(read from the bottom up)
Dear S:
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t see a good analogy between your “Speech with which I don’t agree is violence” argument and the claim that attempted physical violence against a person doesn’t constitute a threat to his neighbors.
I’ll bet you live in a relatively safe neighborhood, or, at least, as safe as you can afford. Why? You fear violence in unsafe areas.
While we’re on the subject of attempts, let me mention the famous Milgram experiment, the one where the “teachers” were told to administer electric shocks to the “learner” for giving a wrong answer to difficult questions. The shocks were faked. But the teachers didn’t know this. No one was hurt. Are the “teachers” still culpable? I say yes, they were guilty of in effect attempted assault and battery.
Best regards,
Walter
From: S
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 8:21 PM
To: ‘Walter Block’ <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Attempted Murder Question
Walter:
Yes, I agree that the NAP covers credible threats. My original question was not about liability, but about appropriate punishment; the two are separate questions (e.g., one can be found liable for breach of contract, but the damages may be nominal if no actual loss is suffered).
The perpetrator has never actually threatened the neighbors’ properties; their concerns are manufactured in their minds. It seems analogous to the “Speech with which I don’t agree is violence” argument; too much weight is accorded to the alleged victim’s mental state, and not enough to the actual actions of the alleged perpetrator.
S
From: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 8:38 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Attempted Murder Question
Dear S:
The key is threat. Don’t you agree that the NAP prohibits not only actual invasive violence, but, also, the threat thereof? If so, then, certainly, the target of the attempted has been threatened when he finds out about the attempt. No question there, I think.
But, consider the neighbors now. What’s wrong with saying that they, too, feel threatened? Wouldn’t you feel threatened if someone broke into your neighbor’s house?
Best regards,
Walter
Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
Skype: Walter.Block4
tel: (504) 864-7934
From: S
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 7:28 PM
To: ‘Walter Block’ <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Attempted Murder Question
Walter:
Your response suggests that libertarian punishment theory is not based on proportionality or restitution. On what principles do you contend that it is based?
I don’t find persuasive your argument that other people who were not the subject of the attempt have been harmed because they know of the attempt. That seems like the “snowflake theory” of punishment. So if A breaks into B’s house and steals from B, not only is A required to provide restitution to B and suffer a proportional punishment, but all of B’s neighbors can seek compensation because now they’re worried that their houses will be broken into?
S
From: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 6:13 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Attempted Murder Question
Dear S:
I think the law should treat the attempted murderer of whom the victim is unaware, far more harshly. After all, he did threaten his target. True, his target was, is, unaware of this, but I think that is irrelevant. Other people are aware of this threat, and are also harmed by it (they might think that if the attempted murder of whom the victim is unware can get away with this threat of his, then I’m in more danger than I otherwise thought). Of course, if no on is aware of the attempted murder, then and only then does the perpetrator get away with his evil deed.
Best regards,
Walter
Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
Skype: Walter.Block4
tel: (504) 864-7934
From: S
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 8:07 AM
Subject: Attempted Murder Question
Walter:
Regarding your LRC postings on attempted murder, I think the more interesting point to think through is what should be the punishment for a failed attempted murder, assuming the crime is proven.
If libertarian punishment policy is based on proportionality and restitution, then should there be any punishment levied on an attempted murderer with whom the proposed victim has never interacted? Since the attempt failed, and the proposed victim never even knew about the attempt, and thus did not suffer emotionally, why should the perpetrator be punished? There is no loss, and thus nothing to compensate, and a proportional response would mean the proposed victim could make a failed attempt on the perpetrator without the latter knowing (obviously absurd). (Of course, the bigger question in this whole scenario is how such an attempt would have been uncovered in the first place…)
Modifying the facts slightly, if there is a failed attempt, but the proposed victim did interact with the perpetrator, and thus did suffer emotionally, then I can see how the punishment could be that the proposed victim has the right to cause a similar emotional suffering in the perpetrator. However, this would be quite ineffective, since the perpetrator would expect that the proposed victim is not going to “go all the way,” and thus it might be tough to “pay back” the emotional suffering. Thus the proposed victim’s main form of punishment would be compensation for mental suffering.
In either case, the punishments would be quite different from those for actual murder.
S
1:44 am on April 23, 2019