Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

A question for non-interventionalists

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 11:27:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
(lol, you knew this had to be coming).

Lets say that you are living just fine at home (you are not jobless, you make enough money to support your family and have a decent life). Let's say you neighbor beats and rapes his wife and abuses his children. Do you do anything? Do you call the cops? Do you provide shelter for the wife and kids? Do you maybe give the wife a gun and let her defend herself?

I understand that this is an extreme case, but at what point (if any), do you actually intervene, and to what degree?

Of course, one should understand that any help may put you at risk (if the neighbor finds out that you called the cops or that you are hiding his wife).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 11:30:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Non-interventionists aren't pacifists (most aren't, anyway). If that were a real situation, a non-interventionist would have absolutely no problem with using force against the rapist. We're opposed to the initiation of force--retaliation against aggressors and self-defense are fine.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 11:34:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 11:30:36 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Non-interventionists aren't pacifists (most aren't, anyway). If that were a real situation, a non-interventionist would have absolutely no problem with using force against the rapist. We're opposed to the initiation of force--retaliation against aggressors and self-defense are fine.

Okay, that is my misunderstanding. I was under the assumption that you would only use force against those that initiated force against you.

Is there some kind of "code" that you don't use more force then was initially used? Or is it okay to take it to the next level?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 11:35:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
A rational approach would be that you check through your paperwork to discover that you are two months behind in your payments to Rent-A-Merc. After phoning them, and paying a hefty surcharge they agree to take up the case and immediately dispatch a death squad. After a few hours a pitch battle ensues between your Rent-A-Merc and the Soldiers of Fortune PLC hired by your neighbour. 32 deaths later your neighbour agrees to pay a blood price.

That is really the only sensible way to run law and order.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 11:38:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 11:34:01 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:30:36 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Non-interventionists aren't pacifists (most aren't, anyway). If that were a real situation, a non-interventionist would have absolutely no problem with using force against the rapist. We're opposed to the initiation of force--retaliation against aggressors and self-defense are fine.

Okay, that is my misunderstanding. I was under the assumption that you would only use force against those that initiated force against you.

Is there some kind of "code" that you don't use more force then was initially used? Or is it okay to take it to the next level?
Yes, you may not retaliate with more force than was initiated. If someone punches you or someone else, you can't just shoot them. The exception is defending against an immediate threat to you or someone else. If someone points a gun at me, I can shoot them before they shoot.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 11:48:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 11:38:43 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:34:01 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:30:36 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Non-interventionists aren't pacifists (most aren't, anyway). If that were a real situation, a non-interventionist would have absolutely no problem with using force against the rapist. We're opposed to the initiation of force--retaliation against aggressors and self-defense are fine.

Okay, that is my misunderstanding. I was under the assumption that you would only use force against those that initiated force against you.

Is there some kind of "code" that you don't use more force then was initially used? Or is it okay to take it to the next level?
Yes, you may not retaliate with more force than was initiated. If someone punches you or someone else, you can't just shoot them. The exception is defending against an immediate threat to you or someone else. If someone points a gun at me, I can shoot them before they shoot.

Okay, what about things that are hard to qualify? Lets say at a bar, some drunk guy punches you (just once) and splits your lip (he's drunk, we have no idea why he punched you), you (slightly tipsy) punch him back, but before laying a beat down, catch yourself and stop after punching him once (since he punched you only once), however, you fractured his jaw and allowed a dentist to go buy a new sports car.

Obviously, he initiated force against you, but it is also apparent that you used more force in retaliation. How would a case like this be resolved? Or is it resolved at that stage in time, you both just walk away (assuming that other bar patrons are making sure you don't continue to fight, since the bar doesn't want a fight inside)?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 11:50:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Barking up the wrong tree. Grey area is insufficient to disprove the Non Aggression Principle (which if you knew about, would not have started this thread in the first place http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Because there can be grey area in any moral code, particularly when you introduce drug intoxication, the thought experiment disproves everything and therefore disproves nothing.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 11:56:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 11:48:17 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:38:43 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:34:01 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:30:36 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Non-interventionists aren't pacifists (most aren't, anyway). If that were a real situation, a non-interventionist would have absolutely no problem with using force against the rapist. We're opposed to the initiation of force--retaliation against aggressors and self-defense are fine.

Okay, that is my misunderstanding. I was under the assumption that you would only use force against those that initiated force against you.

Is there some kind of "code" that you don't use more force then was initially used? Or is it okay to take it to the next level?
Yes, you may not retaliate with more force than was initiated. If someone punches you or someone else, you can't just shoot them. The exception is defending against an immediate threat to you or someone else. If someone points a gun at me, I can shoot them before they shoot.

Okay, what about things that are hard to qualify? Lets say at a bar, some drunk guy punches you (just once) and splits your lip (he's drunk, we have no idea why he punched you), you (slightly tipsy) punch him back, but before laying a beat down, catch yourself and stop after punching him once (since he punched you only once), however, you fractured his jaw and allowed a dentist to go buy a new sports car.

Obviously, he initiated force against you, but it is also apparent that you used more force in retaliation. How would a case like this be resolved? Or is it resolved at that stage in time, you both just walk away (assuming that other bar patrons are making sure you don't continue to fight, since the bar doesn't want a fight inside)?

In reality, just walking away would probably be best. Legally, it would probably be a gray area, but that sort of thing would always happen. Say a rapist was tried and convicted in court. His punishment wouldn't be rape--that would be stupid. He'd be forced to do some sort of hard labor to compensate his victim (when we say that you can use proportional force against criminals, the idea isn't harm and punishment [ except in self defense, when necessary]--the idea is restitution. The amount of force in the original crime just sets the amount of restitution the criminal has to pay). You couldn't possibly calculate the exact amount of hard labor that's equivalent to rape, but that doesn't mean the criminal can't be punished. It just couldn't be exact.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 12:01:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 11:35:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
A rational approach would be that you check through your paperwork to discover that you are two months behind in your payments to Rent-A-Merc. After phoning them, and paying a hefty surcharge they agree to take up the case and immediately dispatch a death squad. After a few hours a pitch battle ensues between your Rent-A-Merc and the Soldiers of Fortune PLC hired by your neighbour. 32 deaths later your neighbour agrees to pay a blood price.

That is really the only sensible way to run law and order.

LMFAO, libertarian law :p
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 12:08:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 11:56:39 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:48:17 AM, OreEle wrote:
Okay, what about things that are hard to qualify? Lets say at a bar, some drunk guy punches you (just once) and splits your lip (he's drunk, we have no idea why he punched you), you (slightly tipsy) punch him back, but before laying a beat down, catch yourself and stop after punching him once (since he punched you only once), however, you fractured his jaw and allowed a dentist to go buy a new sports car.

Obviously, he initiated force against you, but it is also apparent that you used more force in retaliation. How would a case like this be resolved? Or is it resolved at that stage in time, you both just walk away (assuming that other bar patrons are making sure you don't continue to fight, since the bar doesn't want a fight inside)?

In reality, just walking away would probably be best. Legally, it would probably be a gray area, but that sort of thing would always happen. Say a rapist was tried and convicted in court. His punishment wouldn't be rape--that would be stupid. He'd be forced to do some sort of hard labor to compensate his victim (when we say that you can use proportional force against criminals, the idea isn't harm and punishment [ except in self defense, when necessary]--the idea is restitution. The amount of force in the original crime just sets the amount of restitution the criminal has to pay). You couldn't possibly calculate the exact amount of hard labor that's equivalent to rape, but that doesn't mean the criminal can't be punished. It just couldn't be exact.

Thank you.

Surely you want to have some sort of fair standard. So how is a judge chosen? Obviously the victim is going to want a judge that is extremely harsh (victims nearly always think that they were victimized to the highest degree), while the rapist is going to want a judge that is extremely lenient (since they don't want the punishment).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 1:37:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 12:08:36 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:56:39 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:48:17 AM, OreEle wrote:
Okay, what about things that are hard to qualify? Lets say at a bar, some drunk guy punches you (just once) and splits your lip (he's drunk, we have no idea why he punched you), you (slightly tipsy) punch him back, but before laying a beat down, catch yourself and stop after punching him once (since he punched you only once), however, you fractured his jaw and allowed a dentist to go buy a new sports car.

Obviously, he initiated force against you, but it is also apparent that you used more force in retaliation. How would a case like this be resolved? Or is it resolved at that stage in time, you both just walk away (assuming that other bar patrons are making sure you don't continue to fight, since the bar doesn't want a fight inside)?

In reality, just walking away would probably be best. Legally, it would probably be a gray area, but that sort of thing would always happen. Say a rapist was tried and convicted in court. His punishment wouldn't be rape--that would be stupid. He'd be forced to do some sort of hard labor to compensate his victim (when we say that you can use proportional force against criminals, the idea isn't harm and punishment [ except in self defense, when necessary]--the idea is restitution. The amount of force in the original crime just sets the amount of restitution the criminal has to pay). You couldn't possibly calculate the exact amount of hard labor that's equivalent to rape, but that doesn't mean the criminal can't be punished. It just couldn't be exact.

Thank you.

Surely you want to have some sort of fair standard. So how is a judge chosen? Obviously the victim is going to want a judge that is extremely harsh (victims nearly always think that they were victimized to the highest degree), while the rapist is going to want a judge that is extremely lenient (since they don't want the punishment).

Well, usually, both parties think they're right, or at least say that they're right. They'd agree to a judge that's as impartial and balanced as possible, because if you think you're right, you'll think that a balanced judge will find in favor of you. If one party refused to agree to any impartial judge, and would only agree to one that's biased in their favor, then they've effectively forfeited their trial.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 3:52:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 1:37:42 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 12:08:36 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:56:39 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:48:17 AM, OreEle wrote:
Okay, what about things that are hard to qualify? Lets say at a bar, some drunk guy punches you (just once) and splits your lip (he's drunk, we have no idea why he punched you), you (slightly tipsy) punch him back, but before laying a beat down, catch yourself and stop after punching him once (since he punched you only once), however, you fractured his jaw and allowed a dentist to go buy a new sports car.

Obviously, he initiated force against you, but it is also apparent that you used more force in retaliation. How would a case like this be resolved? Or is it resolved at that stage in time, you both just walk away (assuming that other bar patrons are making sure you don't continue to fight, since the bar doesn't want a fight inside)?

In reality, just walking away would probably be best. Legally, it would probably be a gray area, but that sort of thing would always happen. Say a rapist was tried and convicted in court. His punishment wouldn't be rape--that would be stupid. He'd be forced to do some sort of hard labor to compensate his victim (when we say that you can use proportional force against criminals, the idea isn't harm and punishment [ except in self defense, when necessary]--the idea is restitution. The amount of force in the original crime just sets the amount of restitution the criminal has to pay). You couldn't possibly calculate the exact amount of hard labor that's equivalent to rape, but that doesn't mean the criminal can't be punished. It just couldn't be exact.

Thank you.

Surely you want to have some sort of fair standard. So how is a judge chosen? Obviously the victim is going to want a judge that is extremely harsh (victims nearly always think that they were victimized to the highest degree), while the rapist is going to want a judge that is extremely lenient (since they don't want the punishment).

Well, usually, both parties think they're right, or at least say that they're right. They'd agree to a judge that's as impartial and balanced as possible, because if you think you're right, you'll think that a balanced judge will find in favor of you. If one party refused to agree to any impartial judge, and would only agree to one that's biased in their favor, then they've effectively forfeited their trial.

Okay, but both are going to think that there judge is the "fair" one, so when they both disagree, which one forfeits their trial?

So let say there are 3 judges in our district or area. Judge A is really hard on rapists, Judge B is really soft on them, and Judge C is in the middle. The victim is likely going to push for A, while the accused is likely going to push for B (lets assume that guilt is not really in question, only the severity of the punishment).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
HatedeatH
Posts: 386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 3:54:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think most people who are non-interventionalist are just non-interventionalist in the sense that they shouldn't take military action against other countries unless said country poses a direct threat such as invasion to their own.
vardas0antras: If Muhammad is great then why didn't he stop 911 ?
gavin.ogden: He was too busy starting it.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 3:57:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 11:27:02 AM, OreEle wrote:
(lol, you knew this had to be coming).

Lets say that you are living just fine at home (you are not jobless, you make enough money to support your family and have a decent life). Let's say you neighbor beats and rapes his wife and abuses his children. Do you do anything? Do you call the cops? Do you provide shelter for the wife and kids? Do you maybe give the wife a gun and let her defend herself?

Absolutely.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 3:58:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 11:35:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
A rational approach would be that you check through your paperwork to discover that you are two months behind in your payments to Rent-A-Merc. After phoning them, and paying a hefty surcharge they agree to take up the case and immediately dispatch a death squad. After a few hours a pitch battle ensues between your Rent-A-Merc and the Soldiers of Fortune PLC hired by your neighbour. 32 deaths later your neighbour agrees to pay a blood price.

That is really the only sensible way to run law and order.

Not gonna lie, that was pretty funny.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 4:50:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 3:52:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 1:37:42 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 12:08:36 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:56:39 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:48:17 AM, OreEle wrote:
Okay, what about things that are hard to qualify? Lets say at a bar, some drunk guy punches you (just once) and splits your lip (he's drunk, we have no idea why he punched you), you (slightly tipsy) punch him back, but before laying a beat down, catch yourself and stop after punching him once (since he punched you only once), however, you fractured his jaw and allowed a dentist to go buy a new sports car.

Obviously, he initiated force against you, but it is also apparent that you used more force in retaliation. How would a case like this be resolved? Or is it resolved at that stage in time, you both just walk away (assuming that other bar patrons are making sure you don't continue to fight, since the bar doesn't want a fight inside)?

In reality, just walking away would probably be best. Legally, it would probably be a gray area, but that sort of thing would always happen. Say a rapist was tried and convicted in court. His punishment wouldn't be rape--that would be stupid. He'd be forced to do some sort of hard labor to compensate his victim (when we say that you can use proportional force against criminals, the idea isn't harm and punishment [ except in self defense, when necessary]--the idea is restitution. The amount of force in the original crime just sets the amount of restitution the criminal has to pay). You couldn't possibly calculate the exact amount of hard labor that's equivalent to rape, but that doesn't mean the criminal can't be punished. It just couldn't be exact.

Thank you.

Surely you want to have some sort of fair standard. So how is a judge chosen? Obviously the victim is going to want a judge that is extremely harsh (victims nearly always think that they were victimized to the highest degree), while the rapist is going to want a judge that is extremely lenient (since they don't want the punishment).

Well, usually, both parties think they're right, or at least say that they're right. They'd agree to a judge that's as impartial and balanced as possible, because if you think you're right, you'll think that a balanced judge will find in favor of you. If one party refused to agree to any impartial judge, and would only agree to one that's biased in their favor, then they've effectively forfeited their trial.

Okay, but both are going to think that there judge is the "fair" one, so when they both disagree, which one forfeits their trial?

So let say there are 3 judges in our district or area. Judge A is really hard on rapists, Judge B is really soft on them, and Judge C is in the middle. The victim is likely going to push for A, while the accused is likely going to push for B (lets assume that guilt is not really in question, only the severity of the punishment).

Oh, I see, I thought you meant harsh or lenient in reference to which side wins, not the punishment.

For the severity of the punishment, it would probably be about the same everywhere for similar crimes. Even if there is no central authority mandating a legal code, a fairly uniform one will develop anyway, as it did with the English common law system. (or several different ones for different areas) There's always some deviation, of course, what with different cases and individuals, but generally accepted legal code would arise, and judge would adhere to that (If it's generally accepted, that's what the vast majority of people would want). If one party refused to go along with a legal code that was widely accepted, they would forfeit their trial.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 6:34:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 4:50:48 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 3:52:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 1:37:42 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 12:08:36 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:56:39 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:48:17 AM, OreEle wrote:
Okay, what about things that are hard to qualify? Lets say at a bar, some drunk guy punches you (just once) and splits your lip (he's drunk, we have no idea why he punched you), you (slightly tipsy) punch him back, but before laying a beat down, catch yourself and stop after punching him once (since he punched you only once), however, you fractured his jaw and allowed a dentist to go buy a new sports car.

Obviously, he initiated force against you, but it is also apparent that you used more force in retaliation. How would a case like this be resolved? Or is it resolved at that stage in time, you both just walk away (assuming that other bar patrons are making sure you don't continue to fight, since the bar doesn't want a fight inside)?

In reality, just walking away would probably be best. Legally, it would probably be a gray area, but that sort of thing would always happen. Say a rapist was tried and convicted in court. His punishment wouldn't be rape--that would be stupid. He'd be forced to do some sort of hard labor to compensate his victim (when we say that you can use proportional force against criminals, the idea isn't harm and punishment [ except in self defense, when necessary]--the idea is restitution. The amount of force in the original crime just sets the amount of restitution the criminal has to pay). You couldn't possibly calculate the exact amount of hard labor that's equivalent to rape, but that doesn't mean the criminal can't be punished. It just couldn't be exact.

Thank you.

Surely you want to have some sort of fair standard. So how is a judge chosen? Obviously the victim is going to want a judge that is extremely harsh (victims nearly always think that they were victimized to the highest degree), while the rapist is going to want a judge that is extremely lenient (since they don't want the punishment).

Well, usually, both parties think they're right, or at least say that they're right. They'd agree to a judge that's as impartial and balanced as possible, because if you think you're right, you'll think that a balanced judge will find in favor of you. If one party refused to agree to any impartial judge, and would only agree to one that's biased in their favor, then they've effectively forfeited their trial.

Okay, but both are going to think that there judge is the "fair" one, so when they both disagree, which one forfeits their trial?

So let say there are 3 judges in our district or area. Judge A is really hard on rapists, Judge B is really soft on them, and Judge C is in the middle. The victim is likely going to push for A, while the accused is likely going to push for B (lets assume that guilt is not really in question, only the severity of the punishment).

Oh, I see, I thought you meant harsh or lenient in reference to which side wins, not the punishment.

For the severity of the punishment, it would probably be about the same everywhere for similar crimes. Even if there is no central authority mandating a legal code, a fairly uniform one will develop anyway, as it did with the English common law system. (or several different ones for different areas) There's always some deviation, of course, what with different cases and individuals, but generally accepted legal code would arise, and judge would adhere to that (If it's generally accepted, that's what the vast majority of people would want). If one party refused to go along with a legal code that was widely accepted, they would forfeit their trial.

So there would develop a sort of "judges league" in the private sector (by that I mean, not controlled by a central government, but merely by themselves).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 6:49:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 6:34:17 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 4:50:48 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 3:52:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 1:37:42 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 12:08:36 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:56:39 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:48:17 AM, OreEle wrote:
Okay, what about things that are hard to qualify? Lets say at a bar, some drunk guy punches you (just once) and splits your lip (he's drunk, we have no idea why he punched you), you (slightly tipsy) punch him back, but before laying a beat down, catch yourself and stop after punching him once (since he punched you only once), however, you fractured his jaw and allowed a dentist to go buy a new sports car.

Obviously, he initiated force against you, but it is also apparent that you used more force in retaliation. How would a case like this be resolved? Or is it resolved at that stage in time, you both just walk away (assuming that other bar patrons are making sure you don't continue to fight, since the bar doesn't want a fight inside)?

In reality, just walking away would probably be best. Legally, it would probably be a gray area, but that sort of thing would always happen. Say a rapist was tried and convicted in court. His punishment wouldn't be rape--that would be stupid. He'd be forced to do some sort of hard labor to compensate his victim (when we say that you can use proportional force against criminals, the idea isn't harm and punishment [ except in self defense, when necessary]--the idea is restitution. The amount of force in the original crime just sets the amount of restitution the criminal has to pay). You couldn't possibly calculate the exact amount of hard labor that's equivalent to rape, but that doesn't mean the criminal can't be punished. It just couldn't be exact.

Thank you.

Surely you want to have some sort of fair standard. So how is a judge chosen? Obviously the victim is going to want a judge that is extremely harsh (victims nearly always think that they were victimized to the highest degree), while the rapist is going to want a judge that is extremely lenient (since they don't want the punishment).

Well, usually, both parties think they're right, or at least say that they're right. They'd agree to a judge that's as impartial and balanced as possible, because if you think you're right, you'll think that a balanced judge will find in favor of you. If one party refused to agree to any impartial judge, and would only agree to one that's biased in their favor, then they've effectively forfeited their trial.

Okay, but both are going to think that there judge is the "fair" one, so when they both disagree, which one forfeits their trial?

So let say there are 3 judges in our district or area. Judge A is really hard on rapists, Judge B is really soft on them, and Judge C is in the middle. The victim is likely going to push for A, while the accused is likely going to push for B (lets assume that guilt is not really in question, only the severity of the punishment).

Oh, I see, I thought you meant harsh or lenient in reference to which side wins, not the punishment.

For the severity of the punishment, it would probably be about the same everywhere for similar crimes. Even if there is no central authority mandating a legal code, a fairly uniform one will develop anyway, as it did with the English common law system. (or several different ones for different areas) There's always some deviation, of course, what with different cases and individuals, but generally accepted legal code would arise, and judge would adhere to that (If it's generally accepted, that's what the vast majority of people would want). If one party refused to go along with a legal code that was widely accepted, they would forfeit their trial.

So there would develop a sort of "judges league" in the private sector (by that I mean, not controlled by a central government, but merely by themselves).

It could--something sort of like the American Medical Association maybe. Or there could be no organization, just general informal agreement.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 7:04:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 6:49:54 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 6:34:17 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 4:50:48 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 3:52:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 1:37:42 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 12:08:36 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:56:39 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:48:17 AM, OreEle wrote:
Okay, what about things that are hard to qualify? Lets say at a bar, some drunk guy punches you (just once) and splits your lip (he's drunk, we have no idea why he punched you), you (slightly tipsy) punch him back, but before laying a beat down, catch yourself and stop after punching him once (since he punched you only once), however, you fractured his jaw and allowed a dentist to go buy a new sports car.

Obviously, he initiated force against you, but it is also apparent that you used more force in retaliation. How would a case like this be resolved? Or is it resolved at that stage in time, you both just walk away (assuming that other bar patrons are making sure you don't continue to fight, since the bar doesn't want a fight inside)?

In reality, just walking away would probably be best. Legally, it would probably be a gray area, but that sort of thing would always happen. Say a rapist was tried and convicted in court. His punishment wouldn't be rape--that would be stupid. He'd be forced to do some sort of hard labor to compensate his victim (when we say that you can use proportional force against criminals, the idea isn't harm and punishment [ except in self defense, when necessary]--the idea is restitution. The amount of force in the original crime just sets the amount of restitution the criminal has to pay). You couldn't possibly calculate the exact amount of hard labor that's equivalent to rape, but that doesn't mean the criminal can't be punished. It just couldn't be exact.

Thank you.

Surely you want to have some sort of fair standard. So how is a judge chosen? Obviously the victim is going to want a judge that is extremely harsh (victims nearly always think that they were victimized to the highest degree), while the rapist is going to want a judge that is extremely lenient (since they don't want the punishment).

Well, usually, both parties think they're right, or at least say that they're right. They'd agree to a judge that's as impartial and balanced as possible, because if you think you're right, you'll think that a balanced judge will find in favor of you. If one party refused to agree to any impartial judge, and would only agree to one that's biased in their favor, then they've effectively forfeited their trial.

Okay, but both are going to think that there judge is the "fair" one, so when they both disagree, which one forfeits their trial?

So let say there are 3 judges in our district or area. Judge A is really hard on rapists, Judge B is really soft on them, and Judge C is in the middle. The victim is likely going to push for A, while the accused is likely going to push for B (lets assume that guilt is not really in question, only the severity of the punishment).

Oh, I see, I thought you meant harsh or lenient in reference to which side wins, not the punishment.

For the severity of the punishment, it would probably be about the same everywhere for similar crimes. Even if there is no central authority mandating a legal code, a fairly uniform one will develop anyway, as it did with the English common law system. (or several different ones for different areas) There's always some deviation, of course, what with different cases and individuals, but generally accepted legal code would arise, and judge would adhere to that (If it's generally accepted, that's what the vast majority of people would want). If one party refused to go along with a legal code that was widely accepted, they would forfeit their trial.

So there would develop a sort of "judges league" in the private sector (by that I mean, not controlled by a central government, but merely by themselves).

It could--something sort of like the American Medical Association maybe. Or there could be no organization, just general informal agreement.

So if it is a general agreement (not an official organization), how can one force someone to forfeit their trial? Isn't a fair trial a right for all?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 7:22:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 7:04:49 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 6:49:54 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 6:34:17 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 4:50:48 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 3:52:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
Okay, but both are going to think that there judge is the "fair" one, so when they both disagree, which one forfeits their trial?

So let say there are 3 judges in our district or area. Judge A is really hard on rapists, Judge B is really soft on them, and Judge C is in the middle. The victim is likely going to push for A, while the accused is likely going to push for B (lets assume that guilt is not really in question, only the severity of the punishment).

Oh, I see, I thought you meant harsh or lenient in reference to which side wins, not the punishment.

For the severity of the punishment, it would probably be about the same everywhere for similar crimes. Even if there is no central authority mandating a legal code, a fairly uniform one will develop anyway, as it did with the English common law system. (or several different ones for different areas) There's always some deviation, of course, what with different cases and individuals, but generally accepted legal code would arise, and judge would adhere to that (If it's generally accepted, that's what the vast majority of people would want). If one party refused to go along with a legal code that was widely accepted, they would forfeit their trial.

So there would develop a sort of "judges league" in the private sector (by that I mean, not controlled by a central government, but merely by themselves).

It could--something sort of like the American Medical Association maybe. Or there could be no organization, just general informal agreement.

So if it is a general agreement (not an official organization), how can one force someone to forfeit their trial? Isn't a fair trial a right for all?

People don't necessarily have the right to a trial. People have the right to not be aggressed against, and lose that right to the extent that they aggress against someone else. If you *knew* that Person A was a criminal, you could punish him without a trial. The problem is that you can't just know things like that for sure--and the best way we have of dealing with that problem is through trials. If someone won't go along with the trial, that's their problem.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2011 7:28:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Interventionism implies violence, not just any intervening. If you're asking if I would use violence in that situation, the answer is no.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 12:32:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 11:34:01 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:30:36 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Non-interventionists aren't pacifists (most aren't, anyway). If that were a real situation, a non-interventionist would have absolutely no problem with using force against the rapist. We're opposed to the initiation of force--retaliation against aggressors and self-defense are fine.

Okay, that is my misunderstanding. I was under the assumption that you would only use force against those that initiated force against you.

Is there some kind of "code" that you don't use more force then was initially used? Or is it okay to take it to the next level?

Yes, you may not retaliate with more force than was initiated.

WAT.

WAT.

WAT.

ALERT.
ALERT.
Proportionality is a sloppy excuse for suicide. If someone takes your ****, don't take their ****, they are thieves and will win that battle by virtue of professional experience. Far more effective to shoot them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 2:23:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/14/2011 12:32:27 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:34:01 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:30:36 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Non-interventionists aren't pacifists (most aren't, anyway). If that were a real situation, a non-interventionist would have absolutely no problem with using force against the rapist. We're opposed to the initiation of force--retaliation against aggressors and self-defense are fine.

Okay, that is my misunderstanding. I was under the assumption that you would only use force against those that initiated force against you.

Is there some kind of "code" that you don't use more force then was initially used? Or is it okay to take it to the next level?


Yes, you may not retaliate with more force than was initiated.

WAT.

WAT.

WAT.

ALERT.
ALERT.
Proportionality is a sloppy excuse for suicide. If someone takes your ****, don't take their ****, they are thieves and will win that battle by virtue of professional experience. Far more effective to shoot them.

Are you referring to shoot them if you catch them in the act? Or that theft be legally punished by death?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 2:28:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/13/2011 7:22:37 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 7:04:49 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 6:49:54 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 6:34:17 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 4:50:48 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/13/2011 3:52:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
Okay, but both are going to think that there judge is the "fair" one, so when they both disagree, which one forfeits their trial?

So let say there are 3 judges in our district or area. Judge A is really hard on rapists, Judge B is really soft on them, and Judge C is in the middle. The victim is likely going to push for A, while the accused is likely going to push for B (lets assume that guilt is not really in question, only the severity of the punishment).

Oh, I see, I thought you meant harsh or lenient in reference to which side wins, not the punishment.

For the severity of the punishment, it would probably be about the same everywhere for similar crimes. Even if there is no central authority mandating a legal code, a fairly uniform one will develop anyway, as it did with the English common law system. (or several different ones for different areas) There's always some deviation, of course, what with different cases and individuals, but generally accepted legal code would arise, and judge would adhere to that (If it's generally accepted, that's what the vast majority of people would want). If one party refused to go along with a legal code that was widely accepted, they would forfeit their trial.

So there would develop a sort of "judges league" in the private sector (by that I mean, not controlled by a central government, but merely by themselves).

It could--something sort of like the American Medical Association maybe. Or there could be no organization, just general informal agreement.

So if it is a general agreement (not an official organization), how can one force someone to forfeit their trial? Isn't a fair trial a right for all?

People don't necessarily have the right to a trial. People have the right to not be aggressed against, and lose that right to the extent that they aggress against someone else. If you *knew* that Person A was a criminal, you could punish him without a trial. The problem is that you can't just know things like that for sure--and the best way we have of dealing with that problem is through trials. If someone won't go along with the trial, that's their problem.

I understand that, but how is a fair judge ensured? If I am the "victim" and my bother is a judge, can I just say "we're taking this matter to the judge who is my brother or you forfeit your trial?" Or likewise, if I am the perpetrator who has a brother for a judge.

If the two people cannot agree on a judge, which one is forfeiting their case, is the accused automatically the one forfeiting?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 6:10:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/14/2011 2:23:26 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/14/2011 12:32:27 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:34:01 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:30:36 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Non-interventionists aren't pacifists (most aren't, anyway). If that were a real situation, a non-interventionist would have absolutely no problem with using force against the rapist. We're opposed to the initiation of force--retaliation against aggressors and self-defense are fine.

Okay, that is my misunderstanding. I was under the assumption that you would only use force against those that initiated force against you.

Is there some kind of "code" that you don't use more force then was initially used? Or is it okay to take it to the next level?


Yes, you may not retaliate with more force than was initiated.

WAT.

WAT.

WAT.

ALERT.
ALERT.
Proportionality is a sloppy excuse for suicide. If someone takes your ****, don't take their ****, they are thieves and will win that battle by virtue of professional experience. Far more effective to shoot them.

Are you referring to shoot them if you catch them in the act? Or that theft be legally punished by death?

Both are acceptable.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2011 8:10:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/14/2011 6:10:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/14/2011 2:23:26 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/14/2011 12:32:27 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:34:01 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:30:36 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Non-interventionists aren't pacifists (most aren't, anyway). If that were a real situation, a non-interventionist would have absolutely no problem with using force against the rapist. We're opposed to the initiation of force--retaliation against aggressors and self-defense are fine.

Okay, that is my misunderstanding. I was under the assumption that you would only use force against those that initiated force against you.

Is there some kind of "code" that you don't use more force then was initially used? Or is it okay to take it to the next level?


Yes, you may not retaliate with more force than was initiated.

WAT.

WAT.

WAT.

ALERT.
ALERT.
Proportionality is a sloppy excuse for suicide. If someone takes your ****, don't take their ****, they are thieves and will win that battle by virtue of professional experience. Far more effective to shoot them.

Are you referring to shoot them if you catch them in the act? Or that theft be legally punished by death?

Both are acceptable.

Won't that encourage criminals to be more violent. "If I'm going to be executed anyway, might as well kill the family that I'm robbing so that there are no witnesses" kind of thought.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2011 5:43:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/14/2011 8:10:06 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/14/2011 6:10:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/14/2011 2:23:26 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/14/2011 12:32:27 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:34:01 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/13/2011 11:30:36 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Non-interventionists aren't pacifists (most aren't, anyway). If that were a real situation, a non-interventionist would have absolutely no problem with using force against the rapist. We're opposed to the initiation of force--retaliation against aggressors and self-defense are fine.

Okay, that is my misunderstanding. I was under the assumption that you would only use force against those that initiated force against you.

Is there some kind of "code" that you don't use more force then was initially used? Or is it okay to take it to the next level?


Yes, you may not retaliate with more force than was initiated.

WAT.

WAT.

WAT.

ALERT.
ALERT.
Proportionality is a sloppy excuse for suicide. If someone takes your ****, don't take their ****, they are thieves and will win that battle by virtue of professional experience. Far more effective to shoot them.

Are you referring to shoot them if you catch them in the act? Or that theft be legally punished by death?

Both are acceptable.

Won't that encourage criminals to be more violent. "If I'm going to be executed anyway, might as well kill the family that I'm robbing so that there are no witnesses" kind of thought.
That's a strategic question, not a question of principle. Obviously, there will be some such effect, but it's not clear how much as opposed to how much overall reduction of crime.

Rejecting proportionality merely makes universal death penalties an option, not mandatory :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.