Isn't the non-aggression principle violated when we punish?

[socialize_me]

I'm trying to grapple with this idea of non-aggressionism, but it seems unavoidable and to subscribe to it appears to be hypocritical. For one, you will always have aggressors, and it seems the only way to prevent them from being further aggressive is to be aggressive yourself, no? For instance, to stop someone from committing armed robbery again, you will have to imprison them. It seems essentially the way we punish aggression is through aggressive vengeance.

So is this really an all-or-nothing concept? Like free market capitalism is really economic anarchy, and any sort of government intervention means the system is socialistic even if it's minimal. Granted there are more acceptable forms of socialism--like the government simply providing roads is more favorable than bailing out financial institutions and "creating jobs"--although both instances are still far from anything the free market is capable of doing efficiently.

Capitalism appears to be very much an all-or-nothing concept and it really cannot be hypocritical..it seems on the topic of non-aggression vs. aggression, you're either one or the other. You can't be a person against aggression, yet advocate aggressively imprisoning someone for their aggressive acts. Two wrongs make a right?

I'm not advocating that we should just let armed robbers go and not punish them, but I'm trying to understand how people subscribing to non-aggressionism can justify being aggressive under circumstances like throwing an armed robber in jail, arresting a rapist, etc.

[Austin]

Pulling a TW here


(n) aggression (the act of initiating hostilities)

or

(n) aggression, hostility (violent action that is hostile and usually unprovoked

emphasis mine

[socialize_me]

Pulling a TW here


emphasis mine

Okay, so vengeance isn't an aggressive act? Is it not vengeance when we imprison people? I think so..

If you kill someone's father and his son murders you, has the son committed a non-aggressive act?

Also, your quote said USUALLY unprovoked. Nice selective bolding :)

[tggroo7]

This is an interesting topic. I like hearing (or normally in my case, presenting) devil's advocate side.

My thinking is that the non-aggression principle is for anyone with full rights. A cow is living but it is subject to aggression with no objections. It does not possess the full rights of a clean-cut human being. The same goes with a criminal. A criminal is a like lesser being (at least until his/her sentence is served) and does not possess the same rights as any clean-cut human being. Of course, my definition of criminal is far from the wide range of today's "criminals." If one commits aggression or takes the rights of another (IMO this excludes victimless crimes), he/she no longer possess the full rights of an innocent human being and it is fair for the person to be subjected to imprisonment.

The cow analogy is probably stupid or unneccessary, lol. But long story short, I believe simply that the NAP only applies to non-criminal human beings. Once one has lost the "non-criminal" part, he/she may be subject to some aggression.

The question, IMO, is not whether or not vengeance is aggression. It is whether or not criminals have full rights and can be considered under the NAP since they themselves don't follow it.

[micahnelson]

We have the right to do whatever we can do.

We cede these rights to form a society. Our government was established to protect the rights of the individual, and provide a mechanism for change if people who were born into the system did not like it.

Yes, people born into this country are involuntarily thrown into a political system they have no say in, but intellectually speaking most people are. Born into lawlessness, your system is kill or be killed. Born into society and government, you must obey the rules of the land- else be punished.

When a person violates the contract the government has with the people who empower it- the person has waved his rights. He has decided to live lawlessly and the protections for his liberties are null and void. The lawbreaker defects from the agreement and thus reverts to his original state where only the strong survive. Unfortunately for him, the collective force of the government is stronger- and the lawbreaker finds himself at the mercy of society.

[Theocrat]

Yes, the non-aggression principle is violated when aggression is used to punish criminals for crime, whether by forcing them to court, imposing a fine, imprisoning them, or death penalty. It is inescapable in any society that aggression is going to be necessary. Human nature makes this a necessity for survival as well as for security and peace.

That is the main problem which is repeatedly pointed out to those who wish for a "voluntaryist" utopia with anarcho-capitalist economics. I see no way they can consistently resolve the paradox of their own NAP, especially in answering the questions of why it should be imposed upon anyone and how it will be enforced in society.

Unless human hearts are regenerated, aggression will always be part of a society. Do we want to decrease aggressive acts? Of course. The only way that will be guaranteed to happen is by a bottom-up, God-initiated, spiritual revival, similar to the days of America's first Great Awakening.

[idiom]

The Passivity Principle is not the same as Pacifism.

If somebody pisses you off you are allowed to retaliate. You get to define how much aggresion pisses you off and how much retaliation you think is nessecary. But it is in no way arbitrary.

It is also non-reflexive. That is, you are allowed to be aggresive through inaction. You can't kill someone, but you can let them die.

Also, you have no right to intervene if you come across someone getting raped. Its none of your business, the rapist did not aggress against you, move along please.

You have to understand, Rothbard did not *derive* the passivity principle from anything, he just ruled out some other ideas and concluded that Passivity must be the correct answer because he couldn't think of anything else.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

this is why im not into philosophy. People get hung up on philosophical absolutes.

[idiom]

We have the right to do whatever we can do.

We cede these rights to form a society. Our government was established to protect the rights of the individual, and provide a mechanism for change if people who were born into the system did not like it.

Yes, people born into this country are involuntarily thrown into a political system they have no say in, but intellectually speaking most people are. Born into lawlessness, your system is kill or be killed. Born into society and government, you must obey the rules of the land- else be punished.

When a person violates the contract the government has with the people who empower it- the person has waved his rights. He has decided to live lawlessly and the protections for his liberties are null and void. The lawbreaker defects from the agreement and thus reverts to his original state where only the strong survive. Unfortunately for him, the collective force of the government is stronger- and the lawbreaker finds himself at the mercy of society.

You don't cede those rights to join a society. Rights are created when you join the society. You have no rights outside of society. "Rights" are not things but descriptors of clauses that exist in implict or explict agreements between two or more entites.

[sailor]

People who are fans of NAP generally don`t believe in locking people up "for punishment".

[Truth Warrior]

Thread title question, answer: Yep! ;) :( Which is a BIG part of the reason < ??? > that the BARBARIANS reject the NAP.<IMHO> :p Aggression is Wrong (http://www.voluntaryist.com/lefevre/aggression.php), by Robert LeFevre


"By their fruits, ye shall know them."

[Kludge]

People who are fans of NAP generally don`t believe in locking people up "for punishment".

To be consistent with the NAP, though, we couldn't lock people up to prevent a threat, either. Retaliation is just a stupid knee-jerk emotional reaction, but I see the merit in pre-emptive hamstringing of proven criminals.

Take Bernie Madoff as an example. What he did was certainly unethical, but does he really need to be imprisoned? What purpose does that serve us? He's a bigger burden to us in prison, and he's obviously not a threat to society.

[Truth Warrior]

This is an interesting topic. I like hearing (or normally in my case, presenting) devil's advocate side.

My thinking is that the non-aggression principle is for anyone with full rights. A cow is living but it is subject to aggression with no objections. It does not possess the full rights of a clean-cut human being. The same goes with a criminal. A criminal is a like lesser being (at least until his/her sentence is served) and does not possess the same rights as any clean-cut human being. Of course, my definition of criminal is far from the wide range of today's "criminals." If one commits aggression or takes the rights of another (IMO this excludes victimless crimes), he/she no longer possess the full rights of an innocent human being and it is fair for the person to be subjected to imprisonment.

The cow analogy is probably stupid or unneccessary, lol. But long story short, I believe simply that the NAP only applies to non-criminal human beings. Once one has lost the "non-criminal" part, he/she may be subject to some aggression.

The question, IMO, is not whether or not vengeance is aggression. It is whether or not criminals have full rights and can be considered under the NAP since they themselves don't follow it.

http://common-law.net/nap.html (http://common-law.net/nap.html)

It's NOT about THEM ( collective ). It's about YOU ( individual ). ;)

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, the non-aggression principle is violated when aggression is used to punish criminals for crime, whether by forcing them to court, imposing a fine, imprisoning them, or death penalty. It is inescapable in any society that aggression is going to be necessary. Human nature makes this a necessity for survival as well as for security and peace.

That is the main problem which is repeatedly pointed out to those who wish for a "voluntaryist" utopia with anarcho-capitalist economics. I see no way they can consistently resolve the paradox of their own NAP, especially in answering the questions of why it should be imposed upon anyone and how it will be enforced in society.

Unless human hearts are regenerated, aggression will always be part of a society. Do we want to decrease aggressive acts? Of course. The only way that will be guaranteed to happen is by a bottom-up, God-initiated, spiritual revival, similar to the days of America's first Great Awakening.

In more detail, “Do not initiate force or fraud against anyone else’s person or property. In other words, except for self-defense, don’t harm others, don’t harm or steal their property, don’t break your word, don’t try to coerce anyone by threatening to do any of these things, and don’t delegate or encourage anyone to do any of these things.”

http://common-law.net/nap.html (http://common-law.net/nap.html)

Please feel free to point out ALL of the specific CONFLICTS, in detail ( except for the [ NON-"religious" biased ] universal secularity ), between your post and the NAP. ;)

Thanks! :)


"The core message of all the world's religious writings is the same: ethical integrity, honesty, sincerity, compassion, tolerance and non-violence."

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/when_fascism_comes_300.gif

[micahnelson]

You don't cede those rights to join a society. Rights are created when you join the society. You have no rights outside of society. "Rights" are not things but descriptors of clauses that exist in implict or explict agreements between two or more entites.

Good point. The point I was trying to make was that in nature and without society we have no limits but our natural limits. We cannot fly, breath underwater, run 50mph, etc.

When we enter into a society we cede the "right" to do some of the things we could do if the society didn't exist. Society places restrictions on a person beyond natural law, and rightfully so. I don't want the world ruled by the tallest and strongest brutes.

[Truth Warrior]

Good point. The point I was trying to make was that in nature and without society we have no limits but our natural limits. We cannot fly, breath underwater, run 50mph, etc.

When we enter into a society we cede the "right" to do some of the things we could do if the society didn't exist. Society places restrictions on a person beyond natural law, and rightfully so. I don't want the world ruled by the tallest and strongest brutes.

Where does the "magic changeover" occur? :rolleyes: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/self-government-2/ (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/self-government-2/)

"Society are people." -- Frank Chodorov

[tremendoustie]

People who are fans of NAP generally don`t believe in locking people up "for punishment".


I do, although I would prefer a work compensation program. If someone assaults someone, it'd be better for them to work their ass off for that person than rot in jail helping no one.

If a person is a continuing threat, you may have to lock them up ... maybe they could still do some work in jail though.

I'm a voluntaryist, and the NAP means no initiating of violence -- responding to violence is not breaking the NAP. I don't think I'm alone on this. Punishing criminals or seeking compensation is not the initiation of force.

[ChaosControl]

Well I fully support justice. Some may call justice vengeance, that is their choice. If justice violates the NAP, well I side with justice.

You murder, the victims have the right to kill you.
You steal, the victims have the right to take everything you have.
You rape, the victims have the right to castrate you.

I prefer leaving it up to the victims with consent of all, rather than leaving it up to the state. Although if the victims refuse to act, then I can see the state stepping it to prevent further action by these criminals.

[tremendoustie]

Well I fully support justice. Some may call justice vengeance, that is their choice. If justice violates the NAP, well I side with justice.

You murder, the victims have the right to kill you.
You steal, the victims have the right to take everything you have.
You rape, the victims have the right to castrate you.

I prefer leaving it up to the victims with consent of all, rather than leaving it up to the state. Although if the victims refuse to act, then I can see the state stepping it to prevent further action by these criminals.


I don't think individuals should be responsible for it, that would just lead to chaos and endless retribution.

Instead, I think a combination of private insurance companies, protection agencies, and courts could handle the situation quite well.

Check this out, for some ideas on how this justice system might work: http://www.mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf

Of course, I disagree with the moralizing and anti-religious tones, but get past that, and there are some excellent practical ideas here.

[nobody's_hero]

I can simply say that it is a good thing that the minutemen at Lexington Green did not believe in an absolute non-agression policy.

[Truth Warrior]

Well I fully support justice. Some may call justice vengeance, that is their choice. If justice violates the NAP, well I side with justice.

You murder, the victims have the right to kill you.
You steal, the victims have the right to take everything you have.
You rape, the victims have the right to castrate you.

I prefer leaving it up to the victims with consent of all, rather than leaving it up to the state. Although if the victims refuse to act, then I can see the state stepping it to prevent further action by these criminals.

Wouldn't a much stronger FOCUS on protection from crime and prevention, be a superior and more reasonable course of thought and action to pursue? :) Or is after the fact BARBARISM superior, in you opinion? And if so, how is that working out for YOU? Which is LESS expensive?

Thanks!

[tremendoustie]

I can simply say that it is a good thing that the minutemen at Lexington Green did not believe in an absolute non-agression policy.

I think there had been plenty of aggression prior to Lexington green. ;)

If you mean the idea that you don't defend yourself no matter what, I don't think that's the NAP, that's pacifism.

And they still weren't supposed to fire the first shot ...

[sailor]

If somebody steals your goat and gets caught he must return two goats to you. The first goat is compensation for your goat and the second goat is compensation for your hassle and so forth.

There is no "punishment" involved. You don`t lock him up for a year as punishment, no more than you whip him accross his back for punishment.

All the "punishment" comes from ostracization and is socialy enforced. For example a known felon will not be able to do legitimate buisiness normally, but will have to accept additiona clauses that disadvantage him, else people will be reluctant to enter contracts with him. Then as he reforms and convinces people around him of the fact that he has come around, they will slowly drop such requirements.

The most simple example is you would probably not hire a known thief to work for you. But if he is willing to work at half the wages then you may take a chance. So his punishment is taking a giant pay cutt for a long time. This works great because it is a great incentive for the perpetrator to reform.


Now if somebody is repeatedly commits crime no one will allow him access to his land and there being no "public property", he will become a virtual prisoner in his home, without anybody aggressing against him.

[tremendoustie]

If somebody steals your goat and gets caught he must return two goats to you. The first goat is compensation for your goat and the second goat is compensation for your hassle and so forth.

There is no "punishment" involved. You don`t lock him up for a year as punishment, no more than you whip him accross his back for punishment.

All the "punishment" comes from ostracization and is socialy enforced. For example a known felon will not be able to do legitimate buisiness normally, but will have to accept additiona clauses that disadvantage him, else people will be reluctant to enter contracts with him. Then as he reforms and convinces people around him of the fact, they may drop such requirements.

The most simple example is you would probably not hire a known thief to work for you. But if he is willing to work at half the wages then you may take a chance. So his punishment is taking a giant pay cutt for a long time. This works great because it is a great incentive for the perpetrator to reform.


Now if somebody is repeatedly commits crime no one will allow him access to his land and there being no "public property", he will become a virtual prisoner in his home, without anybody aggressing against him.

Getting him to give up those goats may very well require force, and I don't have a problem with a forced work program either, which might have to happen in prison if the guy's dangerous enough.

It's not aggression to defend yourself, or seek compensation, or lock up a continually violent person.

[Elwar]

WTF, the NAP principle states that you cannot initiate force against another.

When one person initiates force, and someone else responds to that force...THEY ARE NOT INITIATING FORCE!

[tremendoustie]

WTF, the NAP principle states that you cannot initiate force against another.

When one person initiates force, and someone else responds to that force...THEY ARE NOT INITIATING FORCE!

Exactly!! +1

[sailor]

WTF, the NAP principle states that you cannot initiate force against another.

When one person initiates force, and someone else responds to that force...THEY ARE NOT INITIATING FORCE!

Yea, but read what the OP is asking about. He is asking about PUNISHMENT and DETERRENCE.

[LibertyEagle]

WTF, the NAP principle states that you cannot initiate force against another.

When one person initiates force, and someone else responds to that force...THEY ARE NOT INITIATING FORCE!

Please explain that to TW, because I don't think he gets it.

[apropos]

All the "punishment" comes from ostracization and is socialy enforced. For example a known felon will not be able to do legitimate buisiness normally, but will have to accept additiona clauses that disadvantage him, else people will be reluctant to enter contracts with him.

Or perhaps he will merely decide that he must become more adept at theft so as not to get caught next time, or perhaps to leave no witnesses alive to his crime.


Now if somebody is repeatedly commits crime no one will allow him access to his land and there being no "public property", he will become a virtual prisoner in his home, without anybody aggressing against him.

What if I can convince other members of the community that we just take your goods and land and divide the spoils among ourselves? It sure beats working.

[sailor]

Getting him to give up those goats may very well require force, and I don't have a problem with a forced work program either, which might have to happen in prison if the guy's dangerous enough.

It's not aggression to defend yourself, or seek compensation, or lock up a continually violent person.

The OP is asking about punishment, not about self-defense and compensation. Locking someone up to make him return what he stole is different from locking someone up to "punish him".

The OP is right, you don`t get to use force for punishment. (Unless you`re a parent. ;) )


Consider vices. Obviously in a free society engaging in vices, taking hard drugs, whoring or binge drinking every other day would entail some sort of punishment.

Jet this punishment can never be in the manner of force else rights are getting violated. Instead the punishment would come about as ostracation and would be socially enforced.

The punishment for your crime after you have compensated the victim sufficiently would be no different.

[Elwar]

Yea, but read what the OP is asking about. He is asking about PUNISHMENT and DETERRENCE.

I read the OP, it is asking about "how can we throw a criminal in jail without violating the NAP".

The criminal initiated force, jail is the response.

[Kludge]

WTF, the NAP principle states that you cannot initiate force against another.

Initiating force in response to force is still the initiation of force.

[Elwar]

Initiating force in response to force is still the initiation of force.

You can't initiate in response to something.

[sailor]

I read the OP, it is asking about "how can we throw a criminal in jail without violating the NAP".

The criminal initiated force, jail is the response.

How much jail for stealing 1 goat?

Who gets to decide?

[Kludge]

You can't initiate in response to something.

You are punched. As of yet, you have not initiated force. You can choose either to initiate force against that person or not.

[sailor]

After the criminal has compensated the victim for the damages, the crime has been for practical purposes rendered into a non-crime. There is no victim anymore. Thus it should from now on be treated the same as other non-crimes like prostitution. People don`t understand you can not legislate morality. Esspecialy not with arbitrary jail sentances. Morality is socially enforced.

[Truth Warrior]

Initiating force in response to force is still the initiation of force.

In more detail, “Do not initiate force or fraud against anyone else’s person or property. In other words, except for self-defense, don’t harm others, don’t harm or steal their property, don’t break your word, don’t try to coerce anyone by threatening to do any of these things, and don’t delegate or encourage anyone to do any of these things.”

[Elwar]

How much jail for stealing 1 goat?

Who gets to decide?

If it were me, I'd let the victim decide the punishment with the limitation that the punishment does not go beyond the crime.

In our society punishment has been delegated to "jail time".

Jesus came up with "an eye for an eye" not as a punishment, but as a delimeter. He saw that if one neighbor killed someone's goat, the other neighbor would kill two of his goats as punishment, which would result in four of the other neighbor's goats, and so on and so on..."an eye for an eye" would set the punishment as one goat to one goat.

[Kludge]

You are punched. As of yet, you have not initiated force. You can choose either to initiate force against that person or not.

Another example...

Someone chose to initiate the growth of a flower. You can choose to initiate growth of another flower or not.

[Elwar]

You are punched. As of yet, you have not initiated force. You can choose either to initiate force against that person or not.

Don't you mean, what am I going to do in response to that initation of force?

[Kludge]

Don't you mean, what am I going to do in response to that initation of force?

You are not bound to respond. It is a choice.

[Elwar]

You are not bound to respond. It is a choice.

It is, because you are the victim...but it would still be a response to initiation of force.

[Elwar]

If I initiate a conversation...you are not initiating a conversation by responding to me.

[Kludge]

It is, because you are the victim...but it would still be a response to initiation of force.

A response which would initiate new force, if you so chose.

[apropos]

You are not bound to respond. It is a choice.

The response is action or inaction. The initial punch thrown was the initiation of the interaction.

On a side note, I have to wonder what happens if the guy keeps initiating a punch to your face?

[Kludge]

If I initiate a conversation...you are not initiating a conversation by responding to me.

It is not the same. Conversation isn't "conversation" until the second person gives feedback. Conversation is the exchange of ideas.

[Truth Warrior]

The response is action or inaction. The initial punch thrown was the initiation of the interaction.

On a side note, I have to wonder what happens if the guy keeps initiating a punch to your face? Normal human "instinctual" reaction from the ancient reptilian sub-brain, "Fight or Flight". ;)

[sailor]

If it were me, I'd let the victim decide the punishment with the limitation that the punishment does not go beyond the crime.

In our society punishment has been delegated to "jail time".

Jesus came up with "an eye for an eye" not as a punishment, but as a delimeter. He saw that if one neighbor killed someone's goat, the other neighbor would kill two of his goats as punishment, which would result in four of the other neighbor's goats, and so on and so on..."an eye for an eye" would set the punishment as one goat to one goat.

What if the perp doesn`t have a goat of his own?

[Kludge]

Ok, let me clarify.

Force can be initiated when someone hits you. When he is done hitting you, the force has ended. To hit back would be the initiation of NEW force.

[Elwar]

It is not the same. Conversation isn't "conversation" until the second person gives feedback. Conversation is the exchange of ideas.

The conversation has to be initiated though.


Did Iraq initiate a war with us when their troops responded to our bombing of their country?

[Elwar]

Ok, let me clarify.

Force can be initiated when someone hits you. When he is done hitting you, the force has ended. To hit back would be the initiation of NEW force.

Initial denotes first...

You were the first to use force...any response would not be the first to use force.

[Kludge]

Did Iraq initiate a war with us when their troops responded to our bombing of their country?

You're still talking about something that is happening. Force does not always continually happen, and very rarely in individual-to-individual interactions.

There are three types of force I can think of off the top of my head: preemptive, what you're talking about (response to what IS happening), and retaliatory.

Preemptive aggression is generally rejected by libertarians, while retaliatory (the hitting of someone after they have hit you) is often not. What I think you are talking about is rarely discussed because it's almost never presented in reality. Preemptive and retaliatory are both the initiation of aggression because the aggression against you already ended (or never started, in the case of preemptive aggression).

[Elwar]

initiate - "To set going by taking the first step"

[Kludge]

initiate - "To set going by taking the first step"

By that logic, would fornicating be the initiation of aggression if the resulting baby went on to commit aggression? After all, it is the first step in a chain of events.

[Elwar]

Preemptive aggression is generally rejected by libertarians, while retaliatory (the hitting of someone after they have hit you) is often not.

I can't speak for most libertarians, but I believe in self defense...which side do you think libertarians were on when the criminal was shot this morning trying to hold up a fast food restaurant?

[Kludge]

I can't speak for most libertarians, but I believe in self defense...which side do you think libertarians were on when the criminal was shot this morning trying to hold up a fast food restaurant?

Edit: I take this back

[Elwar]

By that logic, would fornicating be the initiation of aggression if the resulting baby went on to commit aggression? After all, it is the first step in a chain of events.

That's the definition...not some logic..


If you want to generalize the life of the aggressor in a way that the word initiate can be used you could probably do so.

The aggressor's life was initiated when his parents had sex. But the aggression (the action) would not take place until the point where he initiates force.

[Kludge]

That's the definition...not some logic..


If you want to generalize the life of the aggressor in a way that the word initiate can be used you could probably do so.

The aggressor's life was initiated when his parents had sex. But the aggression (the action) would not take place until the point where he initiates force.

Okay...

Pretend I punch you.

One year later, do you believe that the NAP would permit you to punch me back?

What does it matter if the length of time after the aggression has taken place is one second or one year?

[Elwar]

I don't believe a person truly believes in the NAP if they were to say they side with the shooter.

Only if they did not understand what "initiation of force" means.

[Kludge]

Only if they did not understand what "initiation of force" means.

Aye, I took that back because the aggression was still occurring when the shooter shot the initial initiator. It would fit what you are talking about.

Edit: Elwar left to eat lunch.

[torchbearer]

caging people like animals should only be used on people who are genuine threats to the community.
it should not be for punishment or reformation.
It is simply to put the sociopaths away because they will continue to hurt people.

[Truth Warrior]

caging people like animals should only be used on people who are genuine threats to the community.
it should not be for punishment or reformation.
It is simply to put the sociopaths away because they will continue to hurt people. How many are in the COTUS? :D Easier question, how many in the COTUS are not?

[tremendoustie]

If it were me, I'd let the victim decide the punishment with the limitation that the punishment does not go beyond the crime.

In our society punishment has been delegated to "jail time".

Jesus came up with "an eye for an eye" not as a punishment, but as a delimeter. He saw that if one neighbor killed someone's goat, the other neighbor would kill two of his goats as punishment, which would result in four of the other neighbor's goats, and so on and so on..."an eye for an eye" would set the punishment as one goat to one goat.

Actually, the "eye for an eye" thing is from the Old Testiment.

Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:38-48#fen-NIV-23273a)] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."


Although in civil law a person has a right to self defense in these situations, I think as a Christian, the right thing is not to respond in kind. It is certainly a hard thing to do.

Of course, I think there are limits -- trying to take one's coat is not the same as assaulting one's wife.

[Truth Warrior]

Actually, the "eye for an eye" thing is from the Old Testiment.

Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:38-48#fen-NIV-23273a)] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."


Although in civil law a person has a right to self defense in these situations, I think as a Christian, the right thing is not to respond in kind. It is certainly a hard thing to do.

Of course, I think there are limits -- trying to take one's coat is not the same as assaulting one's wife. Aggression IS aggression. ;)

Aggression is Wrong (http://www.voluntaryist.com/lefevre/aggression.php), by Robert LeFevre

[torchbearer]

How many are in the COTUS? :D Easier question, how many in the COTUS are not?

I'm using the term sociopath in the DSM definition.

Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."[1] Deceit and manipulation are considered essential features of the disorder. Therefore, it is essential in making the diagnosis to collect material from sources other than the individual being diagnosed. Also, the individual must be age 18 or older as well as have a documented history of a conduct disorder before the age of 15.[1]People having antisocial personality disorder are sometimes referred to as "sociopaths" and "psychopaths", although some researchers believe that these terms are not synonymous with ASPD.[2]


There may be a majority in congress that fit this role. But I wouldn't start swinging the axe until they were given a trial and were proven a threat in this manner.

[tremendoustie]

caging people like animals should only be used on people who are genuine threats to the community.
it should not be for punishment or reformation.
It is simply to put the sociopaths away because they will continue to hurt people.

I agree with this. Those who have comitted crimes but do not continue to be threats should be put into work programs to pay the victim, in my view. A 5 year term to work for the victim makes a lot more sense than 5 years rotting in jail ... plus, the criminal would be less likely to get worse, as most who serve prison terms do.

[Kludge]

I agree with this. Those who have comitted crimes but do not continue to be threats should be put into work programs to pay the victim, in my view. A 5 year term to work for the victim makes a lot more sense than 5 years rotting in jail ... plus, the criminal would be less likely to get worse, as most who serve prison terms do.

I don't think Madoff's labor is actually worth enough to pay the victims restitution... :p

(but I agree, nonetheless)

[torchbearer]

I agree with this. Those who have comitted crimes but do not continue to be threats should be put into work programs to pay the victim, in my view. A 5 year term to work for the victim makes a lot more sense than 5 years rotting in jail ... plus, the criminal would be less likely to get worse, as most who serve prison terms do.

reparations are essential. Victims should be compensated for their loss of property or damage to body.
but we must be wary of an indentured servant program that seeks to make slaves of people.
I have had this debate with other libertarians before... and I do recall some 'holes' in the system.
I've had a loved one caged like an animal for drug use. It was horrible. They are treating people like animals... and they don't deserve that for doing so little wrong.

[Truth Warrior]

I'm using the term sociopath in the DSM definition.

Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."[1] Deceit and manipulation are considered essential features of the disorder. Therefore, it is essential in making the diagnosis to collect material from sources other than the individual being diagnosed. Also, the individual must be age 18 or older as well as have a documented history of a conduct disorder before the age of 15.[1]People having antisocial personality disorder are sometimes referred to as "sociopaths" and "psychopaths", although some researchers believe that these terms are not synonymous with ASPD.[2]


There may be a majority in congress that fit this role. But I wouldn't start swinging the axe until they were given a trial and were proven a threat in this manner. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopath (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopath)

Right, like the Clintons. ;)

Flash! The jury is in, verdict MANY of them ( perhaps even a majority ) are "guilty".

~4% of the US population are sociopaths. That's just somewhere around 12 MILLION folks. :eek: What's the current US prison population? :D