Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I have been a against punition since listening to The Market for Security by Murphy (who I believe is a pacifist). I thought this was a very good piece by Long. I felt Long's point under "Why Not Pacifism?" were particularly poignant.I've been reading some of Roderick Long's articles lately and came across this. What he says here makes a lot of sense to me; what do you guys think?
Punishment vs
I was referencing this youtube video. Maybe Gustave is where Murphy got the title for it.I believe The Market for Security was by Gustave de Molinari, and was (as far as we know) the first venture into a formal theory of market anarchy (de Molinari was a friend and colleague of Frederic Bastiat). Murphy's major work on the subject was Chaos Theory, and yes you are right, he is a pacifist. Though, I'm not sure whether he considers nonresistance to be a moral obligation for Christians in general, or a matter of personal vocation for himself. The fact that he wrote one of the major books on the theory of market-provided defense sort of suggests the latter.
Rothbard basically takes the punishment view, correct? The way he expressed it was 'two eyes for an eye.' So if A steals $100 from B, A would have to pay B back $200. I have to say that I find Long's view to be more consistent with self-ownershp and private property rights.I have been a against punition since listening to The Market for Security by Murphy (who I believe is a pacifist). I thought this was a very good piece by Long. I felt Long's point under "Why Not Pacifism?" were particularly poignant.
I wish I had a little more robust a priori argument for the "Principle of Proportion."
I think that's true for a lot of Quakers. Ben Stone, the Bad Quaker, is in favor of self-defense.Also, I recently learned from a Quaker that he didn't believe pacifism precluded defensive action.
Basically but it's a little more nuanced then that based on a concept of "[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]the extent that he deprives the victim."[/FONT]Rothbard basically takes the punishment view, correct? The way he expressed it was 'two eyes for an eye.' So if A steals $100 from B, A would have to pay B back $200. I have to say that I find Long's view to be more consistent with self-ownershp and private property rights.
From: The Libertarian Position on Capital PunishmentMurray Rothbard said:I believe that the instincts of the public are correct on this issue: namely, that the punishment should fit the crime; i.e., that punishment should be proportional to the crime involved. The theoretical justification for this is that an aggressor loses his rights to the extent that he has violated the rights of another human being. If A steals $10,000 from B, he should be forced, not only to return the $10,000 (the "restitutionist" position, with which most libertarians would agree), but he also loses his rights to his own $10,000; that is, he should be forced to pay the victim $10,000 for his aggression.
*********Here, in my view, the murderer loses precisely the right of which he has deprived another human being: the right to have one's life preserved from the violence of another person. The murderer therefore deserves to be killed in return. Or, to put it more precisely, the victim — in this case his surrogate, in the form of his heir or the executor of his estate should have the right to kill the murderer in return.
From: Punishment and ProportionalityMurray Rothbard said:[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But how are we to gauge the nature of the extent? Let us return to the theft of the $15,000. Even here, simple restitution of the $15,000 is scarcely sufficient to cover the crime (even if we add damages, costs, interest, etc.). For one thing, mere loss of the money stolen obviously fails to function in any sense as a deterrent to future such crime (although we will see below that deterrence itself is a faulty criterion for gauging punishment). [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]If, then, we are to say that the criminal loses rights to the extent that he deprives the victim, then we must say that the criminal should not only have to return the $15,000, but that he must be forced to pay the victim another $15,000, so that he, in turn, loses those rights (to $15,000 worth of property) which he had taken from the victim. In the case of theft, then, we may say that the criminal must pay double the extent of theft: once, for restitution of the amount stolen, and once again for loss of what he had deprived another.[6][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But we are still not finished with elaborating the extent of deprivation of rights involved in a crime. For A had not simply stolen $15,000 from B, which can be restored and an equivalent penalty imposed. He had also put B into a state of fear and uncertainty, of uncertainty as to the extent that B's deprivation would go. But the penalty levied on A is fixed and certain in advance, thus putting A in far better shape than was his original victim. So that for proportionate punishment to be levied we would also have to add more than double so as to compensate the victim in some way for the uncertain and fearful aspects of his particular ordeal.[7] What this extra compensation should be it is impossible to say exactly, but that does not absolve any rational system of punishment – including the one that would apply in the libertarian society – from the problem of working it out as best one can.[/FONT]
The Republican establishment was warned that there would be consequences for their treatment of Ron Paul and his supporters. Maybe one of these days they'll listen --don't hold your breath, it is for good reason that they're known as "The Stupid Party".
Fortunately, people do grow up and manage to focus their efforts much more efficiently.I'd unsubscribed from Adam Kokesh's YouTube some time ago, but learned from this video (a good watch btw) that he's now made some video mocking Ron Paul and calling him senile. I know you said that he'll grow out of this sort of thing CDL, but it doesn't look like that's gonna happen anytime soon.
Farewell Ron Paul - YouTube
They're pretty new at doing videos, I think. I'm sure they'll get better overtime. I'm friends with the middle one on Facebook and I think I ran into her at LPAC without even realizing that it was her.Fortunately, people do grow up and manage to focus their efforts much more efficiently.
Sometimes they even learn to communicate by using simple declarative sentences in the language that they communicate with.
i hope these young ladies reach that point soon. They were almost painful to listen to.
If one is going to use social media, it is better to present a coherent discussion. These young ladies might have their heads screwed on straight, but they need to work on communicating their thoughts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?