Death penalty discussion

[bas...@gmail.com]

A discussion on the death penalty started up in the libsa googlegroup under the wrong heading. I am manually transferring the posts here so that the conversation an continue in the right place (Individualist googlegroup) under the right heading.

Gabri Rigotti:
But in case there is a misperception I am against the death penalty ... a mistake is not reversible.

Furthermore, it is arguably unnecessary.

Jails should only be for the violent, and murderers and rapists should be sentenced to much longer terms given the seriousness of the violence.

Incarcerating the non violent law infringers among the violent is not only barbaric but it feeds the violent with prey.

Violence should no longer be seen as an act to gain massive social capital in a community or within the jails. If society only incarcerates the violent, and for much longer sentences, we not only remove the violent from society, we also promote a disincentive for violence.

For example, home invaders who are not armed and who do not act violently if the household awakens and confronts them will be spared jail although they will have to  compensate their victims.

Home invaders who are armed or act violently will go to jail for sentences in proportion to their acts of violence.

If an innocent person is sent to jail for violence, there is always the chance that they may prove their innocence, and the justice system will need to fully compensate them for any trauma and loss of income that they have suffered.

This accountability for full compensation for incorrect verdicts will promote great care in finding guilt.

But the death penalty, no! Too risky, too expensive to get it absolutely right, and if wrong there is no reversibility.

If a murderer who faces life in prison seeks euthanasia, well that is another matter, and if the cost of keeping the murderer incarcerated is greater than the cost of euthanasia then yes, let it be so.

Stephen van Jaarsveldt:

Ok, maybe I did not present my case clearly - let me try again.

Taxation is robbery and the failure to pay it is punishable by death. So is attempting to hijack a cash-in-transit vehicle or breaking into the house of an armed man. Just because there is no judge proclaiming it in a court, does not mean the death penalty does not exist, it just does not exist as an official option within the judiciary... but it certainly exists (and is used) in the executive branch (pun intended). People in uniform taking you down without trial or due process does not make you any less dead.

People kill all the time and so does the state. Further, and to my point below; a) putting people in jail costs money and b) depriving poor people of money leads to some of them dying. It follows then that incarceration causes death. Less lives may in fact be lost (especially in Africa) by coordinating the cause of the death (the incarceration) with the actual death (the criminal). In other words, less lives may be lost by rather killing the criminal than to tax innocents to death to keep the criminal alive.

There is an admittedly utilitarian argument here analogous to the trolley problem, so I'm certainly not suggesting we actually do this... but I think it is important to note that your entire argument below hinges on the assumption that jailing people is costless. If putting people in jail will kill other people, would you still suggest it ? Are there other alternatives, like exile or slavery ? Sure, those are horrible options... but so is locking people up. We just happened to be a little more used to that idea.

In an ideal world there would be no crime - that is the real problem. In the real world where things are ugly and dirty and less than utopian, how do we as a society deal with that dirt ? I'm saying all of our options stink and putting people in jail stinks way more than we tend to think. I don't have a solution, but I can tell you a) putting it in the hands of government cannot possibly be the best solution and b) putting people in jail is far from being even remotely acceptable - it also kills people, directly and indirectly.

[bas...@gmail.com]

Arguments against Capital Punishment
By Trevor Watkins
Murder and capital punishment are not opposites that cancel one another, but similars that breed their kind.  G B Shaw

Introduction

This article is based on notes prepared for an Adam Smith debate held under the auspices of the Libertarian Society in May 1999.  
Definitions
It is always a good idea to try and establish the size of the playing field and position of the goal posts before starting the game.  Following are my definitions of the meaning of the terms used in this debate.
Capital punishment
The death penalty, legally sanctioned killing, with or without the support of the community
Life imprisonment
Imprisonment for life without parole
Capital crimes
Commonly, premeditated murder with aggravating circumstances.
During history, anything from sheep stealing and cattle rustling, through treason, rape, poaching on the King’s lands, etc
Hot pursuit
A catch-all phrase for violent acts committed in self-defence, or at the scene of a crime against the identified criminal during the crime’s commission.
War
General conflict between armies of two opposing states where the combatants are generally not personally known to each other.

My position
I oppose ceremonial, legally sanctioned executions undertaken by agents uninvolved in the original crime, against a captive individual who poses no immediate threat.
I do not oppose immediate retaliation against an identifiable aggressor in the act of committing a violent crime, commonly known as “Hot pursuit”.
I support the punishment and rehabilitation of convicted criminals, and the restitution of the victim for losses suffered, where possible
I support the right of every individual to a sturdy self defence

Reasons advanced for capital punishment
Capital punishment is commonly advocated for some or all of the following reasons:
Economy – it is cheaper to hang a man than to feed him
Revenge, anger – society has a right to exercise its emotions upon individuals
Punishment – justice must be served
Justice – punishment must be seen to be done, the punishment must fit the crime
Deterrent – nothing concentrates the mind like a good hanging
Permanent solution – dead men don’t rape no little girls
Protection – we’ll be safe when all the bad guys are dead
Will of the majority – can 31,000,000 Frenchmen be wrong?
Titillation – nothing sells newspapers like a good murder, trial and execution
No obvious principle – there is no single, consistent, unifying principle to justify capital punishment

Reasons against
I oppose capital punishment for all of the following reasons:

State incompetence
Why do we trust the state, which gets nothing else right (in our critical Libertarian opinion), to get this fundamental and irreversible issue right?
Since 1970, 78 people in the US alone have been released from Death Row with evidence of their innocence (Ref: Innocence and the death penalty: The increasing risk of executing the innocent)
Researchers Radelet & Bedau have found 23 cases since 1900 where innocent people were executed (ref In spite of innocence, Northeastern University Press, 1992).
The Guildford 4, the Rillington place murders, the Eikenhof 3 here in South Africa are just a few examples of wrongful verdicts that quickly spring to mind..  When the state establishes a specific “dirty tricks” department as it did under the leadership of Eugene de Kock,  no doubt one can expect many other cases of wrongful verdicts.

Economy
US studies show it is 3 times cheaper to imprison for life than to execute
Florida has spent an average of $3.2 million for each person it has executed  since 1972. The comparable figure for Texas is $2 million per case that has  gone through all levels of appeal. The cost of executing Ted Bundy was at  least $6 million dollars.
Make criminals pay their way – it is only the state’s ineptitude that make them expensive.  You can make much more money out of a living person than a dead one.
We need to emphasise restitution and compensation of victims above revenge against the culprit.

Deterrent
The death penalty is widely discredited and rarely quoted as a deterrent nowadays.  Murder rates are lower in American states that have abolished the death penalty. In 1990, there was an average of 5.0 homicides per 100,000 population in states that had abolished the death penalty. In death penalty states without executions, the homicide rate was 6.0 per 100,000. The highest homicide rates were in death penalty states with executions: 9.7 homicides per 100,000.  The fear of execution may be what stops people who don’t commit murders from committing murders, but this is an unverifiable assertion. We do know for certain that fear of the death penalty does not deter those people who DO actually commit murder.

Permanent solution – irreversible
As the mother of a samurai says in James Clavell’s “Gai Jin”,  
“Killing is easy, unkilling impossible”.
If you accept that the end justifies the means, then that means the end – of this debate, and of civilised discussion.
Many of life’s problems could be solved in a similar final manner. AIDS could be eradicated, bad stock removed from the gene pool, insane asylums emptied, even the problem of politicians could be solved by widespread usage of a “final” solution.  However, that’s just not how civilised people do things.

Protection – prevention of future crimes
The death penalty is no protection from future psychotics and future murders – new killers arise constantly. South Africa had the most aggressive execution policy in the world in its past, and yet never ran out of people to execute.
Protection must be sought elsewhere – by reducing poverty, improving defence systems, rapid response to emergencies, counselling, psychological testing, personality altering drugs.
Worst cases – multiple repeat offenders
What should society do with its worst cases? Where does one put people like the fictional Hannibal Lecter, and the real Geoffrey Darmer and Ted Bundy?  These people were all psychopathic and  truly mentally ill, to be pitied as much as despised.  Confine them securely, certainly, but is it right to eradicate them for being inflicted with a mental disease over which they have little or no control?
Society has solved the problem of accommodating evil people without executing them in the past.  Penal colonies like Australia and Devil’s Island successfully dealt with society’s dregs, and even went on to become halfway decent societies in their own right.  If we could confine people without executing them in the 19th century, surely we can get  this right again in the 20th.
Life imprisonment without parole is a viable option in many modern states.  It appears to be cheaper than execution (in countries with long appeal processes), it allows the possibility of financial restitution to the victims, it is certainly a punishment, and it allows for the possibility of error recovery.

Titillation
Don’t underestimate the value of titillation in the death penalty debate. Nothing sells newspapers, or concentrates the mind, like a good hanging.
Life imprisonment is rather slow to watch, so us abolitionists have no real alternative here for the couch potato viewing public, other than watching Mortal Kombat movies and games.

Hot pursuit
There are some cases where immediate and violent response to a crime in progress is appropriate. Under these circumstances the defence of the innocent must be the prime imperative. Normally, the guilt and identity of the criminal is beyond question. In a firefight situation, enshrouded in  confusion and subject to great urgency,  we must allow some slack for error. Occasionally the innocent may be harmed in attempts to apprehend the guilty, but each case will need to be reviewed on its merits.
In all cases, the severity of the retaliation must be roughly commensurate with the severity of the attack.

Public support
One of the least defensible arguments for capital punishment is that lots of people want it.  Lots of people, almost certainly a majority, would like to forcibly redistribute the possessions of the rich too, but we try to avoid this in civilised societies.
But even the public support argument might be wrong. A 1987 U.S. Department of Justice poll found imprisonment was favored over the death penalty by a 2 to 1 margin as the sentence for  first degree murder.
Virtually every recent state poll has found the public ready to abolish capital punishment in favor of a sentence of 25 years or more, combined with some kind of restitution to the victim's family.
The idea that the wishes of a majority, no matter how large, outweigh the rights of an individual, no matter how despised, is so abhorrent to Libertarians as to require no further argument.

Justice, punishment
“Crimes must be punished, justice must be served”, the advocates of capital punishment cry.
Camus said: “Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life.”
Life imprisonment may well be more feared than death by criminals, who are often adapted to a life of violence, but not to one of captivity and boredom.
The death penalty does not serve the needs of victims' families. The death penalty focuses the attention (and some sympathy) on the killer rather than the victim.
Revenge and retribution are not the objectives of the legal system – restitution and rehabilitation are.
Rehabilitation for single case murderers is certainly possible , as the case of Karla Faye Tucker would demonstrate.
When speaking of justice we must understand that the death penalty is no guarantor of  fairness or justice. The biggest predictor of the death sentence is the race of the victim. Those who kill whites are four times as likely to receive a death sentence as those who kill blacks.
The death penalty works like a rigged lottery. Approximately 20,000 murders  are committed in the U.S. each year. Of those, about 200 result in death sentences, mostly for the poor and black.

Revenge, Anger, Rage
These are not valid emotions for the basis of law in a civilised society.  Rather, they are generally the basis for the original killing, which society so despises.
A civilised society rises above these base emotions, we are not Sicilians, or Colombians, or Hutu, or even Yugoslavs.  Your behaviour as a society determines your label, and I don’t wish to live in a society labelled as backward and  brutal.  Attitudes to the Death penalty are the litmus test of a civilised society.
We do not tailor our laws in response to our fears, but through our intellect.  The ugliness of the criminal and the crime does not define the nature of the civilised people obliged to deal with it. If we become no better than the criminal, then the criminal mind, and evil, have triumphed.

Principle
For me personally, the really important argument against capital punishment is that it conflicts with my principles and philosophy of life.  

Individualist philosophy
You have a right to your life, you are its sole owner. For me, as an Individualist, this principle is as fundamental, simple and unequivocal as “Thou shalt not kill” should be to a Christian.
No one may rightfully take a life from another that they cannot replace, and still claim to hold to Individualist principles.
It is simply not worth abandoning our good philosophy for the few hundred executions a year that satisfy our collective bloodlust

Consistent message
Aristotle said that a worthy concept should be based on reason, should be consistent, and should have no divided middle. If we say killing is a bad thing, how can we then proceed to kill?  How can we kill some murderers, but not all murderers?  If killing is OK under special circumstances, do we also say that theft, fraud, rape are OK under special circumstances, and should be carried out by suitably appointed members of the state to punish certain criminals? We don’t punish rape with rape, fraud with fraud, assault with assault. Why do we punish murder with murder?

Distinction
How do we distinguish ourselves from the scum we seek to punish if we undertake the same act.  How do you explain this dichotomy  to your children?

Conclusion

I believe that the debate on capital punishment will end much like the debate on slavery in the previous century.  There were many well informed and educated people who made many reasoned arguments for the maintenance of slavery, including great minds like Thomas Jefferson.  However, their premise was wrong and flawed. Liberty and justice could not be reconciled to slavery,  and liberty and justice cannot be reconciled to capital punishment. It just takes some people longer than others to realise this.
I hope in this article, and in this debate, that I can  persuade a majority of libertarians, if not all of them, to choose the only approach to the right to life issue which is consistent with our philosophy


A murderer may not deserve to live, but who amongst us deserves to kill?  


30th July 1999, Trevor Watkins

[Hügo Krüger]

Steven Pinker has written a good detailed analysis on the death penalty in his book on the history of violence.

The USA has no real death penalty, it is rather symbolic, very few countries actually enforce it. 

I am quite neutral on the issue, I don't think that it motivates killing, it probably does have some deterrence effect (but is difficult to prove or get an honest data set on)

the state already kills, the police, the army etc are all authorised to kill under certain conditions and their burden of proof is much less than in the courts. So we do have a death penalty, it is just who executes it that matters.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/4fe8bd91-bc76-4ed3-a0aa-99363d9d4188n%40googlegroups.com.

[Petrus Potgieter]

I am almost completely with Hügo on this issue. There is very little data and putting someone in jail or 20 years is also not reversible. I am definitely against introducing the death penalty (because there is so little evidence) and almost certainly against abolishing the death penalty (as it was in SA, although on understandable constitutional grounds) just because the abolition itself can be symbolic, and not in a good way.

Like all criminal "justice" the application of the death penalty is a mess but I do not think it is worse than anything else. I am not particularly against the status quo. Laike Gabi, though, I think there are far too many people in jail.


Op 02-07-2024 om 21:45:16 +0200 skryf Hügo Krüger hkrug...@gmail.com:

[bas...@gmail.com]

I missed Stephen's discussion on the death penalty, for which my apologies. BTW Stephen, you are definitely on this group too.

Stephen van Jaarsveldt

I think it was former minister of justice Dullah Omar (I'm not sure, it was a long time ago) who explained on TV one night in the late 90's that government is a representative of the people and gets its power and authority by delegation from the people. It follows therefore that if the people cannot murder, then the state cannot either - there is no power to put others to death within the people which can legitimately be delegated to the government that represents them.

This is similar conceptually to representation in contract law where I cannot appoint you as my representative to sign an agreement which I am not myself eligible to sign, for example due to not being over the age of consent or not being of sound mind, etc.... such legal and legitimate forms of representation having been around formally since at least Roman times. The representative cannot have more power than the ones they represent or more powers than what can be delegated to them.

Besides the fact that I don't trust any government with the power to kill, I found that a compelling argument for ending the death penalty in RSA, regardless of how horrible the crime or how much it would have deterred crime. However, that still leaves the problem of how to actually deal with criminals... if you can't kill them, is it any more fair to let innocents suffer and possibly die to pay for their incarceration ? That doesn't make sense either.

Crime is a serious and expensive enough problem to consider breaking with the above principle of representation and just kill them, if that would solve the problem... but there seems to be quite a bit of evidence to suggest it does nothing to deter, which means in addition to the killing being illegitimate, it also becomes pure retribution, rather than restitution or prevention... and that is rather barbaric.

That might all be besides the point... the bigger question is, why would we even want to put one of our most serious problems in the hands of the most inefficient mechanisms known to man in the first place ? If anyone should be tasked with dealing with serious problems like criminals, it should be people we can trust to find practical solutions at hardly any cost... i.e. anyone BUT government.

If we were to throw all principles away and go on emotions & feelings, then maybe we do want to kill horrible people who are beyond correction. Maybe we do want to cut costs and pay for a once-off use of noose rather than a lifetime of food, shelter and medical care. Maybe... but then why on gods earth would we want that job to be done by the least efficient and effective organization we know ?

Maybe criminals should be sold to the highest bidder or exiled to some island or something... but it seems putting them to death or caring for them at tax payer expense or depending on government for a solution are three of the worst possible ideas we could have come up with. Yet, here we are.

Stephen.

[sjaar...@gmail.com]

When I went into cybernation a few years ago, I muted this group... and it seems when I thawed my online presence earlier this year, this group was left out in the cold, probably by accident. I have now unmuted it and can follow conversations here again. If I am still absent anywhere else, it is probably on purpose or due to financial constraints. It is going to take some time to catch up with the conversations here... in fact, I might just try to step onto the moving train without looking back too much. So, apologies in advance if I induce some repetition or frustration from not having read all the preceding opinions and arguments.

S.

[sjaar...@gmail.com]

I don't see how putting someone in jail in any better than putting them to death. I agree with you all who say the death penalty is wrong or objectionable or whatever your reasons are... but I'm seeing your objection and raising you one argument that torture (or jail or incarceration or whatever you like to call it) is in many respects worse, more abominable, more inhumane, more costly, more deadly... in short, the death penalty is bad, but jailing people to me seems just as bad and possibly worse.

S.

[Trevor Watkins]

I don't see how putting someone in jail in any better than putting them to death

I agree that putting someone in jail may be no better than death, although I think you will find most inmates prefer jail to death. However, there are better alternatives. The Angola prison in a bend of the Mississippi was a prison run by the inmates for many years.  The state only guarded to narrow entrance. The river ran too swift to swim. The prison paid its own way through the labour of the convicts. They developed a whole civic infrastructure, and even had a mayor. Justice was hard and swift. But it was not on the conscience of the good folks of Mississippi. It was eventually shut down by some do gooder.

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/4701c0a6-9e4d-42b9-8c84-697bb6261164n%40googlegroups.com.

Virus-free.www.avg.com

[Leon Louw]

There's a false binary assumption that the choice is limited to one of two, for vs against. Brains are hardwired for this, which is obvious from culture: cash or credit, my place or yours, left or right, black and white, etc etc.

There are almost always other options, the most libertarian being FIFO (see below).

Before that, there can be different standards of proof. Here too there's a false dichotomy: guilty beyond reasonable doubt vs balance of probabilities. That excludes guil beyond any doubt, shared guilt etc. There are options regarding victims. In private law, the issue is how to put right the wrong -- compensation, restitution, retribution. 

What does the family of brutally raped, tortured over weeks and nudered child want, for instance. What would be fair and libertarian towards victims -- the primary libertarian concern.

War as opposed to 'war crimes' includes killing totally innocent people. Is that libertarian when war is in self-defence?

My preference regarding the (tough for libertarians) death penalty question is FIFO. I see it as the most if not only libertarian option. If A is for execution and B not, by which libertarian principle should B be forced to fund A's desire to look after a child murderer, torturer and rapist (X)? None. The libertarian idea is that neither should impose their preference on the other. The libertarian solution?

Well, it should be obvious. So long as B's camp is willing to fund imprisonment, X lives. If funds run out, FIFO: first-in-first-out on 'death row'.

Then A and B get what they want, but not with other people's misappropriated money.

 

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2Lmx_fm4wFJKUE__4Y%2Bib4pD%3DZYMEUCancGeS%2BpFOuCWaw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen vJ]

That's a good point Leon, which I think we all need constant reminding of, since it clearly does not come naturally to us mortal humans - there is almost always more than a binary set of options.

I like your suggestion below and think it can be improved by means of pricing... for example, someone who did more damage in monetary terms goes ahead in the queue of someone who did less damage... and so long as your balance is above zero, you live. As soon as it goes below zero, chop chop.

If you did something small and can sustain a positive balance by, as Gabri put it, labouring on Sundays, then you can stay at the back of the queue... and if no amount of contributions from your fan club or stints in the rock quarry will repay your damages to the child's parents, then twang, snap.

The only problem I see here is the relative immunity from practically all crime that Bill, Jeff and Elon will have over the average Joe, who may for a small infraction have to pay dearly. That becomes an equality / distribution question though, which I think is sufficiently off topic to start a separate thread on.

Stephen.

[Stephen vJ]

I mean, FIFO is vulnerable to delay tactics, like appeals on procedural minutia or sabotage or several other things that could be considered grounds for altering the timing on the In side... assuming there are no delays or inefficiencies on the Out side (which in reality there may well be).

If you think about it, the systems we have now are actually not very far removed from the village elders declaring certain people a witch and the rest of us pelting them with rocks until they expire. The older I get, the less I think that there is justice in the world or that we could come up with something substantially better than the barbaric practices of the past.

Stephen.

On Jul 6, 2024, at 17:36, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

That's a good point Leon, which I think we all need constant reminding of, since it clearly does not come naturally to us mortal humans - there is almost always more than a binary set of options.

[Trevor Watkins]

I am opposed to the taking of human life, finish and klaar. There are circumstances when it may be unavoidable, such as in self-defense or hot pursuit, or debatable as in abortion, but every such case must be judged on its merits by a jury of peers. 

Imagine that an AI entity takes control of all human events. It is not malicious and wants what is best for humanity. It also has complete control of all nuclear arsenals. It asks what rule it should use when dealing with humans and their disputes. 

What rule would you propose? I would favour a clear and unequivocal rule - do not take human life. Not when it seems the right thing to do (by whose standard), not when it results in the greatest good for the greatest number, not when it is economically sensible. If it becomes a choice  between 2 worthy alternatives (eg abortion), choose human life. I would not trust a hugely powerful but soulless entity with any other instruction. I can see no reason to trust my stupid and fallible fellow humans with any alternative either.

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAOWz41QssqYrJByOwXJSc%2BhgahmxttFJRua4OwXX4FRmi1YFdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

In red below

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 at 15:34, Leon Louw <leonl...@gmail.com> wrote:

There's a false binary assumption that the choice is limited to one of two, for vs against. Brains are hardwired for this, which is obvious from culture: cash or credit, my place or yours, left or right, black and white, etc etc.

There are almost always other options, the most libertarian being FIFO (see below).

Before that, there can be different standards of proof. Here too there's a false dichotomy: guilty beyond reasonable doubt vs balance of probabilities. That excludes guil beyond any doubt, shared guilt etc. There are options regarding victims. In private law, the issue is how to put right the wrong -- compensation, restitution, retribution. For me, the issue is the morality of judicial execution. Execution is a wrong that cannot be put right. I deal with associated issues in "Arguments against capital punishment" at the top of this thread. 

What does the family of brutally raped, tortured over weeks and nudered child want, for instance. What would be fair and libertarian towards victims -- the primary libertarian concern. I would think that all liberarians/individualists can agree that revenge and retribution are not a basis for  jurisprudence, other than in the Mafia.

War as opposed to 'war crimes' includes killing totally innocent people. Is that libertarian when war is in self-defence?

My preference regarding the (tough for libertarians) death penalty question is FIFO. I see it as the most if not only libertarian option. If A is for execution and B not, by which libertarian principle should B be forced to fund A's desire to look after a child murderer, torturer and rapist (X)? None. The libertarian idea is that neither should impose their preference on the other. The libertarian solution?

Well, it should be obvious. So long as B's camp is willing to fund imprisonment, X lives. If funds run out, FIFO: first-in-first-out on 'death row'.

Then A and B get what they want, but not with other people's misappropriated money. So if you are sufficiently rich you don't have to fear consequences? Although this is often true, it should not apply in this case. I'm all in favour of restitution, but not buying redemption.

 

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAOWz41QssqYrJByOwXJSc%2BhgahmxttFJRua4OwXX4FRmi1YFdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gabri Rigotti]

👍👍👍👌

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LniYsrdEgkgjmmRXuHZ4Dx7QCf4OFBzBeuAy7wq%3D-737g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen vJ]

That's great in theory, but in practice your peers are a bunch of uneducated, gullible, idiots, who are very easily swayed by a lawyer suffering from acute extroversion using circumstantial evidence and words of various sizes. The judge is just a slightly smarter, more educated idiot, which means two out of three times, they're going to lock up an innocent person aka you and me.

That whole system is dangerous. We may be better off without it i.e. criminals go free and unpunished, now do with that what you will. What you will may be a world of private eyes, bounty hunters, snipers and security guards, which sounds terrible, but is it really worse than a world of police, lawyers, wardens and politicians ? I'm starting to think no.

Stephen.

On Jul 7, 2024, at 02:05, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LniYsrdEgkgjmmRXuHZ4Dx7QCf4OFBzBeuAy7wq%3D-737g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen vJ]

"... takes control of all human events."

Jesus. What rule would I give it ? Go to sleep and never wake up, thank you very much.

We don't need a dictator of any kind. Just leave us to each take control of our own events.

Stephen.

On Jul 7, 2024, at 04:21, Gabri Rigotti <rigo...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAGXOEN13w8cwzNVuXe37j2DwAcoBOCzHNTf2%3D%3Dk-bopC6BtxFA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen vJ]

In fact, we are so used to the collectivist, centralized, government run, socialist, tax-payer funded version of justice, that we may not recognize the free market version when we see it. I have reason to believe it will be better... don't know why. ;-)

Stephen.

On Jul 7, 2024, at 08:07, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

That's great in theory, but in practice your peers are a bunch of uneducated, gullible, idiots, who are very easily swayed by a lawyer suffering from acute extroversion using circumstantial evidence and words of various sizes. The judge is just a slightly smarter, more educated idiot, which means two out of three times, they're going to lock up an innocent person aka you and me.

[Sid Nothard]

No dictators please…

 

The world has seen enough of those despots

 

Sid



👍👍👍👌

 

 

Error! Filename not specified.

Virus-free.www.avg.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2Lmx_fm4wFJKUE__4Y%2Bib4pD%3DZYMEUCancGeS%2BpFOuCWaw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAOWz41QssqYrJByOwXJSc%2BhgahmxttFJRua4OwXX4FRmi1YFdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LniYsrdEgkgjmmRXuHZ4Dx7QCf4OFBzBeuAy7wq%3D-737g%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAGXOEN13w8cwzNVuXe37j2DwAcoBOCzHNTf2%3D%3Dk-bopC6BtxFA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/F3C764E9-86ED-4554-BFE0-1D926EB1A6A1%40gmail.com.

[Ron Weissenberg]

Should involuntary death be governed by contractual law?

 

I like Leon’s position. It is elegant and well-reasoned. Leon spoke about this some years back and I recall we both acknowledged that we would likely contribute to the ‘pro-life’ imprisonment fund even if we didn’t know the victims or perpetrators.

 

I’m not an intellectual, so the concept of certainty about ideas and events is beyond my limited capacities. Please forgive this genetic inconvenience on my part. I will ask questions rather than make statements.

 

1)       Is one of Libertarianism central tenets the concept of a person's body being their own ultimate property, unless a contract (negotiated with bona fides, by informed consent etc.) alters some or all of this?

2)       If one’s body is property, can it be transferred, managed, damaged or destroyed?

3)       Notwithstanding custodianship of property, which may be governed by custom or other arbitrary arrangements (again, based on informed consent), can property be subject to a contract between the owner and another/s providing the basis for ownership, rights, obligations and responsibilities and how to secure and enforce those rights?

4)       If so, then similar to the rules of the Home Owners Association (I am one of several hundred members)  to which I voluntarily belong, why can’t we contract ourselves  on the terms for ‘staying alive’?

 

If the above questions have Libertarian /classical liberal answers, then here is a proposal (example) to amend the local HOA constitution of which I am a member:

 

a)       I (Ron), in addition to consenting and agreeing to the common area speed limits, access control, refuse removal procedures, wearing of swimming trunks to cover my genitalia, not permitting Caucasians or noisy children on or in my freehold stand area, consent to:

b)       A further levy of R365- per month which will be used for a private security company and/or militia to protect me and my movable, immovable property from one or more people or juristic bodies doing harm.

c)       The levy also includes the cost of hot-pursuit or normal pursuit of alleged perpetrators, apprehending them if possible, holding them in custody and appointing a private jury of peers (who will be remunerated) to judge their conduct and decide on a verdict and retribution/restitution.  (if they are sentenced to death, then Leon’s arrangement automatically kicks in).

d)       (Ron) further acknowledges that the HOA has reciprocal arrangements with the 1427 listed HOA’s hereunder/www. link) and that as a member of this HOA all rights and responsibilities are reciprocal and of equal force and effect.

e)       (Ron) further acknowledges that he is subject to all the terms and conditions of the common law (document XYZ attached) relating to this HOA and those to which it shares reciprocity.

 

Would this work? If so, can this be optimised?

 

Regards

Ron

 

From: indivi...@googlegroups.com <indivi...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Leon Louw
Sent: Saturday, 06 July 2024 15:34
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IM: Re: Death penalty discussion

 

There's a false binary assumption that the choice is limited to one of two, for vs against. Brains are hardwired for this, which is obvious from culture: cash or credit, my place or yours, left or right, black and white, etc etc.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAOWz41QssqYrJByOwXJSc%2BhgahmxttFJRua4OwXX4FRmi1YFdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

In red  below

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 at 18:01, Ron Weissenberg <r...@micronized.com> wrote:

Should involuntary death be governed by contractual law?

 

I like Leon’s position. It is elegant and well-reasoned. Leon spoke about this some years back and I recall we both acknowledged that we would likely contribute to the ‘pro-life’ imprisonment fund even if we didn’t know the victims or perpetrators.

 

I’m not an intellectual, so the concept of certainty about ideas and events is beyond my limited capacities. Please forgive this genetic inconvenience on my part. I will ask questions rather than make statements.

 

1)       Is one of Libertarianism central tenets the concept of a person's body being their own ultimate property, unless a contract (negotiated with bona fides, by informed consent etc.) alters some or all of this?

One of the great advantages of intelligent debate with one's peers is that you are constantly exposed to new ideas which you had not previously considered. 

I am not sure which libertarian tenet one might consider for an authoritative answer to your question. I have written a few, and I have seen several others. The position of the individualist Movement (IM) is unequivocal - the first line of the IM website home page quotes John Locke "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." This is abbreviated to "I am a sovereign individual" in the first line of the Individualist Manifesto.

Can you enter a contract to forgo your sovereignty in your own body? In effect, to abdicate your rights. Could you sell yourself as a slave in order to pay for a family member's surgery? If you can't sell it, or give it away, or break it, (alienate it as the lawyers love to say) you don't really own it. So, yes you can in my opinion. If you CAN'T, then who owns your body? The state? The church? Your needy neighbours?

2)       If one’s body is property, can it be transferred, managed, damaged or destroyed?

3)       Notwithstanding custodianship of property, which may be governed by custom or other arbitrary arrangements (again, based on informed consent), can property be subject to a contract between the owner and another/s providing the basis for ownership, rights, obligations and responsibilities and how to secure and enforce those rights?

4)       If so, then similar to the rules of the Home Owners Association (I am one of several hundred members)  to which I voluntarily belong, why can’t we contract ourselves  on the terms for ‘staying alive’?

 

If the above questions have Libertarian /classical liberal answers, then here is a proposal (example) to amend the local HOA constitution of which I am a member:

 

a)       I (Ron), in addition to consenting and agreeing to the common area speed limits, access control, refuse removal procedures, wearing of swimming trunks to cover my genitalia, not permitting Caucasians or noisy children on or in my freehold stand area, consent to:

b)       A further levy of R365- per month which will be used for a private security company and/or militia to protect me and my movable, immovable property from one or more people or juristic bodies doing harm.

c)       The levy also includes the cost of hot-pursuit or normal pursuit of alleged perpetrators, apprehending them if possible, holding them in custody and appointing a private jury of peers (who will be remunerated) to judge their conduct and decide on a verdict and retribution/restitution.  (if they are sentenced to death, then Leon’s arrangement automatically kicks in). Definitely disagree with this provision - no irreversible sentences. All sentences subject to at least 3 appeals. 

My HOA wold sentence you to death for leaving a dog poo on the lawn.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/AS8PR08MB682266B8AA8307360ED7F696C0D92%40AS8PR08MB6822.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com.

[Leon Louw]

Why is this email instead of WhatsApp?

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LnxztbonOLzh4AC-ufhqNbLn%3D_5K4SJyVSxK2sr%3Djt1%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Leon Louw]

Blue below

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 11:18 AM Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:

In red  below

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 at 18:01, Ron Weissenberg <r...@micronized.com> wrote:

Should involuntary death be governed by contractual law?

 

I like Leon’s position. It is elegant and well-reasoned. Leon spoke about this some years back and I recall we both acknowledged that we would likely contribute to the ‘pro-life’ imprisonment fund even if we didn’t know the victims or perpetrators.

 

I’m not an intellectual, so the concept of certainty about ideas and events is beyond my limited capacities. Please forgive this genetic inconvenience on my part. I will ask questions rather than make statements.

 

1)       Is one of Libertarianism central tenets the concept of a person's body being their own ultimate property, unless a contract (negotiated with bona fides, by informed consent etc.) alters some or all of this?

My view is simple, yes.

Libertarianism can be described in various ways. Most amount to the same idea, and semantics is basic Popperian imprecision of all communication.

One description of self-ownership. Rothbard argued that the sole libertarian principle is property rights, starting with your property right over yourself. Trevore and I prefer the consent oxiom. Trevor also favours Lockian self-sovereignty'  The most popular is the non-aggression or non-coercion principle.

By all of them you may do with property (especially yourself) as you wish, and no one may do anything to your property without your permission. There are always boundaries, conundrums and grey areas within any paradigm.

Is your sale of yourself into lifelong slavery and torture enforceable? If you're pro-choice (one of libertarianism's toughest questions), may you sell your about-to-be-born baby? Is you suicide pact enforcable?

 

One of the great advantages of intelligent debate with one's peers is that you are constantly exposed to new ideas which you had not previously considered. 

I am not sure which libertarian tenet one might consider for an authoritative answer to your question. I have written a few, and I have seen several others. The position of the individualist Movement (IM) is unequivocal - the first line of the IM website home page quotes John Locke "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." This is abbreviated to "I am a sovereign individual" in the first line of the Individualist Manifesto.

Can you enter a contract to forgo your sovereignty in your own body? In effect, to abdicate your rights. Could you sell yourself as a slave in order to pay for a family member's surgery? If you can't sell it, or give it away, or break it, (alienate it as the lawyers love to say) you don't really own it. So, yes you can in my opinion. If you CAN'T, then who owns your body? The state? The church? Your needy neighbours?

2)       If one’s body is property, can it be transferred, managed, damaged or destroyed?

Again, yes. 

And again boundaries, conundrums and uncertainty -- which is jurisprudence. Libertarianism is a principle that is handed to the judiciary to interpret and apply. Some areas seem clear, such as you may commit suicide in our law. But you may not take drugs. To libertarians that's loony. 

But push the boundaries and it gets foggy -- for which jurisprudence. What if you're mentally ill, hypnotised, delirious, senile etc. What does making a decision mean? Libertarianism says that's up to you. Jurisprudence says what decisions are.

3)       Notwithstanding custodianship of property, which may be governed by custom or other arbitrary arrangements (again, based on informed consent), can property be subject to a contract between the owner and another/s providing the basis for ownership, rights, obligations and responsibilities and how to secure and enforce those rights?

Yes. 

But  what a "contract" is and how it is formed is, and how it is interpreted and enforced, and by who, etc, are as you observe, tied up with culture, tradition, common law, mental state, and more.

Libertarianism is the paradigm. The rest isn't libertarianism.

4)       If so, then similar to the rules of the Home Owners Association (I am one of several hundred members)  to which I voluntarily belong, why can’t we contract ourselves  on the terms for ‘staying alive’?

Such contracts are excellent examples of what confronts libertarianism. You and X might  contract to stay alive. There might be excellent reasons for such contracts.

How and when, concluded and enforceable is jurisprudence.

If the above questions have Libertarian /classical liberal answers, then here is a proposal (example) to amend the local HOA constitution of which I am a member:

a)       I (Ron), in addition to consenting and agreeing to the common area speed limits, access control, refuse removal procedures, wearing of swimming trunks to cover my genitalia, not permitting Caucasians or noisy children on or in my freehold stand area, consent to:

b)       A further levy of R365- per month which will be used for a private security company and/or militia to protect me and my movable, immovable property from one or more people or juristic bodies doing harm.

c)       The levy also includes the cost of hot-pursuit or normal pursuit of alleged perpetrators, apprehending them if possible, holding them in custody and appointing a private jury of peers (who will be remunerated) to judge their conduct and decide on a verdict and retribution/restitution.  (if they are sentenced to death, then Leon’s arrangement automatically kicks in). Definitely disagree with this provision - no irreversible sentences. All sentences subject to at least 3 appeals. 

My HOA wold sentence you to death for leaving a dog poo on the lawn.

d)       (Ron) further acknowledges that the HOA has reciprocal arrangements with the 1427 listed HOA’s hereunder/www. link) and that as a member of this HOA all rights and responsibilities are reciprocal and of equal force and effect.

e)       (Ron) further acknowledges that he is subject to all the terms and conditions of the common law (document XYZ attached) relating to this HOA and those to which it shares reciprocity.

That seems like a libertarian contract. Libertarianism is for your right to enter it. If of sound mind etc. If the law of the land says otherwise, the law unlibertarian.

 

Would this work? If so, can this be optimised?

Yes.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LnxztbonOLzh4AC-ufhqNbLn%3D_5K4SJyVSxK2sr%3Djt1%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

Because Google groups work so much better than WhatsApp. And you can still view all the conversations on your phone by just clicking on the link below.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAOWz41TbEmrRMwhMi9%3D51vNsMju%3Dx8aDS6Rzcxo7oSCW2xoB7g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I recently saw a TV show about buying, renovating and selling property. This one guy said, his best piece of advice for selecting a property is to drive around until you see a burnt or sun-bleached couch in a front yard then look for properties in that area, because it means they don't have an HOA, which means you can do what you like with your reno property, have lower costs while you own it and will have a lot less issues selling it. I'm glad to see there are more than 3 of us who find the typical HOA to be someone's little despotic enclave.

S.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAOWz41RsJicVBZrK7-YaNop3GdS7FycVZ0ptsARP2e2WRN%3DPPg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

One of the best emotional arguments against the death penalty is Anant Sigh's searing film called "Shepherds and Butchers" about a real court case from 1986. In that year the apartheid regime executed 168 prisoners, often in diabolical circumstances. I challenge any death penalty advocate to be unmoved by this film.

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S799WEfvm8aJadsPNau3f_r2zdPxa49Br74tM3jEEYRPg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sid Nothard]

I think rotting in jail is a worse penalty than death.

 

Sid Nothard

Blue below

 

 

Error! Filename not specified.

Virus-free.www.avg.com

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2Lnwj0%2BAfU_aDDAxosKmFuHbONesmeiVtx64PtVv96FdYg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mike Hull]

If rotting in jail is worse for the imprisoned person, they should be free to ask for an assisted suicide, as should anyone, regardless of their circumstances, terminal sickness and the like.

Just as no one should have the legal right to kill another, unless in self-defence and the state is late in defending you if you are murdered and thus should not be able to legally kill your killer, everyone should enjoy the right to kill themselves and ask someone to help them with this, without repercussions for that person.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000601dad2d1%24795c9780%246c15c680%24%40mweb.co.za.

[Janette Eldridge]

Quite agree 

Get Outlook for iOS

---

From: indivi...@googlegroups.com <indivi...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Mike Hull <hu...@iafrica.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 4:24:40 PM
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com <indivi...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/001001dad2d4%24e7e894d0%24b7b9be70%24%40iafrica.com.

[bas...@gmail.com]

I agree. I wonder why so few death row inmates execute themselves.

[mark....@imaginet.co.za]

Like Jeffrey Epstein ?

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/da0150e7-4221-4043-a8fc-256c58b34cfdn%40googlegroups.com.

[Sid Nothard]

They don’t have the means. Unless you are able to hang yourself on a paper sheet as Epstein managed to do.

 

From: indivi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:indivi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of bas...@gmail.com

Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 4:46 PM
To: Individualist Movement

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/da0150e7-4221-4043-a8fc-256c58b34cfdn%40googlegroups.com.

[Sid Nothard]

Precisely

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000801dad2db%24c696e6e0%2453c4b4a0%24%40imaginet.co.za.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Yes, it is interesting how people say they are unconditionally in favour of owning your own life, but as soon as you try to dispose of it by selling yourself into slavery or killing yourself or selling an organ, then suddenly the conditions start to appear. Just like the right to freedom of speech, the test of whether that freedom or right is real does not lie in using it in areas where people agree, but in using it where people do not agree... reading a beautiful poem does not prove your freedom of speech, the offensive lyrics of an Eminem song does. Likewise, living does not prove or test your right to life - trying to die does. Defending a life does not prove that the right to life is respected, trying to take one by force does... and forcing one to remain living despite strong desires to the contrary even more so. As soon as you push the boundary on many of the things we consider to be fundamental rights, you will find they no longer exist, if they ever did, and that they do in fact belong to the State. There are hardly any rights left which we think we have which will stand up to an actual test of that right. Life, property and speech are good examples. The fact that we typically don't notice suggests that things are not necessarily terrible without them and that they might well be over-rated. Once they do start to matter, they will no longer matter.

S.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/001001dad2d4%24e7e894d0%24b7b9be70%24%40iafrica.com.

[Dewald Katzke]

People want the freedom but not the consequences that flow from it. Also they are probably unwilling to defend against its removal, are you willing to die for my freedom of speech? Am I willing to go to bat for your freedom to do with your boby as you choose? The state wants to grow and survive like all entities, isn't it Lenin that said if you are advancing against a position and you encounter mush push forward if you encounter steel try somewhere else.

We have these beautiful ideas we should have the freedom to do x,y and z. Ok then go and defend it push for it? Are you going to be the one that might risk get crushed by the state which then galvanizes the masses? Ending up that they are free but you are still crushed?

Or are we going to live our lives as best we can with some defiance but not enough to be noticed?

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S4knPKO5moEzA8UN78q__f35c3GW_DR2Lb2ViLSFpnvvA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

Most people (the public) want a quiet, peaceful and prosperous life for themselves and their family. They are just not sure how to achieve it, and at what cost.  Generally there is no shortage of people keen to tell them to do as I say (the politicians) and you will achieve your goal. The politicians hope to achieve THEIR goals by recruiting members of the public to follow their plan, generally at some cost.  

Neither the public nor the politicians are bad actors or deliberately evil. They may be misinformed, stupid, unrealistic, naive, but not evil.  Our challenge as individualists/libertarians is to develop good ideas that work in practice and explain these ideas to the public in an accessible way. If we do a good enough job, many amongst the public will come round to our way of thinking. If our ideas are indeed good, and are perceived to work, then we will grow as a movement. As ever, we must first win the battle of ideas before we will win over the public.

Some people and groups promote ideas that they seek to enforce with violence, mainly because they don't work in practice. I believe the best strategy for us as freedom lovers is not to openly fight the violent people, but rather wait for them to wither and die in the face of our superior ideas.  By and large this approach has worked in the West for about 200 years, but has failed in the East.

I believe we must redouble our efforts to state what we believe, to communicate it effectively and to demonstrate it in practice.  But we have many sincere competitors who are more or less wrong. Conservatives,  Democrats, Republicans, socialists, are all competing for hearts and minds with differing messages. Our challenge is to have the best, simplest, most rational theory that actually works.  

That is why we debate here.

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CA%2BKQP2wPJ%2BOsPYV1_37V6kykOq-Tj-VMyse%2BU3GNn8Hbp0Fcig%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roland Giesler]

On Saturday, 06 July 2024 at 15:34:20 UTC+2 Leon Louw wrote:

There's a false binary assumption that the choice is limited to one of two, for vs against. Brains are hardwired for this, which is obvious from culture: cash or credit, my place or yours, left or right, black and white, etc etc.

There are almost always other options, the most libertarian being FIFO (see below).

Before that, there can be different standards of proof. Here too there's a false dichotomy: guilty beyond reasonable doubt vs balance of probabilities. That excludes guil beyond any doubt, shared guilt etc. There are options regarding victims. In private law, the issue is how to put right the wrong -- compensation, restitution, retribution. 

I think that that should be one of, if not the primary, factor that determines what course of action should be taken when someone wrongs another:  correct the wrong.  

What does the family of brutally raped, tortured over weeks and nudered child want, for instance. What would be fair and libertarian towards victims -- the primary libertarian concern.

By way of example:  If someone steals another's car, he must return it.  If that is not possible (the car was too badly damaged or destroyed), then similar restitution must be made, ie the thief's car can be given to the robbed person.  Now, in the even that someone chooses to take someone else's life, he forfeits the right to his own life.  Of course the person whose life was taken doesn't get it back, since he is dead, but the thief doesn't get to enjoy the benefits of life either.  To me that seems quite simple and fair.  If there is any doubt, then of course, find another way of restitution.
 

War as opposed to 'war crimes' includes killing totally innocent people. Is that libertarian when war is in self-defence?

My preference regarding the (tough for libertarians) death penalty question is FIFO. I see it as the most if not only libertarian option. If A is for execution and B not, by which libertarian principle should B be forced to fund A's desire to look after a child murderer, torturer and rapist (X)? None. The libertarian idea is that neither should impose their preference on the other. The libertarian solution?

Well, it should be obvious. So long as B's camp is willing to fund imprisonment, X lives. If funds run out, FIFO: first-in-first-out on 'death row'.

Then A and B get what they want, but not with other people's misappropriated money.

Makes sense and I would agree with you in principle.

 

[Dewald Katzke]

That was probably an extrajudicial execution, he probably posed a threat to the bureaucratic state.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000801dad2db%24c696e6e0%2453c4b4a0%24%40imaginet.co.za.

[viv...@iafrica.com]

Indeed!

---

From: "mark.heaton via Individualist Movement" <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 5:13:53 PM

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000801dad2db%24c696e6e0%2453c4b4a0%24%40imaginet.co.za.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Trevor, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. We debate here (if I can be so presumptuous as to assume why others are here) because we find some pleasure and satisfaction in it. I think we feel a sense of community of like-minded people and enjoy learning, tweaking and sharpening our own understanding of the world. It is purely hedonistic. To think that any of this will have any impact on anyone outside of this group... and to consider that the main reason for this group's existence... that seems to me to border on wishful thinking.

About a decade ago I think it was Frances who pointed the LibSA forum to the work of Daniel Kahneman in which he profiled certain personality types and modes of thinking... I think the thread was called "thinking fast & slow" and since then, the more I read on the topic of behavioral economics, psychology and human decision-making, the more I realized why he got that Nobel prize - people are much more hard-coded & wired for thoughts than we tend to think. It seems that the power of persuasion is high on the short term, but pretty much null on the medium to longer term.

In other words, you may persuade a commie of your views temporarily, but it will only stick if he was already hard-wired for libertarian thinking... if he was not, the next semi-plausible argument that fits his wiring will take him right back to his commie default. In most cases though, you will fail to persuade him in the first place. I found it especially interesting that you could predict whether people would vote Republican or Democrat based on how clean their house was. Political affiliation is a personality trait, not a thought process.

We are here because we happened to find and then bonded with others like us. If we wanted to change the world and were capable of persuading others to our points of view, then we would be having this discussion on a socialist forum, because that's where the persuasion is most needed... but no, we come preach to this choir, because we like it and it feels good. We're not doing a single thing for the rest of the world here in our little sandbox.

S.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2L%3D4ijH5nnvivfoWEMyjugOJMfbGP8RP%2BZQA%2BZchBWKPPA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

In red below

Trevor Watkins
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 at 23:25, Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trevor, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. We debate here (if I can be so presumptuous as to assume why others are here No you may not) because we find some pleasure and satisfaction in it Hopefully, since we are not big on duty. I think we feel a sense of community of like-minded people and enjoy learning, tweaking and sharpening our own understanding of the world. It is purely hedonistic If you find this hedonistic, you're doing it wrong.. To think that any of this will have any impact on anyone outside of this group... and to consider that the main reason for this group's existence... that seems to me to border on wishful thinking.It certainly is my wish to have an impact on people outside this group by continuing to promote membership of this group  (now sitting at 100). 35 years of libsem's arose from the same intention in my lounge in 1986. 

About a decade ago I think it was Frances who pointed the LibSA forum to the work of Daniel Kahneman in which he profiled certain personality types and modes of thinking... I think the thread was called "thinking fast & slow" and since then, the more I read on the topic of behavioral economics, psychology and human decision-making, the more I realized why he got that Nobel prize - people are much more hard-coded & wired for thoughts than we tend to think. It seems that the power of persuasion is high on the short term, but pretty much null on the medium to longer term. Since the 1st seminar in1985, communism has collapsed, Fukuyama has declared the end of history, Thatcher's ideas transformed Britain, Reagan's ideas transformed the US, free markets abound, Nowadays, Elon Musk has several ideas recently thought impossible or insane,

In other words, you may persuade a commie of your views temporarily, but it will only stick if he was already hard-wired for libertarian thinking... if he was not, the next semi-plausible argument that fits his wiring will take him right back to his commie default. In most cases though, you will fail to persuade him in the first place. 1989 contradicts that view. Sure people will continue to have bad ideas. That's where we come in. I found it especially interesting that you could predict whether people would vote Republican or Democrat based on how clean their house was. Political affiliation is a personality trait, not a thought process.

We are here because we happened to find and then bonded with others like us. If we wanted to change the world and were capable of persuading others to our points of view, then we would be having this discussion on a socialist forum, because that's where the persuasion is most needed Good point. Know any good ones?... but no, we come preach to this choir, because we like it and it feels good. We're not doing a single thing for the rest of the world here in our little sandbox.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S6QEYjAOZjGkT0xLKMHrvJ7Bbd%2BmZ9UoP-sDNmwQoJCLw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Your choice of colour is not lost on me... maybe we can attract more commies to our cause with the use of red, because logic will not. I will go with orange, since that is the colour of freedom and because I doubt there are any real commies here.

There is a difference between having ideas which impact on the world and having ideas of which you can persuade others. Ghengis Khan also had ideas which impacted the world, mostly in the absence of persuasion by reasonable argument.

My point is people are not easily persuaded to the ideas of liberty. It is complex and goes against the nature of the majority. We are freaks. There is something wrong with us, that we can let go of our natures and embrace reality. Most people cannot.

Incidentally, if you Google Margaret Thatcher now, you will see mostly negative reviews and derisive commentary. People now hate her and think she broke Britain. She may have had support back in the day, but it has all but disappeared.

1989 seems to be less a demonstration of the spread of libertarian-leaning though and more a demonstration of people reaching their threshold of tolerance for gross oppression... we seem now to be heading back towards it, rather than further away.

I too would like to persuade people of the great ideas of liberty, but historically it seems people are largely immune to the very thought of freedom and the most effective way to get them to support it, is to tax their tea until they cannot take it anymore.

S.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2L%3Dre9Xe69km%2BPcX6nZjH2hWhV5Y33r2GvL%3DJgwOeajgHg%40mail.gmail.com.