter what, someone is going to get screwed unfairly. We could decide the person who had the heart attack always bears full responsibility, and it would be consistent with the "direct or indirect harm?" principle, but the justice behind it would be just as arbitrary as saying both victims should split the cost evenly, since they both shared in their experience with bad luck. While the "first direct cause" is almost always morally responsible for accidental, direct harm situations, I think the heart attack scenario sheds some light on why such a simple rule is imperfect. Anyway, let's move on. In the second sense of moral responsibility (were your actions immoral?), it really depends. In the case of a heart attack, you are completely absolved of moral guilt. In the case of recklessness, your stupid/selfish arrogance got someone hurt, and I do believe that there's a moral lesson to be learnt there, but such actions don't make you a particularly horrible person or anything by themselves, and the intentions behind them are not especially sinister either.
DELIBERATE, DIRECT HARM, with EVIL INTENTIONS: What if you directly cause harm to someone with full intent to do so and without any additional "good intentions?" For example, you could murder someone in cold blood. This is one of the most clear-cut cases. Assuming we agree upon the definition of individual rights, there's no question you violated someone's rights with a deliberate action, and there's no real question about whether you must be held accountable for compensating the victim accordingly. This is perhaps the most important idea I want to post about: Although Nick Coons argued that a free society makes no differentiation between criminal and civil liability, I believe this to be a grave mistake, because the difference between deliberate murder and accidental involuntary manslaughter comes down to THE ROLE OF FREE WILL, and that is the single most important distinction of all when determining responsibility, moral or otherwise. You might say that it does not matter when it comes to providing just compensation to the victim whose rights were accidentally violated...but it certainly matters when it comes to providing justice to the defendant! Thankfully, it's a question a jury is perfectly capable of answering. When we're talking about accidents, the defendant's guilt ranges on a continuum from "responsible" to "faultless" (because shit happens). In comparison, because his actions were deliberate, the criminal is pretty much always 100% responsible for his victim's suffering. There's no element of "shit happens" or bad luck here, and the victim was harmed solely due to another person's free will. That's why it makes perfect sense for criminals to owe much deeper debts to their victims than poor saps who accidentally hurt someone else. In terms of evaluating the second kind of moral responsibility (were your actions immoral?), deliberately killing someone through aggression is a direct violation of their rights, making it easy to form a strong moral judgment about the killer. Plus, the complete absence of noble intentions in this particular case amplifies the moral repugnancy of the act.
DELIBERATE, DIRECT HARM, with NOBLE INTENTIONS: This is really my favorite category to discuss, because it includes such interesting scenarios as the Druggist's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma). I'll take a break from my standard way of addressing each category and focus specifically on that dilemma. I like this dilemma, because I think the typical "yes, because" and "no, because" answers are a false dichotomy. By itself, the act of stealing the drug is not morally justifiable with respect to the druggist's physical property rights (ignoring wishy-washy privileges like "intellectual property" or privilege of profit), in the sense that the druggist's rights should be totally overlooked as "less important" - in any case, as the victim of theft, the druggist deserves just compensation, and the thieving husband owes him that debt. Once the debt has been retroactively paid, stealing the medicine to save his wife becomes the most moral overall path of action available to the husband, because he has done a great good and made amends for his unfortunate but necessary aggression against the druggist's Lockean property rights.*** This is only possible because a minor (i.e. reversible) act of aggression can still be compensated for in full. However, it is important to note that a great act towards one person (such as the wife) cannot by itself negate or redeem aggression against another...and who would I, or anyone for that matter, be to say that it could? It would be dangerously arrogant to think it's our place to make that call, and we have no right to do so for many reasons, including the subjectivity of value judgments. In this sense, we cannot judge someone's "sum total morality" by simply glossing over the acts of injustice, just because they might seem to us - as unviolated observers - to have been "worth it." Instead, we must separately evaluate a person's morality into their morality with respect to each and every other individual. This is why tyrannical states who do "great things" for the "greater good" at the expense of individuals (and they almost always butcher the "greater good" anyway) are ALWAYS unjustified: They not only sacrifice the rights of individuals (which are not the state's to sacrifice), but they also make no attempt to compensate their "expendable" victims for said rights violations. The state ends up owing an astronomical number of debts to individuals, all or most of which it leaves unpaid. Plus, atrocities are irreversible, and deliberately murdering one innocent person is far more immoral than saving another person's life is moral. It is no right of anyone's to judge it "acceptable" to forcibly take away one innocent person's irreplaceable life, no matter how many others such a sacrifice might "save." In summary, we cannot cancel out injustice to one person or wipe it from the perpetrator's record with justice to another, because morality is not collective with respect to "society" - moral judgments are only entirely valid when made about each person's morality with respect to each other individual separately. *** To address a possible objection, let's consider the scarcity of the drug: The "invisible man" here is the one who just might die because our husband stole the drug that the "invisible man" would have otherwise bought, and it could have been the last. This speaks only of unintended consequences, not actions themselves, though. After all, the husband could not have known the unintended consequences of his action, and they could have resulted from a legitimate purchase as well. Similarly, the druggist is not culpable just because he didn't make enough (after all, the cancer is killing the patients, not other people through lack of action - no matter how much of an asshole he is, all of those people would have died without the druggist having invented the drug in the first place). This is similar to the situation above with a boy cutting himself on a guardrail and bleeding to death due to a previous car accident at the same site. Considering all of these unforeseeable complicating factors highlights a flaw in consequentialist morality and the importance of deontological morality: We can never fully grasp the full impact of the consequences of our actions, only their intrinsic morality.
DELIBERATE, INDIRECT HARM, with EVIL INTENTIONS: Examples are Al Capone, Dick Cheney, Zbigniew Brzezinsky, etc. Another example is the person who hires a hitman to kill someone else. These are the people who this thread is really all about. These people generally do not directly violate the rights of others...but they are the string-pullers and puppet masters. They come up with the plans, conspire, call the shots, and manipulate all the mooks who do the literal rights-violating dirty work for them, with varying levels of comprehension. In the second sense of moral responsibility (were your actions immoral?), I'd be shocked to hear anyone here say these guys are entirely blameless and innocent with clean hands. Quite frankly, I consider the puppet masters who hold this kind of delegatory power to be the most morally atrocious people of all. They deliberately act - of their own free will - to cause evil and suffering for selfish reasons, all the while generally keeping their hands clean of any actions that could directly implicate them...and it's sickening. Are they the directly causally responsible for all of this suffering, like the hitman who literally pulls the trigger? No, they're not...but they're certainly indirectly responsible, because without them none of this suffering would have happened. How, then, are they more responsible for all of this crime than the motorist in category 1 is responsible for the boy's death-by-guardrail? The answer once again lies in the question of free will: They deliberately conspire to violate people's rights - even if they do not use their own hands - and they do so on purpose, with full knowledge of the consequences. As Brian4Liberty and Number19 argued, the person who hires a hitman is using the hitman as a tool to kill someone, just as the hitman is using the gun and bullet. The fact that the hitman has free will does not negate the fact that the hirer also has free will and also made the same conscious decision. From the hirer's perspective, hiring the hitman kills someone just as effectively as pulling the trigger on a non-sentient gun (with perhaps a slightly different probability of success). The real question is: Can we say that they actually owe a debt to their indirect victims? I say YES: They owe just as much of a debt as their subordinates do, and oftentimes more, such as in the case of tyrants. As human beings, we have limited and imperfect knowledge of both universal moral principles (though we can make close guesses) and the evidence surrounding each individual case. Because of that, any and every earthly justice system - public or private - can only deliver a close approximate to true justice at best. Because of imperfect information and subjectivity, horrible miscarriages of justice would occur if judges and juries were able to base their verdicts and sentences on any arbitrary criteria. Whether we're dealing with government courts or private courts, it's just too dangerous (practically and morally) to give the court system too much latitude in making arbitrary and subjective value judgments. This is why I reject the idea of using wishy-washy criteria like motive to reach a sentence or verdict, even if I use it to make moral judgments: When dealing in matters of law, rights, and compensation for grievances, we should instead prefer a small set of simple, objective, consistent rules that best approximate justice and which cannot be easily twisted and distorted into practices that create new injustices. I totally agree with basing these rules on the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property...but I disagree that the litmus test should only be, "Did the person on trial directly violate someone else's rights? Yes or no! If so, it doesn't matter if it was murder or if the defendant had a heart attack while driving a car! If not, it doesn't matter if they were just innocently passing by or deliberately plotting this systematic massacre for years from the top down!" :rolleyes: Instead, I think a much more important question is: "In terms of free will (as opposed to happenstance), just how responsible is the defendant for violating the victim's rights?" Although it takes a little more effort to answer this question than the first, and it's a little bit more subjective, it is also a much more accurate model of justice: A person's moral responsibility for violating someone else's rights can vary from 0% to 100%, and any justice system that does not reflect that would be a horrible approximation of justice. After all, even if it's easier to decide only between the discrete values of 0% responsibility and 100% responsibility, there's not much point in calling it justice when both available options are way off the mark. Instead of forcing jurors to make a black-or-white decisions like teenagers with borderline personality disorder, the jury should be given the option of making more nuanced verdicts and compensatory judgments than that. Instead of just determining who is the "final link in the chain" leading to rights violations, we should evaluate the role of free will in what happened to the victim. That way, we can avoid treating involuntary manslaughter the same as murder. That way, we can serve justice up to the head honcho fat-cat criminals, not just the low-level mooks who do their bidding...because the ringleaders are certainly not innocent of wrongdoing. Both they and their minions used their free will to purposely commit crime, and it would be a shame to ignore the role of the boss's free will just because the minion also has free will and is the "last link in the chain."
DELIBERATE, INDIRECT HARM, with NOBLE INTENTIONS ("greater good" intentions): This is pretty much the same as category 5, except here the canonical example is the well-intentioned Machiavellian. In the first sense of moral responsibility (do you owe a debt to your victim?), these people are just as culpable as category 5. The only real difference is with respect to making moral judgments about their actual character (were your actions immoral?): The ends do not justify the means, and their "good intentions" do not redeem them, but they do kind of mitigate their evil a little. Still, these people still owe a hell of a debt to their victims, and the canonical example could never repay such a huge debt. As I mentioned when discussing the Druggist's Dilemma, a person's morality must be judged with respect to every other individual separately, not collectively. The Machiavellian's intentions alone can never exonerate him for his crimes...but along with all the loathing, perhaps he deserves a bit more respect than the level 5 guys when we judge his morality itself. ;)


BOTTOM LINE:
When we need to determine whether a person is morally responsible for an offense and owes compensation to the victim, I think the standard libertarian litmus test of measuring rights violations by direct vs. indirect harm is overly simplistic and insufficient. To make a better judgment about moral culpability, we need to more seriously take free will into account! To do so, we can add a second criterion entirely independent from whether an action directly or indirectly harmed someone: Was the action deliberate or accidental? Whereas deliberate harm is entirely the result of free will, accidental harm is a product of free will and bad luck, where the balance between the two can vary. Acknowledging this allows us to differentiate criminal and civil matters and make more just evaluations of blame and compensation. Also, this more complete view allows us to acknowledge the moral responsibility of criminal masterminds, ringleaders, and the current ruling elite for the horrible things they do, even when they do them only indirectly and through their minions. After all, the role of free will is a much more important factor than who happened to be the final link in the long chain of events leading to someone's rights being infringed.

Separately, when we privately judge a person's morality and judge how "good of a person" they are, their motivations are an important third factor...but this factor is too subjective and wishy-washy to use in a courtroom environment, and it hardly matters with respect to providing justice to victims. (However, determining deliberate harm vs. accidental harm does matter, because it matters with respect to providing justice to the defendant!)

ZOMG, ESSAY OVER.

[Paulitician]

I'm sorry, I only read (actually, just skimmed) about 2 pages of this thread, haven't read all of it, so I don't know how the thread has progressed...

In my opinion, the person who hires the assassin is absolutely partially responsible. No question! He/she was the one who made the trade that made the killing possible, and the action was on his/her behalf! I don't understand how both people wouldn't be responsible. But define "responsible" first. Here are the definitions from dictionary.com:

1. answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often fol. by to or for): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.
2. involving accountability or responsibility: a responsible position.
3. chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something (usually fol. by for): Termites were responsible for the damage.
4. having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action: The defendant is not responsible for his actions.
5. able to discharge obligations or pay debts.
6. reliable or dependable, as in meeting debts, conducting business dealings, etc.
7. (of a government, member of a government, government agency, or the like) answerable to or serving at the discretion of an elected legislature or the electorate.

Seems to fit.

Concerning child pornography: the person who has child pornography in his possession is not akin to a person hiring another person to kill someone. A person funding another person in order to create the child pornagraphy is responsible for the child molestation. Therefore all market activity in the area of child pornography is CRIMINAL. Because without effective demand, there would be no supply.

Merely having posssession of child pornagraphy (say it was given to a person, or one stole it or something) is not the same thing as funding and therefore perpatuating child molestation, but in my opinion even possession is still criminal, and incredibly sick! Yuck, yuck, yuck!

[Paulitician]

Also, I don't know if this has been brought up or not:

If I pay someone to kill another person, the supposed assassin takes my money, but out the righteousness of his heart decides not to kill on my behalf (because he understands that in the libertarian's eyes it will only be him who is responsible, and not me), according to the libertarian, would I be able to sue the supposed assassin for not holding up to his obligation/responsiblity of killing someone else for me? To me, that whole contract/transaction would be crap. You can't have a contract that includes aggressing another person (in this case killing), while that third party never agreed to be aggressed upon. Nope, not libertarian in the least bit IMO.

[heavenlyboy34]

Also, I don't know if this has been brought up or not:

If I pay someone to kill another person, the supposed assassin takes my money, but out the righteousness of his heart decides not to kill on my behalf (because he understands that in the libertarian's eyes it will only be him who is responsible, and not me), according to the libertarian, would I be able to sue the supposed assassin for not holding up to his obligation/responsiblity of killing someone else for me? To me, that whole contract/transaction would be crap. You can't have a contract that includes aggressing another person (in this case killing), while that third party never agreed to be aggressed upon. Nope, not libertarian in the least bit IMO.

I like your take a lot! :D Thanks for contributing! :) ~hug~

[Paulitician]

I like your take a lot! :D Thanks for contributing! :) ~hug~
Why thank you! Not sure I'd accept hugs from strangers though :p seems a bit odd... but I appreciate the gesture

[heavenlyboy34]

Why thank you! Not sure I'd accept hugs from strangers though :p seems a bit odd... but I appreciate the gesture

If you don't want a hug, please accept this bunchies which I domesticated myself. :)

http://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/Images/bunchies_clear1.gif

[Paulitician]

LMFAO... wth

[BenjaminRosenzweig]

I haven't read the thread yet, although I've skimmed through some of the responses (and I'll be incorporating a variation of one of tremendoustie's examples in my own post)...but I just wanted to offer my thoughts on this:


I'm sorry, I only read (actually, just skimmed) about 2 pages of this thread, haven't read all of it, so I don't know how the thread has progressed...

I know you guys are busy, we all are, but just skimming a few responses and then jumping in is sort of an affront to everyone else that had posted. It's kind of like saying "Whoa, all these guys are idiots! Good thing I know the answer so I can put this problem to rest." If you don't consider other people's posts worth reading why should anyone read yours?


When we need to determine whether a person is morally responsible for an offense and owes compensation to the victim, I think the standard libertarian litmus test of measuring rights violations by direct vs. indirect harm is overly simplistic and insufficient. To make a better judgment about moral culpability, we need to more seriously take free will into account! To do so, we can add a second criterion entirely independent from whether an action directly or indirectly harmed someone: Was the action deliberate or accidental? Whereas deliberate harm is entirely the result of free will, accidental harm is a product of free will and bad luck, where the balance between the two can vary. Acknowledging this allows us to differentiate criminal and civil matters and make more just evaluations of blame and compensation. Also, this more complete view allows us to acknowledge the moral responsibility of criminal masterminds, ringleaders, and the current ruling elite for the horrible things they do, even when they do them only indirectly and through their minions. After all, the role of free will is a much more important factor than who happened to be the final link in the long chain of events leading to someone's rights being infringed.

This point was made before and then it was constructively criticized, reformulated, and criticized again.

My simple answer to this question is that the exchange of goods for illegal services is illegal, even in a libertarian free society where intent or motive are never considered. The hirer would not be responsible for the murder, he would be responsible for exchanging currency for the promised service of assassination.


Concerning child pornography: the person who has child pornography in his possession is not akin to a person hiring another person to kill someone. A person funding another person in order to create the child pornagraphy is responsible for the child molestation. Therefore all market activity in the area of child pornography is CRIMINAL. Because without effective demand, there would be no supply.

Merely having posssession of child pornagraphy (say it was given to a person, or one stole it or something) is not the same thing as funding and therefore perpatuating child molestation, but in my opinion even possession is still criminal, and incredibly sick! Yuck, yuck, yuck!

Your points had also been brought up and Nickcoon brought up several caveats. And 7 other people made the same comparison to child porn. To be frank, I don't think its a great theme for libertarians to harp on.

[Paulitician]

I know you guys are busy, we all are, but just skimming a few responses and then jumping in is sort of an affront to everyone else that had posted.
Because you can speak for everyone else in the thread (or on correct forum etiquette)


It's kind of like saying "Whoa, all these guys are idiots! Good thing I know the answer so I can put this problem to rest."
Lovin' the presumption so far, please continue


If you don't consider other people's posts worth reading
Ah, thank you. Who says I don't consider other people's posts worth reading?


why should anyone read yours?
Anyone is welcoming to read my posts if they want to or not. I specifically made my disclaimer in order to make that decision easier. A person could have thought "Whoa, this guy thinks we're all idiots and thinks with one post he can butt in and settle this discussion" and refused to read my post based that logic. But I guess you can't please some people. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.



Your points had also been brought up and Nickcoon brought up several caveats. And 7 other people made the same comparison to child porn. To be frank, I don't think its a great theme for libertarians to harp on.
cool

[Mini-Me]

I know you guys are busy, we all are, but just skimming a few responses and then jumping in is sort of an affront to everyone else that had posted. It's kind of like saying "Whoa, all these guys are idiots! Good thing I know the answer so I can put this problem to rest." If you don't consider other people's posts worth reading why should anyone read yours?

Sorry, I didn't mean to give off that impression at all. I just kind of got excited when I saw the topic, because it's something I've been thinking about a lot recently. :o I did read more than I may have led on, though.


This point was made before and then it was constructively criticized, reformulated, and criticized again.
The point by itself or the point along with extensive reasoning?



My simple answer to this question is that the exchange of goods for illegal services is illegal, even in a libertarian free society where intent or motive are never considered. The hirer would not be responsible for the murder, he would be responsible for exchanging currency for the promised service of assassination.
This simple answer is a workable solution for a subset of cases, such as the hitman case, but it's pretty arbitrary with respect to libertarianism. Choosing to consider this kind of exchange a crime does not by itself explain [from a libertarian point of view] how or why we consider it a crime, since it does not by itself explain how or why the hirer is violating anyone's rights (which is, in the simplest sense, the only crime in a libertarian free society). Because it's such an ad-hoc solution to the hitman case in particular, it doesn't really provide a framework of consistent rules for judging who is held responsible for violating whom else's rights in the general sense, which includes a large range of cases from complete accidents to deliberate mass murder conspiracies. To the best of my knowledge, Nick Coons is an anarcho-capitalist (or at least extremely close to one)...so the only arguments likely to persuade him are ones that explain why holding the hirer responsible is logically consistent with the most basic libertarian principles in a society where those principles - all by themselves - very well may form the entirety of law. Then again, you mentioned classical liberal philosophers in another post, so it's possible their arguments' starting points are compatible with Nick's basic principles as well.

[Scofield]

If the individual didn't hire an assassin to kill the individual, said individual wouldn't be dead.

Thus, the individual who hired the assassin is then liable for the death of the dead individual.

[sailor]

If you hire someone to bake you a cake it is stil your cake.

[danberkeley]

If you hire someone to bake you a cake it is stil your cake.

:confused: But cakes have no rights.

[Truth Warrior]

The foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression axiom. This states that it is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his legitimately owned property. Murray Rothbard characterized this as "plumb line" libertarianism: follow this one principle, and you will be able to infer the libertarian position on all issues, without exception.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/block1.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/block1.html)

[dannno]

If I hire someone to commit fraud, and I invest in the fraud and seek a return on said fraud, why wouldn't I be prosecuted for fraud if there was strong enough evidence that I was tied to it and investing in it knowingly??

Same thing.

[heavenlyboy34]

If I hire someone to commit fraud, and I invest in the fraud and seek a return on said fraud, why wouldn't I be prosecuted for fraud if there was strong enough evidence that I was tied to it and investing in it knowingly??

Same thing.

As an aside, can I prosecute you for voting for people who commit this act? :confused:;)

[Scofield]

As an aside, can I prosecute you for voting for people who commit this act? :confused:;)

No, because you didn't hire them with the intention of them committing said act. You hired them to defend the oath they took: "to protect and defend the Constitution."

When they violate that oath, that is on their shoulders...not ours. Although, when they continuously violate that oath, and we re-elect them, it is on our shoulders as well. But I make it a habit of not voting for scumbags. :)

[dannno]

As an aside, can I prosecute you for voting for people who commit this act? :confused:;)

Only if it can be proven that there was bribery involved with the vote, and that I knew the intent of the politician before-hand.

It would make more sense for the financier, in this case, to give money to the campaign. If it turns out that the campaign financier of Cheney/Bush knew that he (Cheney) was going to stage 9/11 before he financed his campaign, and it could be proven, and the person benefited financially from 9/11 (i.e. Halliburton) then I see no reason why not to prosecute.

[jack555]

I consider the one hiring the hitman to be involved in the murder process. I believe it is very libertarian to have him tried. You have no right to assist in someones murdering and that is exactly what the person financing the operation did.

[Truth Warrior]

Cognitive dissonance anyone? < LMAO! >

:(

[heavenlyboy34]

Cognitive dissonance anyone? < LMAO! >

:(

LMAO! I knew you'd come along and say something like that. ;):D

[BenjaminRosenzweig]

Paulitician, I didn't mean to be rude but I strongly desire that it be considered good etiquette in all situations (forum or otherwise) that a man or woman listen to what everyone else has said during a discussion before offering his or her view point. Not that it excuses me, but if I was disrespectful it was because of that desire.


The point by itself or the point along with extensive reasoning?

Your essay looks great but you definitely need to post it on a website somewhere. First, because it's nearly impossible to read without line and paragraph spacing. Also, an essay that long and well thought out should have a permanent place somewhere.


This simple answer is a workable solution for a subset of cases, such as the hitman case, but it's pretty arbitrary with respect to libertarianism. Choosing to consider this kind of exchange a crime does not by itself explain [from a libertarian point of view] how or why we consider it a crime, since it does not by itself explain how or why the hirer is violating anyone's rights (which is, in the simplest sense, the only crime in a libertarian free society)

"Libertarian" is a vague label; there's flexibility in how such a system would function. If you want to develop some underlying philosophical framework for Libertarian Ethics, you're going to be making choices and developing unique legal mechanisms in accordance with your own agenda.

I'm sure there have been at least five different political scientists/philosophers given the label "Libertarian" that have developed five different philosophical frameworks to solve this direct-indirect Ethical puzzle, this problem of how we should address the patronization of crime, if at all .


To the best of my knowledge, Nick Coons is an anarcho-capitalist (or at least extremely close to one)...so the only arguments likely to persuade him are ones that explain why holding the hirer responsible is logically consistent with the most basic libertarian principles in a society where those principles - all by themselves - very well may form the entirety of law. Then again, you mentioned classical liberal philosophers in another post, so it's possible their arguments' starting points are compatible with Nick's basic principles as well.

I don't know, I believe most classical liberals differ considerably from anarcho-capitalists in regards to the powers and responsibilities of law enforcement. I'll have to study it in more depth.

[Truth Warrior]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian)

A REALLY tough and confusing concept all right. :rolleyes:

[eOs]

Wait you guys are way off base! That hitman didn't kill anyone...it was the gun!

The hitman was a tool used by the hirer to commit murder. Both should be charged.

[Truth Warrior]

Wait you guys are way off base! That hitman didn't kill anyone...it was the gun! Blaming the tool never works.<IMHO> :rolleyes: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." ;)

[danberkeley]

Wait you guys are way off base! That hitman didn't kill anyone...it was the gun!

The hitman was a tool used by the hirer to commit murder. Both should be charged.

the target = human
the hirer = human
the hitman = human
the gun = non-human

humans have rights

[heavenlyboy34]

blaming the tool never works.<imho> :rolleyes: "guns don't kill people, people kill people." ;)

qft!!! +1776 :d

[JohnJay]

The "libertarian" view might be stated as that you should be able to pursue whatever makes
you happy or prosperous or healthy without impinging on the life or property of another.

The actions of the assassin hirer are taking away and colluding and proximately causing the violation of someone else's rights and liberty.

In this hypothetical example the "libertarian" view seems pretty clear to me at least -
now it is in the example of abortion that the waters may get somewhat muddier . . .

[Truth Warrior]

It's better to err on the side of caution.<IMHO> Or be personally responsible and accountable for your behavior and actions and PREVENT UNWANTED PREGNANCIES.

[heavenlyboy34]

it's better to err on the side of caution.<imho> or be personally responsible and accountable for your behavior and actions and prevent unwanted pregnancies.

+99999

[eOs]

Wow..I'm suprised no one got the sarcasm on that one.. shit.

[BenjaminRosenzweig]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian)

A REALLY tough and confusing concept all right. :rolleyes:


Were you replying to me? First, try to be nice to people; you usually get a better response that way. Second, my point was that the term "libertarian" is extremely vague.

From wikipedia:

"Libertarianism is a term used by a spectrum of political philosophies which seek to promote individual liberty and seek to minimize or even abolish the state. The extent to which government may be necessary may be evaluated on ethical and/or economic grounds. "What it means to be a libertarian in a political sense is a contentious issue, especially among libertarians themselves. There is no single theory that can be reliably identified as the libertarian theory, and no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians would agree."

[heavenlyboy34]

Were you replying to me? First, try to be nice to people; you usually get a better response that way. Second, my point was that the term "libertarian" is extremely vague.

From wikipedia:

"Libertarianism is a term used by a spectrum of political philosophies which seek to promote individual liberty and seek to minimize or even abolish the state. The extent to which government may be necessary may be evaluated on ethical and/or economic grounds. "What it means to be a libertarian in a political sense is a contentious issue, especially among libertarians themselves. There is no single theory that can be reliably identified as the libertarian theory, and no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians would agree."

That's because "libertarian" is a working philosophy, not a theory. :D

[Truth Warrior]

Were you replying to me? First, try to be nice to people; you usually get a better response that way. Second, my point was that the term "libertarian" is extremely vague.

First, nah I 'd rather see and deal with the real you.

Second, I don't think it's vague AT ALL. Hence the dictionary references.

From wikipedia:

"Libertarianism is a term used by a spectrum of political philosophies which seek to promote individual liberty and seek to minimize or even abolish the state. The extent to which government may be necessary may be evaluated on ethical and/or economic grounds. "What it means to be a libertarian in a political sense is a contentious issue, especially among libertarians themselves. There is no single theory that can be reliably identified as the libertarian theory, and no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians would agree."

I don't accept Wikipedia as the definitive resource for ANYTHING of any real significance.

Try the dictionary link. :rolleyes:



Thanks! :)

[BenjaminRosenzweig]

First, nah I 'd rather see and deal with the real you.

Second, I don't think it's vague AT ALL. Hence the dictionary references.


Whether I am insulted or not, I am still the "real" me. What changes is my well being.

According to the context we are using the word "libertarian" to refer to something that is in following with "libertarianism". Tell me then, what is Libertarianism? Dictionary.com only gives me this definition for libertarianism:


"an ideological belief in freedom of thought and speech"


What are the limits, if any, on the freedom of speech according to the one theory of Libertarianism? Can I tell a 3-year-old to drink bleach? Can I tell my young adopted son that it'd be a good idea for him to take my gun and go shoot someone I despise? If so, I plan on adopting twenty kids so that I can have myself a good sized militia. Can I give a sociopath an ak-47? At which point is a sociopath? You go to 3 different shrinks you get at least 3 different diagnoses.

Am I allowed to own machine guns, grenades, and/or heavy artillery? How about IEDs?

How should law enforcement address the patronization of crime?


Should the government control our nuclear test sites and our missile systems?


Or just the missile systems?




And which is the correct Libertarianism here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

Right-libertarianism, left-libertarianism, radical right-libertarianism, Lockean Libertarianism, Nozickean right-libertarianism, Sufficientarian (centrist) libertarianism, Equal share left-libertarianism, or equal opportunity left-libertarianism?



What of Classical Liberalism, Anarcho-capitalism, Geolibertarianism, Objectivism, and Minarchism? Which is closest to the real libertarianism?

[Truth Warrior]

Whether I am insulted or not, I am still the "real" me. What changes is my well being.

According to the context we are using the word "libertarian" to refer to something that is in following with "libertarianism". Tell me then, what is Libertarianism? Dictionary.com only gives me this definition for libertarianism:


"an ideological belief in freedom of thought and speech"


What are the limits, if any, on the freedom of speech according to the one theory of Libertarianism? Can I tell a 3-year-old to drink bleach? Can I tell my young adopted son that it'd be a good idea for him to take my gun and go shoot someone I despise? If so, I plan on adopting twenty kids so that I can have myself a good sized militia. Can I give a sociopath an ak-47? At which point is a sociopath? You go to 3 different shrinks you get at least 3 different diagnoses.

Am I allowed to own machine guns, grenades, and/or heavy artillery? How about IEDs?

How should law enforcement address the patronization of crime?


Should the government control our nuclear test sites and our missile systems?


Or just the missile systems?




And which is the correct Libertarianism here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

Right-libertarianism, left-libertarianism, radical right-libertarianism, Lockean Libertarianism, Nozickean right-libertarianism, Sufficientarian (centrist) libertarianism, Equal share left-libertarianism, or equal opportunity left-libertarianism?



What of Classical Liberalism, Anarcho-capitalism, Geolibertarianism, Objectivism, and Minarchism? Which is closest to the real libertarianism? Your well-being is dependent on me? Gosh, I'm flattered ..................... I think. ;)

There are more definitions provided than that, in the link. I assume that you are capable of reading and understanding them ALL. ;) Keep it as simple as possible. It works much better that way.<IMHO> :)

FYI, here is my preferred and favorite one from that provided linked list. "1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state."

Have you ever tried to herd cats? :D The libertarians have NO shepherds nor "official" spokespersons.<IMHO> ;)

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

[Josh_LA]

If someone hired a hitman to commit a murder, does the hiring party share in the responsibility for the murder? If so, why? Each of us is supposed to be responsible for accepting the consequences of our own actions, and the hiring party has killed no one.

I'm looking for the libertarian view on this one. I'm fully okay with the hitman taking on the full responsibility, since he is the one that committed the murder, and at first glance I can't see any reason why the hiring party would be responsible for the murder. However, I'm wanting to make sure that I haven't overlooked anything.

if you want to talk about responsibility, anybody who did anything that caused the murder, or didn't do anything to prevent it, is responsible.

whether or not you are a libertarian shouldn't change your opinion as to whether murder is acceptable or whether doing something for money is always OK.

[BenjaminRosenzweig]

Your well-being is dependent on me? Gosh, I'm flattered ..................... I think. ;)

There are more definitions provided than that, in the link. I assume that you are capable of reading and understanding them ALL. ;) Keep it as simple as possible. It works much better that way.<IMHO> :)

FYI, here is my preferred and favorite one from that provided linked list. "1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state."

Have you ever tried to herd cats? :D The libertarians have NO shepherds nor "official" spokespersons.<IMHO> ;)

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

However much I dislike it, I still respond to insults by becoming angry and/or defensive. It's something I must change but it takes time.

If political science were simple all our problems would be solved. There are an infinite number of questions and very few answers.

[Truth Warrior]

However much I dislike it, I still respond to insults by becoming angry and/or defensive. It's something I must change but it takes time.

If political science were simple all our problems would be solved. There are an infinite number of questions and very few answers. One answer IS, "political science" is just another frickin' bogus oxymoron. :p :rolleyes: Kinda like "Libertarian Party".

[BenjaminRosenzweig]

One answer IS, "political science" is just another frickin' bogus oxymoron. :p :rolleyes: Kinda like "Libertarian Party".

That's why natural scientists usually deride the social sciences by referring to them as "soft" sciences. You could consider it an oxymoron given that social sciences are not "based on reproducible experimental data, and/or a mathematical explanation of that data." I think it would have been better to have termed them "experimental philosophies" given that they generally use experimental data to inform their philosophic inquiry into a specific human phenomenon.

You can't accurately reproduce the data from the Stanford Prison Experiment but it is still useful to our understanding of human behavior. As such, psychology is still based, on some degree, on experimental data.

But yes, it would probably be more accurate to say "experimental political philosophy" than "political science".

[steve005]

If someone hired a hitman to commit a murder, does the hiring party share in the responsibility for the murder? If so, why? Each of us is supposed to be responsible for accepting the consequences of our own actions, and the hiring party has killed no one.

I'm looking for the libertarian view on this one. I'm fully okay with the hitman taking on the full responsibility, since he is the one that committed the murder, and at first glance I can't see any reason why the hiring party would be responsible for the murder. However, I'm wanting to make sure that I haven't overlooked anything.

Either something is really fucking wrong with you or you're a troll trying to bring these forums down, politicians see this thread and use it as a perfect example of why they need more regulation