People who are party to an evil can be brought to the bar of extralegal justice.

[Alex Free Market]

I state in no uncertain terms to all those who are adherents to the concept of morals, must recognize that anyone who is a party to a wrong can be brought to the bar of judgement for his actions.  Observe the use of the word can in place of should, as libertarianism does not dictate that this is a positive obligation, but rather an option to pursue at the discretion of the aggrieved party, unless he has voluntarily consented to a system which imposes overriding greater constraints on his ability to pursue that action.   

I also state in no uncertain terms, that moral judgement can be carried out in an extralegal manner, when the system we live under in a non-voluntary manner, refuses to bring the case to bear, or does not even recognize the action as a wrong.  Legal positivism, and those that ascribe to it, are a bane to morality and ethics, 

Those who would scoff at what I have said, have yet to come understand clearly that morality precedes legality.  Morality does not flow from legality.  Once that fact is accepted, the matter becomes quite clear.



This is primarily a libertarian forum, whether one ascribes to the american usage of that word implying a "pro-cap," or some other variant similar to that, which could include mutualists, a libertarian-socialists, or many groups who are voluntaryist in nature.  I therefore expect, if not absolutely demand, that the one thing we agree on above all others (unless we maybe have some nihilist stragglers in here), is that ethics and morality is the framework by which we judge all of man's actions.  It is also the standard by which we may chooser to bring him to task for not living by that framework.  Flowing from the aforementioned, I therefore expect the people here to not question that Non Agrgession Principle, and to accept the premise that those who violate this moral precept can be held accountable for their actions.  And again, they will be held accountable, whether the prevailing system allows for it, or via an extralegal remedy.


The list of people who are guilty is undoubtably quite extensive.  It may even be better to make the list of, who isn't guilty, as surely that list will be shorter.  On that list is most certainly law enforcement, politicians, civil servants of all other types not listed, as well as you, the average Joe Q. Citizen and John Q. Businessman..  The extent to which people are guilty, not to put too fine a point on it, depends on their position/proximity and magnituude in the causal chain of justice.  The extent to which they are guilty is motivated by their intent, and by the degree of attenuation between their actions, and that of the injustice.  That is to say, we judge their guilt in the same way the law judges such matters, by examining how far removed the actor is from the injustice, and what role he had inplaying it, and what control he had over the situation leading to the injustice.   Very clearly, any person who's actions can be said to be a significantly contributing cause to the justice, can be held accountable.


What this means to mean is roughly thus:

(1) Politicians are guilty and can be held accountable for their actions.
(2) Those who execute the law are guilty and can be held accountable for their actions.
(3) Those who give the orders to execute the laws can be held accountable for their actions.
(4) Those who's votes contributed to a loss of liberty are responsible, even if only in a highly attenuated manner.
(5) Those Joe Q. Citizens and John Q. Businessmen whos actions result in a liberty infringement can be held accountable for their actions.

Each of these particularized cases assumes persons who's actions were of their own volition, and involve people who's actions make them responsible for the commission of a wrong, as they played a role in that process happening injustice.  They are therefore guilty of that wrong, proportional to some metric involving what control they had over the chain of causality, and the role and magnitude they played in that wrong (how many steps removed they were).. 

So make no mistake about it, not only am I including civil servants, but I am including any citizen who is a participant in a subsequent wrongdoing, where their actions played a role in bringing that situation about.  I very much include "snitches" and "informants" who have played a role in the subsequent injustice to anyone who has not violated the NAP.  And I very much include any businessman who in any way, involves the police in a matter which leads to a NAP violation. 

I very much hold the "planner" of an injustice accountable just the same as a "trigger man."  And as it pertains to the discussion herein, it is clear that when a wrong is done, we must absolutely accept the guilty of all parties in the causal chain who exhibited the necessary requirement of agency, but especially those who's actions are the fewest steps removed. 

** A person who freely informs on Jews, leading to their capture and imprisonment or death is very much a guilty man.

** Likewise, the person who concocted the master plot to stick Jews in concentation camp also is guilty.

** A soldier who physically drags that Jew to the slaughter is likewise guilty, but the presence of the trigger man, does not absolve the other two parties: the planner of the laughter, and the man who ratted on his neighbor of free agency.

The degree to which we hold the aforementioned three accountable is aside the point.  The point is, they all are guilty and can be dealt with.  And if the law does not allow for that, extralegal remedy does.


By logical extension, we libertarians must also accept this fact, and apply it in the strictest fashion, with no bias, against the limus test of the NAP.  Anyone who is a participant in violating the NAP is guilty to some degree, and can be held responsible for their part in the wrong, regardless of whether they are the planner, the executor, or simply one who is colluding (i.e. a snitch orinformant, or even a person mansquerading as a businessman,or any John Q Citizen whoplays his part in that wrong).

** A person who informs on his neighbor that he smokes green plant matter, leading to his neighbors imprisonment, is very much a guilty man.

** A person who informs on his neighbor that he has firearms, whether he is violating any firearm law, or  simply because the irrational neighbor just does not like the look of the guns (and no threat is assumed herein) is guilty of being a participant of a NAP violation.   The officer who responds to the incident may likewise be guilty as a direct actor, perhaps even more so, but that does not absolve the person who was a direct participant in this event.

** A person who informs on his neighbor that he has a couch on his front lawn (oh the horror) is a guilty individual who is a participant in a NAP violation.

** A Business owner who violates the NAP or violates the countours of the free market, is also guilty.

** Any private citizen who does the same thing is also guiltt, and can be brought to the bar of extralegal justice.

** A bureacrat who passes a NAP violating law is guilty.

** A civil servant who executes that law, and his bosses are guilty if they violate the NAP.

All these people can be held responsible for their actions, and remedy sought by the aggreived party.


What the repercussions for such actions are, is rather beside my point, and is dealth with strictly on a case by case basis.  Theories of compensation, restitution, and restoration are seperate theories from that of assigning blame and guilt, which is the subject of discussion herein.

[John Edward Mercier]

NAP is a chosen morality... not an enforced one.

[zackbass]

NAP is a chosen morality

As are all.

... not an enforced one.

What does THAT mean?  It is often enforced.  We have Laws against Murder, for example.  More importantly, enforcing NAP is NOT a violation of NAP, because the perp started it and I get to finish it if I so choose.

I agree (with reservations as to minor interpretations, and discomfort with respect to the spelling and stuff) with Alex's entire post... assuming he means that doing nothing is never a violation of NAP, even if one knows about a violation of NAP and chooses to keep it a secret.

[John Edward Mercier]

It has to do with provisions of property acquired through collective force. I'll simplify.

You and I buy duplicate properties abutting one another for $200,000 a piece. A month later I have changed my property in what is percieved by the collective to be detrimental. A group of private assessors determine the market value of my property to be $50,000 through my own actions.
They determine the market value of your property to be $100,000... but because of my actions on the abutting property. You've lost $100,000 in valuation due to no fault of your own... what means of recourse do you suggest?

This is where many laws get the entanglement that over time lead to our present situation.

[zackbass]

You and I buy duplicate properties abutting one another for $200,000 a piece. A month later I have changed my property in what is percieved by the collective to be detrimental. A group of private assessors determine the market value of my property to be $50,000 through my own actions.
They determine the market value of your property to be $100,000... but because of my actions on the abutting property. You've lost $100,000 in valuation due to no fault of your own... what means of recourse do you suggest?

What I suggest is: Tough shit.  (Standard libertarian position)  Your property value is not my problem, nor is mine your problem.  Just stay on your side of the property line and refrain from initiating force and we'll be fine.

[John Edward Mercier]

You and I buy duplicate properties abutting one another for $200,000 a piece. A month later I have changed my property in what is percieved by the collective to be detrimental. A group of private assessors determine the market value of my property to be $50,000 through my own actions.
They determine the market value of your property to be $100,000... but because of my actions on the abutting property. You've lost $100,000 in valuation due to no fault of your own... what means of recourse do you suggest?

What I suggest is: Tough shit.  (Standard libertarian position)  Your property value is not my problem, nor is mine your problem.  Just stay on your side of the property line and refrain from initiating force and we'll be fine.

The property line is an initiation of force.
(Standard anarchist position).

[John Edward Mercier]

** A person who informs on his neighbor that he has a couch on his front lawn (oh the horror) is a guilty individual who is a participant in a NAP violation.

Was that a hard case?

[zackbass]

You and I buy duplicate properties abutting one another for $200,000 a piece. A month later I have changed my property in what is percieved by the collective to be detrimental. A group of private assessors determine the market value of my property to be $50,000 through my own actions.
They determine the market value of your property to be $100,000... but because of my actions on the abutting property. You've lost $100,000 in valuation due to no fault of your own... what means of recourse do you suggest?

What I suggest is: Tough shit.  (Standard libertarian position)  Your property value is not my problem, nor is mine your problem.  Just stay on your side of the property line and refrain from initiating force and we'll be fine.

The property line is an initiation of force.
(Standard anarchist position).

No, standard Georgist position.  Back to your Monopoly board.

[anthonybpugh]

So you are advocating vigilante justice be exacted against even people who have had an indirect part in an alleged crime. 

[anthonybpugh]

extralegal remedies sounds like a euphemism for vigilante justice.   You are talking about being consistent with the greatest legal and philosophical minds but then suggest extralegal justice?  You'll have a legal system that allows for extralegal measures?  Don't like how the legal system works, just take that SOB out back and give him some street justice. 

It also sounds like you are suggesting collective guilt as well as collective punishment.  Seems like a rationale to have a great Libertarian Witch Hunt where we can purge society of all the statist fools out there. 

[zackbass]

extralegal remedies sounds like a euphemism for vigilante justice.   You are talking about being consistent with the greatest legal and philosophical minds but then suggest extralegal justice?  You'll have a legal system that allows for extralegal measures?  Don't like how the legal system works, just take that SOB out back and give him some street justice. 

No, we would have a Justice System that is Perfect and that does all that stuff legally without need for vigilantism.  (Expensive, but all can be paid for by tossing perps into the organ banks or whatever.)  Can't quite manage Perfect?  Then at least don't Punish Vigilantes who do good deeds for us.
But yes, it is no more immoral to do-it-yourself than to take it to a Court.  I prefer Courts since it's less controversial and less subject to error, but that does not mean that a good deed done by a Vigilante is wrong when the same deed done by a Court is not wrong.

It also sounds like you are suggesting collective guilt as well as collective punishment.

Really?  Doesn't sound that way to me.  Just don't let Individuals hide their Individual guilt within a Collective.

  Seems like a rationale to have a great Libertarian Witch Hunt where we can purge society of all the statist fools out there. 

Well yeah duh these guys aren't going to shoot themselves you know.

[zackbass]

It also sounds like you are suggesting collective guilt as well as collective punishment.  Seems like a rationale to have a great Libertarian Witch Hunt where we can purge society of all the statist fools out there. 

I am not entirely opposed to thought of purging the entire lot of statists.

This might be a good time to reflect on Law as it stands in several States today - example:

http://law.justia.com/florida/codes/TitleXLVI/ch0876.html

876.02  Any person who:
(1)  By word of mouth or writing advocates, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, or propriety of... disobeying... the laws, orders, or decrees of duly constituted civil, naval, or military authorities...
shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree

[John Edward Mercier]

You and I buy duplicate properties abutting one another for $200,000 a piece. A month later I have changed my property in what is percieved by the collective to be detrimental. A group of private assessors determine the market value of my property to be $50,000 through my own actions.
They determine the market value of your property to be $100,000... but because of my actions on the abutting property. You've lost $100,000 in valuation due to no fault of your own... what means of recourse do you suggest?

What I suggest is: Tough shit.  (Standard libertarian position)  Your property value is not my problem, nor is mine your problem.  Just stay on your side of the property line and refrain from initiating force and we'll be fine.

The property line is an initiation of force.
(Standard anarchist position).

No, standard Georgist position.  Back to your Monopoly board.

Proudhon.
By it was also deemed so by John Locke and Adam Smith.

[zackbass]

You and I buy duplicate properties abutting one another for $200,000 a piece. A month later I have changed my property in what is percieved by the collective to be detrimental. A group of private assessors determine the market value of my property to be $50,000 through my own actions.
They determine the market value of your property to be $100,000... but because of my actions on the abutting property. You've lost $100,000 in valuation due to no fault of your own... what means of recourse do you suggest?

What I suggest is: Tough shit.  (Standard libertarian position)  Your property value is not my problem, nor is mine your problem.  Just stay on your side of the property line and refrain from initiating force and we'll be fine.

The property line is an initiation of force.
(Standard anarchist position).

No, standard Georgist position.  Back to your Monopoly board.

Proudhon.
By it was also deemed so by John Locke and Adam Smith.

I have proof that they locked their front doors at night.

Also:

http://www.faem.com/lefevre/fevre03.htm
"To Locke, property rights of the individual were sacred and should be upheld by the government."

(Why do you think they called him "Locke"?)


http://www.reference.com/browse/Property+right
"According to Adam Smith, the expectation of profit from 'improving one's stock of capital' rests on private property rights. It is a belief central to capitalism that property rights encourage the property holders to develop the property, generate wealth, and efficiently allocate resources based on the operation of the market. From this evolved the modern conception of property as a right which is enforced by positive law."

[KBCraig]

extralegal remedies sounds like a euphemism for vigilante justice.

Does it really matter if the lynch mob is wearing white sheets versus black robes?