Persuasion Is More Powerful Than Violence
My latest Liberty Chat post pushes back against people trying to blame radical libertarian rhetoric for the recent shooting of two police officers in Las Vegas. An excerpt:
Thus we see that if the SPLC and others try to pin such violence on “anti-government rhetoric” then they have failed to carefully digest what the principled libertarian worldview actually is (surprise, surprise). Yes, it’s true that in his fiery writings Rothbard would refer to the State as a “gang of thieves writ large.” Yet from that worldview it does not follow that an individual is justified in attacking agents of the State. Libertarian theory certainly offers no defense for walking up to two random police officers eating pizza and opening fire, as allegedly happened in this case.
Even if a mob boss has systematically shaken you down, taking money from you over the years, in standard libertarian theory you’re not allowed to walk up to him point-blank and shoot him. That would be punishment in excess of the crime. So even for libertarians who take “the State is a big gang” as a genuine statement of fact, rather than a metaphor, it still doesn’t follow that one is justified in shooting at agents of the State, merely because they are working for a group that has stolen money from your paychecks.
Now let’s move on to the pragmatic considerations. Suppose there are readers who are not persuaded by my above appeals to justice and morality. Perhaps they’ll say, “This is war!” (which is always a sign that awful things are about to happen). Perhaps they’ll draw analogies with the American Revolution.
Yet hang on a second. It would be weird to look with pride upon the American colonists for their violent uprising against Great Britain, when what modern liberty lovers hate is the State that grew out of the American Revolution. The Confederate states tried to use violence to get the people in DC to back down. That didn’t work out very well. Not only did hundreds of thousands of people die, but the US empire emerged even stronger from the carnage of the 1860s.
The surest way to silence those who are attempting to create peaceful change is to blame the actions of those who are not peaceful on them. It is a form of persuasion that is visceral. It paints an entire group as dangerous, out of touch, unreasonable and hate-filled.
I dislike a strong Federal Government. I dislike it for legitimate reasons. For instance the gathering of power spread among the hands of a select few. There are 537 elected representatives and 9 Justices that basically decide the fate of the nation and control in excess of $3.6 Trillion Dollars. Put another way each of our elected Representatives are charged with caring for over $6.7 Billion each.
It is too much power in too few hands.
Some will say I am a radical for suggesting that 500 people should not be in charge of 22.5% of our economy. If so I am what they say.
The SPLC and Mother Jones know most libertarians don’t agree with the actions taken nor are most of them white supremacists. They don’t care, they believe the ends justify the means and thus will say or do whatever they want, whether honest or not.
The Confederate states tried to use violence to get the people in DC to back down. That didn’t work out very well.
This is interesting, if you haven’t heard it, already:
The Economics of the Civil War – Lecture 5 | Mark Thornton – Lecture 5: Confederate Blockade of the South
It turns out that the South had, economically speaking, shot themselves in the foot.
So it very well could have turned out different had the South been committed to laissez-faire.
“The Confederate states tried to use violence to get the people in DC to back down. That didn’t work out very well.”
True enough. The problem was that they waited far too long to secede though, the rift was clear for decades.
(Besides all the other mistakes they made, that is)
KP wrote:
True enough. The problem was that they waited far too long to secede though, the rift was clear for decades.
You might be right, and I can’t prove you wrong. But by the same token, Krugman might be right that if the stimulus had only been bigger, it would have worked better.
I swear we’ve had this conversation before!
While I reckon the most effective means ultimately depends on the environment, I think a little bit of violence goes a long way in seizing freedoms in most cultures. I’ve got it stuck in my head that the Civil Rights movements owe much of their success to the riots and threats of violence.
It’s also worth noting that despite Bob’s dismissal of “that didn’t work out very well,” they probably came a whole lot closer than any OTHER effort to overthrow the shackles of Washington D.C. ever has…
I’m no pacifist, but I definitely see your points here, Bob. That said, the general government in America has become more openly tyrannical over the last several years – especially since 9/11. I wonder: if the police state in America gets to a point where it is analogous to, say Nazi Germany, and the government is openly rounding up dissenters, etc., would you think violent resistance could be justified under the libertarian worldview then? Would that not be proper self-defense and therefore just? I’m just curious where you think libertarians could/should draw the line on the spectrum of tyrannical government.
Murphy, a little discomforting to ask, but based your article here, would you say that “standard libertarian theory” would lead to regarding this shooting as justified IF those two cops shot dead innocent (according to libertarian ethics) civilians like someone who deals drugs?
And if so, and given your pacifism, would that not mean you reject Rothbard’s pretty crucial “eye for an eye” type justice?
“… would that not mean you reject Rothbard’s pretty crucial “eye for an eye” type justice?”
lol! yeah, I am sure no reasonable person would have a problem with this, and the horrible system of abuses it would likely lead to:
“police may use such coercive methods provided that the suspect turns out to be guilty, and provided that the police are treated as themselves criminal if the suspect is not proven guilty. For, in that case, the rule of no force against non-criminals would still apply. Suppose, for example, that police beat and torture a suspected murderer to find information (not to wring a confession, since obviously a coerced confession could never be considered valid). If the suspect turns out to be guilty, then the police should be exonerated, for then they have only ladled out to the murderer a parcel of what he deserves in return;”
Rothbard, M. N. 1998. The Ethics of Liberty, New York University Press, New York, N.Y. and London. p. 82.
Welcome to Rothbard’s utopia: where police can beat and torture a “suspected” criminals.
If they poke your eye out, don’t worry: you can always sue!
Wow, that’s pretty bad.
My view is that Rothbard’s view doesn’t follow from the NAP.
Good to know this is out there, though.
NAP does not mean pure pacifism, guest.
The NAP is not violated when an intiator of violence, recieves equal violence.
(1) The issue here, first, is that Rothbard does not say that the person must be proven to be an “intiator of violence”: he says torture can be used against “suspects”. Of course you ignore that point.
(2) torture is wrong as any practice of law enforcement, public or private, given that (1) it could easily lead to serious abuses, such as tortured confessions (2) even the argument it is some reliable way to extract information is flawed and contradicted by empirical evidence, and (3) people — even criminals — should have the right, as can be easily defended even in consequentialist ethics, to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment or treatment, especially that could result in severe bodily injury, in a society that wants to minimise suffering.
Amongst the vast amount of empirical evidence:
Ex-FBI Interrogator: Torture “Ineffective”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-fbi-interrogator-torture-ineffective/
Whether X is “effective” at achieving Y has no bearing on whether it is morally right or wrong to do X.
LK, Rothbard isn’t perfect. He didn’t use the best example in which a violation of NAP would be *morally* justified.
Only in specific circumstances, which in reality would probably correspond to a vast minority of circumstances, could police brutality be justified.
In my opinion, the best example are burn victim’s in hospitals. The treatment of burn victim’s often involves the violation of NAP. If you find aggression morally impermissible in all instances, then you render the treatment of the majority of burn victims impossible.
LK:
“The issue here, first, is that Rothbard does not say that the person must be proven to be an “intiator of violence”: he says torture can be used against “suspects”. Of course you ignore that point.”
I’ve repeatedly addressed not only that secondary point, but also the primary point which is whether or not it is moral to torture someone to themselves either tortured innocents, or worse.
Whether or not torture is moral is not being claimed as predicated on “mere suspicion” ALONE, but rather, the crucial premise of whether or not the tortured is guilty or innocent.
If guilty, then it is being claimed as moral.
If innocent, then it is being claimed as immoral.
“(2) torture is wrong”
Torturing those who initiate torture is not wrong.
“as any practice of law enforcement, public or private, given that:
The first two points have already been addressed.
Your third point:
” even criminals — should have the right, as can be easily defended even in consequentialist ethics, to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment or treatment, especially that could result in severe bodily injury, in a society that wants to minimise suffering.”
As can be shown by eye for an eye ethics, torturers should be subjected to equal torture, in a society that wants to minimize suffering, since all acts of punishment that exceed the crime, would themselves be subject to punishment, which would minimize abuse, but also eye for an eye ethic makes it impossible for monopolists of force and the significant abuse contained therein, to form. Your ethic increases injustice from the standard of libertarian eye for an eye justice.
I submit that 99% of all “police cases” under AnCap would be handled pursuant to community bylaws with all participants signing on to those rules. LK is employing a common anti AnCap tactic claiming that any and all voluntary communities would necessarily ascribe to Rothbard’s rules of criminal ethics. In a community of atheist pacifist lesbians, Rothbard would rise from the dead and force them to torture crime suspects.
Further, Rothbard’s torture example would best be applied where the perpetrator has kidnapped and hidden a victim who is still alive and might be rescued in time to avoid otherwise certain death. He’s suggesting that if torture brings forth the information that results in the saving of the life, perhaps the torturers should not be considered criminal. This might also apply to perpetrators to stop a mass bombing. I don’t think I’d want such rule, but it is not unreasonable. It all depends upon the facts and circumstance.
Note also that our benevolent Keynesian Kleptocratic government has employed torture in the past several years.
LK:
Please don’t pretend this is not a standard ethical dilemma.
In the burn unit of a hospital, the pain involved in the changing of bandages causes burn victims to often resist the treatment. They often tell the staff they would rather choose death. Yet they continue to treat them even through they are violating NAP. Under Rothbard’s system, they would be exonerated if and only if the burn victims forgave them. Even if they did not forgive them, they still could be exonerated through jury nullification.
Are you saying that if the police apprehended a child rapist and serial killer through the use of brutality, it would not be morally justified?
All in all, you are confusing NAP as an ethical theory instead of as a theory of natural law.
So you support torture, hank?
I can see you are omitting quantity here LK. Nice strategy.
It would seem I may support some torture.
However I don’t know that if, under the world in which we live, the police are able to exercise this power properly. I suspect the police would fail in this regard. Therefore, I would not support any torture because I am confident in the incompetence of the state.
This is a guy that supports the State which tortures and murders people all the time. This kid supports a system that allowed cops to violently beat a man to death on camera and get away with it. He supports a system that took a child away from parents that were caught smoking pot, only to put that child in the hands of a person who would go on to beat the little girl to death. I’ll give a shit what this kid has to say about the ethics of my philosophy once his beloved State stops committing atrocious crimes against innocent people on a daily basis.
I do not support torture, kidnapping, or wars of aggression by any state. Period.
Then you do not support any state period, LK.
States are permanent internal wars of statesmen against everyone else in a geographical territory that touches another region of permanent internal war, where it just so happens in our age that many among the occupied and victimized, still believe that the permanent wars are necessary for peace.
States also kidnap innocent people in order to exist. If the statesmen did not arrest people in handcuffs for not obeying them and not paying them, then the statesmen would have an almost impossible time enforcing their monopoly on “protection”.
nah, MF, force used to enforce those morally justified laws of the state is itself moral and does not constitute kidnapping or aggression.
It is only under Rothbard’s barking mad natural rights theory that your argument holds any force.
Yet, here you are supporting a State that tortures, kidnaps, murders, and rapes on a daily basis. Not only do you support a State that does these things constantly, but you support them even though only on the rarest of occasions are they even punished for such horrific crimes.
LK:
“MF, force used to enforce those morally justified laws of the state is itself moral and does not constitute kidnapping or aggression.”
Why are the government’s laws moral and just?
You are just claiming they are, without showing why.
If someone claimed that that Nazi regime justice and enforcement is hereby moral and does not constitute aggression, then they would be using the same premises as your argument here. That the state’s laws are moral and just because…they’re state laws.
Again, wrong.
I did not say that every law of every state is moral.
Laws do indeed need to be justified as moral by a defensible ethical system.
A given law in any state may indeed be moral or immoral.
But neither natural rights or Hoppe’s argumentation ethics provide a defensible system.
It is consequentialism that can provide the basis for a defensible ethical system.
In fact, we have been through his argument before, but you are just too stupid or too dishonest to do anything but throw out your usual straw man nonsense.
LK:
“I did not say that every law of every state is moral.”
Then you agree with libertarians.
“Laws do indeed need to be justified as moral by a defensible ethical system.”
Defensible based on what?
“A given law in any state may indeed be moral or immoral.
But neither natural rights or Hoppe’s argumentation ethics provide a defensible system.
It is consequentialism that can provide the basis for a defensible ethical system.”
What ethics are possible between us, given that we disagree on that, that would enable you and I to coexist peacefully?
“In fact, we have been through his argument before, but you are just too stupid or too dishonest to do anything but throw out your usual straw man nonsense.”
I already refuted your consequentialist ethics as impossible to practise in the here and now.
Could you imagine if police could beat and torture people? http://www.ocregister.com/articles/fullerton-353158-thomas-unedited.html
https://www.google.com/#q=cops+beating+people&safe=off&tbm=vid
LK, would this be legal or illegal based on the NAP? http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.html
It seems like the State, which you love so much, said legal.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yogXJl9H9z0
So, would it be legal or illegal based on the NAP to toss people into concentration camps because they were a certain race?
The State said legal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html?_r=0
Is it legal or illegal based upon the NAP to drop a bomb on two teenage boys, and at least five other civilians, without ever giving any reasoning whatsoever and blow them all into pieces?
The State you love says it is perfectly legal to do that.
LK:
“If they poke your eye out, don’t worry: you can always sue!”
Did you forget about eye for an eye already? Come on! You even QUOTED me as using the “eye for an eye” talking point!
If a policeman pokes an innoceng person’s eye out, then that victim would be, according to EYE FOR AN EYE revenge ethics, justified in poking the policeman’s eye out.
No, he would not.
And it speaks volumes that you think everyone — even victims of torture — would be as insanely bloodthirsty for torture as you are.
You say no, he would not.
WHY NOT?
And bloodthirsty? No, justice thirsty.
If you attribute bloodthirst to violence using justice enforcers, then you WORSHIP bloodthirsty people whom you call the state.
MF:
Retributive theories of justice suffer from subjective value.
Hank,
All justice enforcement “suffers” from subjective value.
Okay I will be more explicit.
If we agree that the principle of an eye for an eye cannot be objectively determined, then you should realize that pocking someone’s eye out in revenge may not be morally justified if that person valued their eye more than you valued your eye.
That argument suffers from inter-subjective value fallacy.
I’m not familiar with it.
Basically it means it is incoherent to compare utilities between people to come up with a holistic aggregate utility judgment.
I think it is easy to find using Google.
“If a policeman pokes an innoceng person’s eye out, then that victim would be, according to EYE FOR AN EYE revenge ethics, justified in poking the policeman’s eye out.”
Than shouldn’t you admit that this “EYE FOR AN EYE revenge ethics” commits this fallacy?
Is it not comparing “utilities between people to come up with a holistic aggregate utility judgment.”
Hank, I don’t think I explained it well. I recommend Google.
You don’t think I Googled it MF?
“inter-subjective value fallacy”
Is not one of the common logical fallacies. The closest thing I found was
http://www.paecon.net/Fullbrook/IntersubjectiveTheoryofValue.pdf
This does not define any fallacy that you are referring to.
Like I said, I don’t think I explained it well. Probably shouldn’t use my exact wording when searching.
Try Mises.org and search “inter-subjective utility” or something like that.
I think the more operative phrase is “interpersonal utility comparisons”.
Try Mises.org and search “inter-subjective utility” or something like that.
Man, Economy, and State
Chapter 1—Fundamentals of Human Action (continued)
5. Further Implications
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap1b.asp#5._Further_Implications
A. ENDS AND VALUES
…
… it would be completely meaningless for him to try to assign units to his preference and say, “I am two and a half times happier because of this choice than I would have been playing bridge.” Two and a half times what?
…
Thus, values cannot be measured; values or utilities cannot be added, subtracted, or multiplied. They can only be ranked as better or worse. A man may know that he is or will be happier or less happy, but not by “how much,” not by a measurable quantity.[17]
Er … I suppose this is relevant, too:
From the link provided above:
It is important to realize that there is never any possibility of measuring increases or decreases in happiness or satisfaction. Not only is it impossible to measure or compare changes in the satisfaction of different people; it is not possible to measure changes in the happiness of any given person.
But then Major_Freedom is on the record telling us that he supports “revenge torture” to keep a lid on police torture:
“but the important caveat is there that if the torturer is wrong, he is liable for restitution, and in my ethics, that includes revenge torture.
That would put a tight lid on people torturing others. They have to be absolutely sure. They can’t just go around torturing innocent people for fun, because they’ll get tortured back if wrong.”
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/05/great-moments-in-paradox-history.html#comment-65542
… but the important caveat is there that if the torturer is wrong, he is liable for restitution, and in my ethics, that includes revenge torture.
THIS, I actually agree with. But this is not what Rothbard, in your quote above, appears to be saying.
You don’t believe that Rothbard thinks the police should be liable to criminal penalties if they are wrong?
No, he is saying that Rothbard does not say that the police should be subject to “revenge torture”, just trial for criminal assault:
“But if the suspect is not convicted, then that means that the police have beaten and tortured an innocent man, and that they in turn must be put into the dock for criminal assault.”
That statement does not preclude revenge torture as punishment.
Oh, I do believe THAT, yes.
But, in the quote above, Rothbard is justifying torture on those merely suspected of something.
LK’s quote of Major_Freedom says that torture is OK in some cases – which I agree with – but it doesn’t say it’s OK on a mere suspicion.
But Rothbard says its only “OK” on mere suspicion if they are correct in their suspicion.
Correct. As far as I can see, Rothbard is not condoning revenge torture.
That takes the special genius of Major_Freedom.
Just to be clear, I *do* condone revenge torture.
I don’t condone torture on mere suspicion.
Libertarians for torture!
Impressive for people who claim to have the most moral system possible or the only true ethical system that exists.
No, it’s
“Libertarians for torturing torture initiators!”
You have not actually shown how this is immoral. You have only expressed your own moral claims (as contradictory as they are, as shown above)
no, it is not, MF: it is let’s condone torture against MERE SUSPECTS.
LK, you should admit this discussion suffers from imprecision.
Most would not constitute all aggression as torture.
Since you don’t subscribe to NAP, you need to precisely define what constitutes torture or you guys will have no idea what you are talking about.
No, it’s not, LK.
It’s “Let us only CONDONE torture against those who themselves tortured.”
Torturing people on mere suspicion ALONE is not the full story of when torture is or is not condoned. There has to be actual correct judgments that the person actually tortured people. If they did not, then the initial torture is NOT condoned.
Your understanding of revenge ethics is incomplete.
Nah, B.S., MF,
If you did not condone torture against certain suspects, then you would not support it, and would reject it.
That fact that you might retrospectively say it was wrong does not change the fact that you did in fact condone at that earlier time.
No LK, you’re straw manning me.
Revenge torture is only CONDONED if the torture initiated torture.
You are confused over the difference between information gathering problems, and justice problems.
Whether it is easy or difficult to collect information on a person’s guilt, is separate from establishing the most just punishment to fit a particular crime.
Yes, it is true that condoning torture at an earlier time could turn out to be unequal punishment after facts of innocence are learned. But then that would be judged as torture that should not have been condoned after all. It was a mistake.
But if the person did in fact torture others, then revenge ethics would regard it as torture condoned correctly.
Making mistakes does not serve as an argument against whether or not it is moral to torture a person who initiated torture.
“Yes, it is true that condoning torture at an earlier time could turn out to be unequal punishment after facts of innocence are learned. But then that would be judged as torture that should not have been condoned after all. It was a mistake. “
lol.. my argument conceded.
My work is done here.
That does not serve as an argument against the morality of torturing someone who themselves initiated torture.
You just keep dodging it, and the only thing you’re saying is “no, it is not just”, without explaining why. No, addressing data collection issues is not an argument against the moral claim of torturing actual torture initiators.
Does the mere apprehension of a suspect constitute torture? Apprehension necessarily involves aggression. Does the locking behind bars constitute torture? Is psychological trauma caused by police interrogation constitute torture? Does a small amount of hunger or thirst constitute torture? Does the policy of “one phone call” constitute torture? Does the humiliation caused from a mug-shot constitute torture?
All of this is usually done to suspects before the suspect is rendered guilty. My point is: isn’t torture just subjectively determined individually?
If not, you need to precisely define torture.
That fact the one needs to rationally debate whether some acts are torture and some are not does not mean torture is simply “subjectively determined individually”.
Cutting off someone’s fingers to inflict severe pain and to obtain information is clearly torture.
But that may not be true in all cases.
What if I don’t care about my fingers whatsoever and I don’t feel any pain since I have nerve damage?
LK:
Why isn’t it moral to cut the fingers off someone who initiated the cutting off of other people’s fingers?
BTW LK
I am not saying torture MUST be subjectively determined.
Its just that you have yet to define torture so the debate can’t really move anywhere.
For the reasons I stated above.
The principle of condoning torture is (1) likely to lead to severe abuses, and (2) is not be moral in any society that wants to minimise suffering and where mistakes can be and are made in convicting people of crimes.
The action of condoning torture is different than the action of performing torture.
I think MF is talking about the latter, in which an individual case of torture could be morally or legally permissible.
I don’t think anyone disagrees about the condoning of generalized torture.
LK:
Monopolies encourage and give an incentive for abuse.
And yet you claim to support monopolies of force (states).
Monopolies of force lead to abuses of force.
Can you logic?
MF that is inaccurate.
If LK thinks some actions performed by states constitute abuse, this does not mean all actions performed by states constitute abuse.
Not saying I agree, you are just misrepresenting.
But the only thing a state does is use force, Hank.
Yes but LK doesn’t subscribe to NAP (or he has yet to say so) so he may not equate force with abuse.
With NAP, force qualifies as abuse.
LK as has yet to define abuse.
(1) The main thing a Rothbardian defense agency would do is use force.
The use of force in its conventional sense of making people do something against their will cannot be an argument against government per se.
If it were, then Rothbardian defense agencies would be immoral.
But I expect “force” will be defined by MF in whatever sense he wants
(2) regarding Rothbard’s ethics, Hank, you are right I reject it, because its justification is totally unconvincing:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2014/06/rothbards-argument-for-natural-rights.html
LK you are still being imprecise.
Just because you reject Rothbard’s justification, or even his version of NAP, does not mean you reject NAP.
There may be utilitarian arguments for NAP, for example.
To be precise you must answer two questions:
Do you reject NAP as a basis for LAW?
Do you reject NAP as a basis for MORALITY?
These are separate from any justification of NAP.
The moral principle that force (defined in its conventional sense, not some special sense dreamed up Rothbard) or violence should not used unless one can provide a very convincing justifications is part of every ethical theory I am aware of.
Of course I support it.
LK
The conventional sense was dreamed up.
The “very convincing justifications” in NAP are precisely defined as far as I can tell, which is actually the determining characteristic of NAP separating it from other systems LK.
It is only ‘justified’ under cases of retribution, setting aside how the retribution is determined.
In other words the only time aggression is permissible is against an individual who has made aggression against you.
Therefore I still don’t know if you support NAP. To support NAP, you must agree with those statements. To say “very convincing justifications” is imprecise. Since these justifications are precisely defined in NAP, I still can’t know if you support NAP.
Sorry, I was using the wrong terms.
To reject NAP, you must reject the characteristic notes that separate NAP from other systems.
You must reject:
(1) The only permissible subset of force is retaliatory force.
(2) All force that is not retaliatory force is aggression.
(3) All aggression is impermissible.
Perhaps a definition of force:
An action where the ends consist in the alteration in the actions of another actor without said actor’s permission.
It is amazing that you think you have legs to stand on when talking about torture. I, for one, lean much more towards Murphy’s ideas of justice than Rothbard, even though I consider my a Rothbardian. But, you, on the otherhand, support the US State even though you know with near 100% certainty that they are going to torture, murder, kidnap, and rape on a daily basis. You can say you don’t support those activities, but who gives a shit when those things are assured to continue no matter who is elected.
LK,
You actually haven’t explained why a torture victim ought not torture their torturer back.
You mentioned the issue of “abuses”, which is of course a valid point, but then abuses are an issue in all enforcement. It isn’t limited to revenge torture.
You seem to want to minimize innocent people being unjustly harmed. OK, so far I am on board, but then why the h%ll are you a statist then? States harm innocent people in order to even exist. If individuals practised an abolition of harming innocent people, then all security and protection would be contracted by individual to individual agreements, meaning “private”, meaning there would be no territorial monopolies on protection, meaning there woild be no state.
You can’t claim to be against innocent people being harmed through abuses of enforcement AND be a statist at the same time. That is just laugh out loud ridiculous.
“You actually haven’t explained why a torture victim ought not torture their torturer back.”
Answers:
(1) many victims of torture would not be as insanely bloodthirsty for torture as you are.
(2) even if they were, that still would not constitute a valid argument:
(i) torture could easily lead to serious abuses, such as tortured confessions
(ii) even the original argument that it is some reliable way to extract information is flawed and contradicted by empirical evidence
(iii) people — even criminals — should have the right, as can be easily defended even in consequentialist ethics, to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment or treatment, especially that could result in severe bodily injury, in a society that wants to minimise suffering.
(iv) Justice does not entail the eye for an eye principle, but measured punishment as humane as possible, given that human criminal justice systems can make mistakes and people found guilty of crimes can be found innocent later.
You guys are not being precise.
Saying someone *should* engage in revenge torture is one thing.
Saying the law *should* permit revenge torture is another thing.
One is a moral statement.
The other is a legal and moral statement.
(1) Not an argument against the morality of revenge torture.
(2) Yes, abuses are possible for all enforcement of justice. But if eye for an eye is absolute, then we would all be faced with the fact that should we inflict percieved justice on someone who is actually innocent, then we ourselves would be liable for recieving what we dished out. That, I submit, will minimize abuse and flagrant uses of violence. This is, after all, what kept the USSR and the US from nuclear mutual annihilation. Both considered possible deployment of nuclear weapons against each other as “legal”, and yet they did not deploy.
Same principle with revenge ethics. When you know that any force you use could be used equally against you if you judged incorrectly, would give you maximum incentive to avoid abuses and harming innocent people for sick fun.
I am not claiming that torture is effective in “extracting information”. Even if it were, revenge ethics would not consider it justified to torture someone for stealing a loaf of bread.
Your third sub bullet point insinuates that torturing a torturer is cruel, meaning unethical, but that begs the question, because that is what we are debating as true or not.
Your fourth bullet point also begs the question. You’re just saying revenge torture is not just because revenge torture is not just. If mistakes are made, then the people who thereby are exposed as having unjustly torturing someone, would themselves be subjected to torture. That would minimize human suffering because of the incentives.
In your ethics, if for whatever reason a person who planted a bomb that woild kill 10 million people would only confess to where it is if he were tortured (assuming this is one of the type 1 errors in regressions of torture on true confessions that have in the past had rejections of the null of no relation), then your ethics would have me conclude that it is more ethical to not torture the bomber and have 10 million people blown up, than to torture the bomber, get a confession, and save 10 million lives.
This ethical dilemma is not put in your favor by evading it and claiming that at some point in the past, for some other group of people, that 90 times out of 100 tortures resulted in false positives.
“In the question of bodily assault, where restitution does not even apply, we can again employ our criterion of proportionate punishment; so that if A has beaten up B in a certain way, then B has the right to beat up A (or have him beaten up by judicial employees) to rather more than the same extent.”
Murray Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty
Stone age ethics.
As I said, human criminal justice systems can make mistakes and people found guilty of crimes can be found innocent later.
Justice does not entail the eye for an eye principle, but measured punishment as humane as possible, with opportunity for rehabilitation.
Better than current US policy which allows people to be tortured without any recourse whatsoever.
That fact that justice enforcement can make mistakes, is precisely what gives the incentive to be maximally certain about a person’s guilt, and thus minimize high levels of punishment (that fit the crime).
You keep claiming that justice is not eye for an eye, without showing why.
Also, eye for an eye IS “measured punishment”. It is as humane as humane can be, because it prohibits punishment that exceeds the crime, and it also does not advocate for NEW victimization to be had on the basis of insufficient justice enforcement.
Persuasion usually wont land you in jail, violence usually will. Also persuasion doe snot violate the NAP, so this allows a person to be true to thy self.
However I do think violence, when speaking about government, is the most powerful. This is why they are enslaving us and winning, the government uses violence rather than persuasion.
If this non aggression libertarian revolution succeeds, I will be completely surprised.
There is a reason the revolutionary war required violence. E=MC2.
No, the government is winning because of a lack of those who are persuaded. Would be statist violence in a world of people who think it is wrong, would not welcome it. They would be antagonistic towards it, and fight back against it.
It isn’t the fighting per se that grounds the shaping of the world, it is the ideas behind the activity.
Also, it is ironic that you quoted E=mc^2.
It is ironic because it wasn’t violence that made Einstein discover it.
He did work for the Swiss patent office, which mostly depends on government power in order to exist. He also is reported to have said about Americans:
Either things have changed, or Einstein was an appallingly bad judge of character. It is perhaps possible that Einstein ran across some distant ancestor of Bob Murphy.
Ideas are more powerful than violence.
Ideas, not violence, cures diseases.
Ideas, not violence, wins hearts and minds.
Do you honestly believe that the ONLY reason you are not raping or killing children is because of fear of violence in the form of punishment?
Put another way, Gamble are you saying that if for whatever reason, the state made child killing legal, that you would do it if you believed you could avoid the wrath of the parents?
Tell that to the bacteria that came up against penicillin.
Why?
I agree that ideas are the issue here. One can see in the current paralysis of the government the effect of libertarian ideas at work. A significant portion of the House believes either in a very very small federal government, or perhaps no government, and they have succeeded in blocking most legislation. Indeed, they almost caused the govnment to default on its obligations, etc. if libertarians made up the whole government, there would be no government, and that would be the end of that.
One thing I do notice: there is an awful lot of talk on here about the government raping, killing, torturing, and even some talk about the need for violent response to these outrages. I for one do not believe that it is rational to suggest that these kinds of statements caused a couple in Las Vegas to go insane and murder police officers. They were insane first, and then they seized on some ideas floating in the zeitgeist and did what they did. I do think, however, that it may not be very useful to describe the American government as this solely malevolent instrigator of rape, terror, torture and murder, etc. I don’t think its accurate and if really true would probably call for some kind of insurrection. I mean, it ain’t the Taliban around here. We have about the lowest taxes in the industrialized world; the government provides healthcare for the elderly, and enough money for them to live at least semi-decently in old age. It secures the nation from foreign enemies in ways we probably would have trouble doing if we were all on our own homesteads. Torture is in fact the exception, not the rule, and although the episodes of torture were (are?) certainly a disagrace, domestic torture by police is not I think particularly common (I have some knowledge of this area). Citizens in fact have substantial rights against govnment and do occasionally defeat the govnment in court. There are highways, a safe air traffic control system, police, fire, the center of disease control, etc. I mean, this is not Rome under Caligula, and when I read statements describing it that way, it makes me wonder if I should take the ideas expressed here seriously. So to me if libertarians want to win the battle of ideas, they could consider being a little more measured in the description of the current state of affairs, because I think the way it’s sometimes described here is not particularly recognizable to ordinary people.
Thank God for those non-anarchist congressmen and senators, or else we would be burning in anarchy right now.
We don’t have the lowest taxes in the industrialized world.
Forgot to include “about” the lowest.
Don’t we have the highest, or second highest, corporate tax rate?
Yes, nominally, at least.
John, they have secret prisons where they torture people. They force feed people at Gitmo, among other things. They throw people in cages and let them rape each all across the country. There are daily stories of cops beating, killing, stealing, etc. Most of the time their punishment is a paid vacation. The US government drops bombs on innocent men, women, and CHILDREN! Just because these things aren’t happening to you doesn’t mean they aren’t happening. And even if it’s better here than somewhere else that doesn’t help the people being terrorized or murdered.
Well, I don’t actually think there are secret torture prisons any more, to the extent there ever were, although one doesn’t know for sure., does one? There is force feeding at Gitmo, which is probably unnecessarily unpleasant, but is done to avoid prisoners starving to death. Prisons are not very safe unquestionably. People in authority everywhere, including cops, do abuse their power from time to time. In war civilians are killed. This is all very bad, I agree. But that’s not ALL that’s going on. As countries go, this one has a pretty high measure of security and freedom. To describe it as a murderous tyranny with no redeeming features that must be eliminated one way or the other is at least for me not a measured view. In any society, something will have to be done with criminals, and proposals like putting out their eyes or cutting off their fingers don’t seem to me to represent a whole lot of improvement over prison. Even Ancapistan may have to fight wars if it hopes to maintain its way of life, and they will be plenty awful, with children murdered, etc. Private police and security currently seem more, not less abusive, than government authorities. In short, I don’t want to minimize the imperfections of the current state (which resemble, probably to a lesser degree, the imperfections of every state so far); I get that they exist and they’re serious. But there are very significant benefits to the current state that exist and are serious. Even if the ultimate goal is to dispose of the state, describing it in ways most people can’t recognize seems to me counter-productive.
“Well, I don’t actually think there are secret torture prisons any more”
Just world praise be to benevolence, amen.
“Well, I don’t actually think there are secret torture prisons any more, to the extent there ever were, although one doesn’t know for sure., does one?”
So, you acknowledge there are secret prisons, right? Do you think the people being tortured and God knows what else praising how much better the US government is than other governments?
“There is force feeding at Gitmo, which is probably unnecessarily unpleasant, but is done to avoid prisoners starving to death.”
Hey, guys, I know we are locking you up in horrible conditions with no chance to ever get out whether your innocent or not, but if you go on a hunger strike, we’ll force feed you, which is its own new kind of hell, but it’s for your own good. USA USA USA
“Prisons are not very safe unquestionably.”
That’s how you describe throwing people into a cage where a very large number of them will get raped by either fellow prisoners or guards? Especially, for the boys who get tried as adults. Those kids get brutalized even worse. Those cages are hell, and it’s beneath human to do this to people. How many people who never harmed another soul are rotting in those hell holes? How many people go to jail for smoking pot only to become institutionalized? The prison system isn’t just very bad, it’s a friggin travesty.
“People in authority everywhere, including cops, do abuse their power from time to time.”
Come on, man. They’re abusing their power on a daily basis. Killing people and getting away with it, killing pets for no reason, beating the shit out of people and then arresting them, and on and on. This happens every single day across this country. And it’d be one thing if we just had abuse and they got in trouble for it, but that rarely happens.
“But that’s not ALL that’s going on. As countries go, this one has a pretty high measure of security and freedom.”
That’s setting the bar awfully low. But you’re right, as long as your not one of the people getting tortured, raped, murdered, etc. then things are pretty good. So what? Something tells me the people in Iraq might view our government as one of the worst considering the destruction the US brought into their country. You know, if I lived next to a serial killer, I don’t think I would be bragging about how nice he kept his lawn.
“To describe it as a murderous tyranny with no redeeming features that must be eliminated one way or the other is at least for me not a measured view.”
There is a lot of things I like about this country. I just think life would be a lot better if we abolished the State. But I don’t think we must eliminate it one way or another. I don’t believe violence will solve anything.
“In any society, something will have to be done with criminals, and proposals like putting out their eyes or cutting off their fingers don’t seem to me to represent a whole lot of improvement over prison.”
I agree. I wouldn’t support that either.
“Even Ancapistan may have to fight wars if it hopes to maintain its way of life, and they will be plenty awful, with children murdered, etc.”
And if a child was killed, whoever did it would be guilty of murder in Ancapistan. We don’t believe people can kill innocent men, women, and children because “it’s war”.
“Private police and security currently seem more, not less abusive, than government authorities.”
What??? The only way you could possibly say this is if you are just completely unaware at how much violence police have been unleashing on innocent people. If you want to make a bet about this just name your price.
“In short, I don’t want to minimize the imperfections of the current state (which resemble, probably to a lesser degree, the imperfections of every state so far); I get that they exist and they’re serious. But there are very significant benefits to the current state that exist and are serious. Even if the ultimate goal is to dispose of the state, describing it in ways most people can’t recognize seems to me counter-productive.”
Counter-productive to what cause? I have no interest in changing your mind. I’ve already made my impact on my friends and family. I don’t have a single person that talks to me on even a semi-regular basis that would even consider voting, and most of them are anarchists at this point. So, I’m not really concerned whether me speaking about actual real life events and telling it like it is. If you want to make excuses about the horrible things the State does because you think there are some benefits that you get out of the deal, fine. Do your thing. It makes no difference to me. But, I see no benefits, and I see a lot of misery being handed out by the State.
You know, I don’t agree with your characterization of the police, or the prevalence of their violent misconduct, and I don’t think the extant evidence favors you on that (and it is a subject about which I personally know a little something) but I think the general point you’re making is the State does so much evil that you want it done away with. You would prefer Ancapistan, where a soldier who kills a child in war would be punished. Presumably, whoever enforced whatever rules there were (if anyone dd) would not abuse whatever authority they had, and punishments for misconduct, if any, would be just. The market, shaming, etc, would end race discrimination, pollution, etc, or limit them to where they could do no harm. In short, people would live by the NAP, and danger from other acquisitive nation states or neighboring provinces would be effectively dealt with in a measured fair effective way.
I agree with you: Ancapistan might very well be a better place, if it existed. I’m not sure human development is such that it could exist. Based on history, it sure doesn’t look like it could exist. What would prevent all the evils and much worse of the State from being visited on your homestead by any number of factions, cliques, marauders, etc.? I agree that Libertarians have identified many of the evils of the State. These evils were known by the Framers, by Aristotle, and many other political philosophers. What worries me about the Libertarian solution is that it seems Utopian; it seems to rely on human behaviors that are extremely unusual based on the experience of history. It seems to me ripe for catostrophic abuse that make the evils of the American state pale in comparison, because no one really has any rights in this libertarian community beyond those which they can defend by force. If you can’t defend your homestead from others who don’t think it’s yours, you will lose it.
On the convincing point, I get that. If Libertarians don’t want to try to persuade people who initially don’t agree with them that Libertarianism is a legitimate, practical political philosophy, they obviously don’t have to, and shouldn’t if they don’t want to. But if that’s the consensus of those who believe in Ancapistan, I fear Ancapistan shall remain a dream of the American fringe, and little more.
“What worries me about the Libertarian solution is that it seems Utopian; it seems to rely on human behaviors that are extremely unusual based on the experience of history. ”
Well, you’re simply mistaken. Libertarianism isn’t utopian at all. I have no illusions that a libertarian society would be free of initiatory violence. I just think it would be a lot better at handling it than giving a group of career campaigners the legal authority to create a monopoly on the use of violence. Murder, rape, theft, etc. will always exist. But I believe a free market will deal with those issues better than creating socialist police, military, fire departments, etc.
As far as how things would be dealt with if we lived in a libertarian society, I don’t know. I just know that taking people’s money and property against their will to pay for things that other people want is wrong. And I believe that a free market would provide cheaper and more efficient products and services than the State in all areas, including healthcare, police services, military, etc.
Also, it’s not that I don’t want to convince people of libertarianism, otherwise most of my friends and family wouldn’t be anarchists right now. I just have no interest trying to convince people in the comments sections on economics blogs. I’ve found that most people that come to sites like this are already past the point of changing their views anymore. Do you see a lot of converting going on these comments? Besides, I don’t try to convince people by myself. I find people who will read books about political philosophy and I motivate them to do it. It just happens that Rothbard, Hoppe, Murphy, Woods, Rockwell, Kinsella, etc. tend to be very good at convincing the people I send to their work to become libertarians. So, if you want I can recommend some books, but I’m not interested in trying to get you to become a libertarian by arguing here.
I agree with you. It’s incumbent on me to do some reading, because the founders of the movement are going to be best at explaining it, and it’s not fair to expect people to explain the whole philosophy on an economics blog.
I think though that Libertarians have to be able to elaborate on how things would be dealt with in a Libertarian society. A genalized faith that a libertarian society would be better seems like a slender reed on which to rest the destruction of the American state. The notion of letting “the market” somehow solve crime, aggression, etc., without law or enforcement capability seems so rife with violence, uncertainty, and disorder that I don’t see how it would be anything other than chaos, Walking Dead style. But as I said I think you’re right that maybe it’s time for me to do some reading to get a better feel for how the originators of the movement see the Libertarian society operating.
Yeah, don’t get me wrong, if we were sitting around drinking beer I’d talk all day about my views on how things could work. I was a bleeding heart liberal growing up, so I wouldn’t have been convinced by my statements here either. I just find it takes too long to have those kind of conversations on a venue like this. In person would be a different story.
But I’d recommend things like Anatomy of the State by Rothbard, For a New Liberty, and The Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard. A market for Liberty by the Tannehills, Democracy The God That Failed by Hoppe, and Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy.
I also think studying economics is important but if you read those books you’d at least have a good feel for libertarian theory. Not that you’ll necessarily agree, but you’ll at least understand what we believe.
Well, as a practical matter, no, because the law is structured in such a way that American corporations de facto pay essentially no corporate tax. However, the rate as described in the tax code is higher than most European countries, and I think most people think it should be lowered and the peculiar, for want to a better term, loopholes closed so that corporations actually pay the rate as described.
I was actually thinking of the personal tax rates though.
No, American corporations don’t de facto pay nothing. Some, possible very large and entangled ones do, but the average still pays more than their foreign counterparts.
This is old but decent enough
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/05/02/business/20110503_RATES_graphic.html?ref=economy
I think that’s essentially right: large corporation with strong legal teams GE, Apple, etc., pay nothing or next to nothing, smaller corporations or those without the legal wherewithal to use the tax code effectively may pay close to, or the full corporate rate. I think most people agree the corporate rate should be lowered to match up with Europe, and the ability of large corporations to avoid it eliminated, unless one thinks there should be no corporate tax at all.
Taxes on businesses seem especially ridiculous to me, so the closer to zero the better.
I’m not sure how many people agree though, I think you’ll find a significant portion of the U.S. population saying it should be raised even higher and I have a suspicion that many in Congress benefit from its complexity.
There’s a fundamental problem with your argument. You see, under the Non Aggression Principle you are allowed to use violence in self-defence. For example if someone is robbing you at gunpoint then you are allowed to use violence without violating the NAP. Therefore if you view the state as a group of thieves who rob innocent people at gunpoint (as libertarians far too often say), then it would be justified to use violence against them.
I think the important lesson (for all of us) is to avoid inflametory rhetoric and to watch our words. If libertarians continuosly call the state tyrannical, murderous, thieves, mafia and make Nazi comparisons as some of the above commentators do, then one day someone might take this rhetoric seriously.
There’s a fundamental problem with your argument. You see, under the Non Aggression Principle you are allowed to use violence in self-defence. For example if someone is robbing you at gunpoint then you are allowed to use violence without violating the NAP. Therefore if you view the state as a group of thieves who rob innocent people at gunpoint (as libertarians far too often say), then it would be justified to use violence against them.
It seems like you ignored the whole article. I specifically mentioned this, specifically quoted Rothbard on theft not being grounds for capital punishment, and then argued that you can’t just walk up and shoot a mob boss even if he’s systematically robbed you in the past.
I think what he’s saying is that he believes that it follows logically from libertarian rhetoric that the use of defensive force against “the state” is justified, just like defensive force against an individual agressor.
This I disagree with. You can’t just target anyone in government. They have to be violating *your* individual rights.
And, yeah, I agree with you that you can’t walk up to someone after they robbed you and kill him. The crime is theft, and the punishment wouldn’t fit the crime.
But when members of the government are currently in the process of robbing you, there is *also* the threat of death that comes with it. In this moment, you’re not just having your things taken from you. The member of the state is saying: “Your money or your life”, since they are prepared to kill you if you resist their theft.
And defensive force is justified against threats of violence.
If the mafia was robbing you, you would be allowed to use violence in self-defence according to the NAP. However, you seem to be adding a time limit on to this right to self-defence. If a mob boss demands you pay his extortion fee every week (so it is a continuous rather than past use of coercion) would violence not be considered self-defence in this case?
You also seem to believe that this punishment does not match the crime, but who decides what is the appropriate punishment? If I am being robbed by the mob, how do I decide what the appropriate punishment is? If I overreact, who will keep me in check?
guest seems to better understand my point. If taxation is theft and theft is coercion, then every time you purchase a good you are being robbed (by sales tax and others). If you refuse to pay these taxes, the police would be called and coercion used (or so the standard libertarian argument goes). Therefore using preemptive self-defence is justified.
This is the danger with rhetoric claiming the state is a criminal organisation oppressing and robbing people. You imply that you only see that as a metaphor, but plenty of people think it is literally true.
Maybe this will help, Robert Nielsen:
The Law, by Frederic Bastiat
If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: …
Then why would libertarians be to blame?
Non-violent means such as writing, speeches, etc. is great. The more the better. With that being said, the tax collectors and the people they feed, are never going to voluntarily walk away from the trough.
Is violence the solution, no. I think the real answer is prayer. God can fix this problem in a jiffy. Additionally activities that expand the mind such as yoga, LSD, mushrooms and cannabis are helpful.
So keep on using nonviolence. Winning at any cost is not worth it, so stay away from violence.
Sometimes life may be about suffering, we may never win. Liberty may never fully materialize. The real victory may be simply doing the non-violent thing every day till you peacefully pass. Do the right thing, regardless tax rates.
At least you’re willing to admit (correct me if I’m misreading you) that defensive force is justified against the tax collectors, even if you don’t think that violence is the solution.
The more people who get at least this much – regardless of their view of the “ultimate solution” – the more likely, I think, that the problem will go away due to a lack of interest for, and therefore funding for, violating individual rights on behalf of “the collective”.