Newbie (I am a libertarian)

[Seth King]

Power and means to kill isn't the issue for me.    It's the "without getting caught" part that I have a problem with.  This implies killing without any consequences whatsoever.    The state has this power, and it is evil.   Everyone having this power is more evil.      So do you mean the world-wide elimination of responsibility for one's actions (or just the one action of murder)?    If so... then no thanks. 

But maybe I misunderstand what you're saying.

There is still a price involved. Having a man killed would still likely cost a lot of money. But if you're the victim of some serious shit, it may be worth it. If I got raped, would I throw down 50 grand to have the person offed? Yes. If my neighbor let his dog shit on my lawn would I throw down 50 grand to have my neighbor offed? Not likely.

If I was unhappy with the crimes of David Rockefeller, would I be able to have him offed? Not likely, considering his defense agency is a whole hell of a lot better than the money some peon could afford to pay for. If 50 million people were unhappy with the crimes of David Rockefeller, it could be a different story.

[MAM]

While I don't know how they would actually be solved in a free market (which rewards innovation, which I can't possibly foresee) I know how I think they could be solved.

Scenario 1: Your property rights do not infringe on my property, you don't don't have the right to pollute my property, so I and I'm sure everyone else downstream will demand that you clean up your factory or close it down. If you refuse then we go to arbitration and continue to do so until I/we win. And if that doesn't work I hire a defence agency to kick your ass or I do it myself. ("you" is not the literal you but the metaphorical one of course)

Scenario 2: Whoever claims it first gets it, if there is a dispute go to arbitration.

Scenario 3: Ask him to cut it out if he doesn't go to arbitration and demand restitution for the lost productivity you suffer (up to a days wages) for the next day.

Scenario 4: Rape is an act of violence I see defending yourself or others against violence to be just and okay.

[m7a]

The non-aggression principle comes into play here. As long as the individual in question doesn't do anything to violate the rights or property of the people around him, he can do what he pleases, even if those actions don't follow the morality and rules that the community has set.
 
Of course he's free to leave if he so chooses. This is what happens in a panarchist society.

So as long as the individual doesn't do anything to violate the rights or property of the people around him, the community can't stop the individual... even if the community has rules against what the individual is doing?  If the community creates a rule that no one is allowed to smoke cigarettes, and the individual smokes a cigarette on his property not affecting anyone else, the community could still punish the individual. Why should they be forced to obey your preset functions of morality (e.g. non-aggression)?  They are free to create their own rules for their own community are they not?  It seems that under this system what you have are many small local communal governments running under direct democracy, and that the majority could simply impose their will on the minority.  What prevents this from happening in this system?

[BobRobertson]

What prevents this from happening in this system?

You're asking for perfection. That is not to be found anywhere.

Nothing prevents it from happening, any more than even the most totalitarian state could abolish all crime.

That's why people evolved the idea of adjudication.

[macsnafu]

I'm reminded of my two rules about other people's drama:

1)  When in doubt, mind your own damn business
2)  Always have doubt.  

Suddenly I'm wondering how I came to be in a position to have such ironclad knowledge of this father/daughter rape situation.   Am I a peeping Tom?    Am I a former participant that "found Jesus"?

None of that really matters... except that it does.    It'll undoubtedly come up in the investigation that will follow the door-kicking and maiden-rescuing.  

But perhaps my original answer was incorrect.   If person A pulls a gun and tries to kill person B, does person C have the right to aggress against person A in order to stop the murder?   I think so.    

So yes, maybe someone does have the "right" to kick down a door to rescue a third party.     But you should still be prepared to face consequences if you're wrong, and bullets even if you're right.   The level of evidence that would lead ME to take this course of action on behalf of someone I don't know... doesn't really exist, unless I was involved somehow.

Good points.  But stopping someone from shooting someone else is defensive force, not necessarily "aggression", as in the initiation of force.  This stuff makes more sense when you break it down into better terms.

But yes, one still has to be prepared to accept the consequences if one makes a mistake, or to go the extra step to make sure one is taking a properly justified action, so that there are no bad consequences you have to suffer.

[Hanzo]

For me, it is all about consequences. If you are doing something that is not technically aggression but is making life miserable for hundreds or thousands of people, don't say I didn't warn ya.

[macsnafu]

True story:

A guy cheats on his wife and takes his mistress to a cabin in the woods.    They like to play kinky, so he ties her up on the sofa    He also orders a pizza.   The delivery guy sees the naked woman tied up on the couch and calls the police.    The cheater gets arrested, and the delivery guy is praised as a hero for saving her from the evil kidnapper/rapist.    Only he wasn't an evil kidnapper/rapist, just a creepy... um... creep.

Now, WTF would have happened if the pizza guy had grabbed his .357, kicked the door in, shot the bad guy and "rescued" the woman?   But then, what if things were exactly as they appeared and he didn't even call the police?

I honestly don't know what I would have done in that situation.   But it's frightening to think of what I'd be tempted to do.   Very frightening.  

Always have doubt.   Always.

One thing I think is implied by the non-aggression principle (NAP) is that when it comes to defensive force, you are only justified in using enough force to stop the initiation of force, and no more.  Otherwise, you are, in fact, creating a new initiation of force.  

Thus, with the example of your kinky couple, shooting the guy would have been inappropriate and unjustified, as the woman was only tied up, and not in immediate danger of being harmed.  All he really had to do was threaten the guy with the gun, and then he could get more information on the situation.  Now, if the guy had been pointing a gun at the woman, then shooting him might be justified to prevent her death.  

It's good to have doubt, but not to be paralyzed by doubt.

[macsnafu]

left wing anarchists: A mysterious philosophy that no one knows anything about.

If you're being sarcastic, you forgot to use the [sarcasm] tag!   

I don't know everything about left-anarchists, but you pick up some stuff when you run into them and argue with them.

Essentially, the left-anarchists are your radical egalitarian types, who are not just anti-state, but anti-hierarchy.  This means they don't agree with the basic employer-employee relationship, for example. 

What's never clear to me is how this egalitarian view is to be enforced.  Sure, a lot of them think that humans would naturally be or act equal with others if it weren't for the coercive institutions of government and capitalism (at least, as they see it), but this seems to me like a naive misunderstanding of human nature, not to mention the lack of understanding regarding economics.

[Syock]

left wing anarchists: ...

... a naive misunderstanding of human nature ... the lack of understanding regarding economics.

All you really need to know.

[Hanzo]

Yeah, I was joking on that post. I said no one knows anything about left wing anarchism because it is generally very hard to get a straight answer out of them.

[Hanzo]

Note: many anarchists are more black and white than me. I take a more utilitarian approach (mises/davidfriedman/murphy).

There are many different kinds of anarchists. I will list a few:

natural rights libertarians: This group is growing at a fast rate thanks to ron paul and others. They believe the state is evil because it impedes on man's natural rights to property (including his body). Their main concern is self ownership. I use to be one, but then I realized there exists no convincing evidence that these rights exists. (this will probably cause some controversy)

Notables: Rothbard, Tom Woods, Stephan Molyneux, Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, lysander spooner

Recommending reading: For a new liberty, No treason,  Universally preferable behavior (haven't read that myself)

http://lewrockwell.com/

Utilitarians:wants the state abolished because it is a net negative on society. Also known as consequentialists. They are concerned with producing the most wealth for the most people (note: wealth is not necessarily material possessions). For example, the worst healthcare/cars/tv/etc after 25 years in a free market system would be better, or at least equal too, the best healthcare/etc today.

notables: Ludwig von Mises, David Friedman, Robert Murphy, Henry Hazlitt, George Reisman.

Recommended reading: Economics in one lesson, Machinery of Freedom, anything by Mises

highly recommended blog: http://nielsio.tumblr.com/

left wing anarchists: A mysterious philosophy that no one knows anything about.

notables:N/A

suggested sites: N/A

batshit insane conspiracy nuts:wants the state abolished because bilderberg group will kill 90% of the population with vaccines and swirly light bulbs and GMO corn and fema camps so they can  live forever. The only way to stop the next Hitler is to buy Alex Jones' organic soaps. Constantly telling mainstream folks to "wake up" and embrace the 9/11 conspiracy.

notables: Alex Jones, people with ron paul as their facebook picture, Adam Kokesh, Jesse Ventura, people with the V for Voluntary sign as their facebook picture

suggested sites: http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net

I feel all my really good posts get buried.

[Tear-Down-the-Wall]

The non-aggression principle comes into play here. As long as the individual in question doesn't do anything to violate the rights or property of the people around him, he can do what he pleases, even if those actions don't follow the morality and rules that the community has set.
 
Of course he's free to leave if he so chooses. This is what happens in a panarchist society.

So as long as the individual doesn't do anything to violate the rights or property of the people around him, the community can't stop the individual... even if the community has rules against what the individual is doing?  If the community creates a rule that no one is allowed to smoke cigarettes, and the individual smokes a cigarette on his property not affecting anyone else, the community could still punish the individual. Why should they be forced to obey your preset functions of morality (e.g. non-aggression)?  They are free to create their own rules for their own community are they not?  It seems that under this system what you have are many small local communal governments running under direct democracy, and that the majority could simply impose their will on the minority.  What prevents this from happening in this system?

Think of anarchy as a interpersonal monarchy. You are your own country.

Here's an example, drugs. Several countries have tried decriminalization, or legalization, of drugs but other countries, such as the United States, have put strong pressure on them to not do it. Some would even say we've been rather big bullies about it.
Can countries sign treaties saying they'll ban drugs? Sure.
Can countries work together, using each others resources, to combat drugs? Sure.
Can countries invade another country because they don't like their drug policy? No.

Replace the countries with people. Can people force others to do what they want? No. As long as I don't threaten the life or liberty of others, I don't see that person in the wrong.

With that said, it's my property and I can do my thing but if my marijuana smoke is wondering into the neighbors yard, getting their kid high, they have a complaint.

It's the same as shooting guns on your property. You can shoot them and even shoot at your house. You start shooting at your neighbor, even if you're on your property, have the right to the gun, and right to shoot it, you're in the wrong. You're violating your neighbor's life, potentially, liberty, and property.

[MAM]

True story:

A guy cheats on his wife and takes his mistress to a cabin in the woods.    They like to play kinky, so he ties her up on the sofa    He also orders a pizza.   The delivery guy sees the naked woman tied up on the couch and calls the police.    The cheater gets arrested, and the delivery guy is praised as a hero for saving her from the evil kidnapper/rapist.    Only he wasn't an evil kidnapper/rapist, just a creepy... um... creep.

Now, WTF would have happened if the pizza guy had grabbed his .357, kicked the door in, shot the bad guy and "rescued" the woman?   But then, what if things were exactly as they appeared and he didn't even call the police?

I honestly don't know what I would have done in that situation.   But it's frightening to think of what I'd be tempted to do.   Very frightening.  

Always have doubt.   Always.

One thing I think is implied by the non-aggression principle (NAP) is that when it comes to defensive force, you are only justified in using enough force to stop the initiation of force, and no more.  Otherwise, you are, in fact, creating a new initiation of force.  

Thus, with the example of your kinky couple, shooting the guy would have been inappropriate and unjustified, as the woman was only tied up, and not in immediate danger of being harmed.  All he really had to do was threaten the guy with the gun, and then he could get more information on the situation.  Now, if the guy had been pointing a gun at the woman, then shooting him might be justified to prevent her death.  

It's good to have doubt, but not to be paralyzed by doubt.

I don't believe in this minimalistic shit. If someone aggresses and I feel the need to step in, or if they aggress against me I feel fully justified in terminating them. Not saying that's what I would do, but ethically I have no compunctions.

I have literally let someone get up and started to walk away just to get hit in the back. What if they had had a gun and decided to shoot me? I would be dead. Point is mercy is just as dangerous as starting a fight...

[macsnafu]

True story:

A guy cheats on his wife and takes his mistress to a cabin in the woods.    They like to play kinky, so he ties her up on the sofa    He also orders a pizza.   The delivery guy sees the naked woman tied up on the couch and calls the police.    The cheater gets arrested, and the delivery guy is praised as a hero for saving her from the evil kidnapper/rapist.    Only he wasn't an evil kidnapper/rapist, just a creepy... um... creep.

Now, WTF would have happened if the pizza guy had grabbed his .357, kicked the door in, shot the bad guy and "rescued" the woman?   But then, what if things were exactly as they appeared and he didn't even call the police?

I honestly don't know what I would have done in that situation.   But it's frightening to think of what I'd be tempted to do.   Very frightening.  

Always have doubt.   Always.

One thing I think is implied by the non-aggression principle (NAP) is that when it comes to defensive force, you are only justified in using enough force to stop the initiation of force, and no more.  Otherwise, you are, in fact, creating a new initiation of force.  

Thus, with the example of your kinky couple, shooting the guy would have been inappropriate and unjustified, as the woman was only tied up, and not in immediate danger of being harmed.  All he really had to do was threaten the guy with the gun, and then he could get more information on the situation.  Now, if the guy had been pointing a gun at the woman, then shooting him might be justified to prevent her death.  

It's good to have doubt, but not to be paralyzed by doubt.

I don't believe in this minimalistic shit. If someone aggresses and I feel the need to step in, or if they aggress against me I feel fully justified in terminating them. Not saying that's what I would do, but ethically I have no compunctions.

I have literally let someone get up and started to walk away just to get hit in the back. What if they had had a gun and decided to shoot me? I would be dead. Point is mercy is just as dangerous as starting a fight...

I don't believe in shooting a kid for stealing my gum.  Somewhere in between is an appropriate amount of force, even if it's not always obvious or self-evident.

[MAM]

True story:

A guy cheats on his wife and takes his mistress to a cabin in the woods.    They like to play kinky, so he ties her up on the sofa    He also orders a pizza.   The delivery guy sees the naked woman tied up on the couch and calls the police.    The cheater gets arrested, and the delivery guy is praised as a hero for saving her from the evil kidnapper/rapist.    Only he wasn't an evil kidnapper/rapist, just a creepy... um... creep.

Now, WTF would have happened if the pizza guy had grabbed his .357, kicked the door in, shot the bad guy and "rescued" the woman?   But then, what if things were exactly as they appeared and he didn't even call the police?

I honestly don't know what I would have done in that situation.   But it's frightening to think of what I'd be tempted to do.   Very frightening.  

Always have doubt.   Always.

One thing I think is implied by the non-aggression principle (NAP) is that when it comes to defensive force, you are only justified in using enough force to stop the initiation of force, and no more.  Otherwise, you are, in fact, creating a new initiation of force.  

Thus, with the example of your kinky couple, shooting the guy would have been inappropriate and unjustified, as the woman was only tied up, and not in immediate danger of being harmed.  All he really had to do was threaten the guy with the gun, and then he could get more information on the situation.  Now, if the guy had been pointing a gun at the woman, then shooting him might be justified to prevent her death.  

It's good to have doubt, but not to be paralyzed by doubt.

I don't believe in this minimalistic shit. If someone aggresses and I feel the need to step in, or if they aggress against me I feel fully justified in terminating them. Not saying that's what I would do, but ethically I have no compunctions.

I have literally let someone get up and started to walk away just to get hit in the back. What if they had had a gun and decided to shoot me? I would be dead. Point is mercy is just as dangerous as starting a fight...

I don't believe in shooting a kid for stealing my gum.  Somewhere in between is an appropriate amount of force, even if it's not always obvious or self-evident.

Agreed