From: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 7:28 PM
To: ‘d.gray42’
Subject: RE: Heuristic to determine violation of NAP
Dear D:
I own a car. My intent is for it to sit overnight in my parking space.
However, in order to save a life, you hard wire my car, and deliver someone to a hospital, saving his life.
My ex ante intent has been violated. But, ex post, I’m glad you violated my intent, since I value the saving of a life much higher than I do keeping my car to myself.
But, suppose I were not the nice guy that I am. I wanted to get you thrown in jail for (temporarily) stealing my car. What would a private libertarian court do with my lawsuit against you? I think the proper verdict would be to fine you the costs of a taxicab ride. Yes, you are a “thief.” But a very strange kind of thief. When you returned the car to me, you left a note explaining what you had done.
This is similar to the case where someone pushes someone else out of the path of an unrushing truck, saving the life of the latter, but breaking his ribs in the process. Is he guilty of assault and battery against the person’s life he just saved? Well, according to the strict interpretation of the NAP, this person did violate the rights of the person he saved. But, context is very important here. If I were the judge, I’d fine the plaintiff for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. As a non Austrian, I’d award 100 utils to the defendant, for saving the plaintiffs life, and one negative util for breaking his ribs. Namely, I’d make the plaintiff pay the defendant, not the other way around.
Best regards,
Walter
From: d.gray42
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 11:17 AM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Heuristic to determine violation of NAP
Dear Professor Block,
Thank you greatly for your response; I will attempt to refrain from further discussion on most points for a time while I peruse the reference material you have provided.
It makes me happy that you would consider accepting me as a student, and I greatly appreciate the suggestion that I attempt to become a student of yours and pursue a different career. I might perhaps enjoy that very much, but it is difficult to envision how that could come about, mostly for financial reasons. Who can know the future, perhaps a miracle will happen?
I would appreciate some clarification of your response to my “re-phrasing” of the NAP, as I am not entirely sure I understand your response correctly, or if you are perhaps misunderstanding my use of “intent”:
>>> If I may, let me re-phrase your answer: A violation of the NAP has occurred if the legitimate property of another has been used in a manner that violates their intent. (Please let me know if you find this re-phrasing to be incorrect.)
<<< I think you place too much emphasis on “intent” that’s only part of the story. A may intend to murder innocent person B, but, instead, kills C, who was about to murder D. A has a bad case of mens rea, but is innocent of any crime
>>> I’m not sure I’ve understood your response correctly. In the scenario described, I would assume that A would initially be held responsible for attempted murder of B, and possibly murder or manslaughter of C (at least if that is how the situation appears upon first review, for example, A is caught holding a sniper rifle just as prominent party B ducks, causing C to be shot just before he can stab D with a knife). If an “expression of intent” on the part of A to kill B exists in evidence, then they could be prosecuted for attempted murder. If there is no evidence of intent on the part of A to kill B, and he claims that he killed C to save D (or, less ingeniously, claims to have somehow done so by accident), then yes, he is innocent of any crime in the eyes of an arbitration authority (any evaluation of “intent” must be supported by evidence; we are not mind readers).
>>> Are you suggesting that even if an “expression of intent” exists in evidence that A wanted to kill B, that he should not be held liable for attempted criminal action (i.e., only unlawful outcomes may be prosecuted, not unlawful intent)? (I’m pretty sure I must be misreading your response.)
>>> To clarify my phrasing in the context of your example: A intends to use the legitimate property of B in a manner that violates the intent of B (B desires to continue living through the use of his body, A desires to destroy that body; this creates a conflict over a physical resource between the legitimate intent of B and the illegitimate intent of A). Thus A has violated the NAP per B, even if he never gets the opportunity to complete the act (and even if only A is ever aware of this fact). The same situation exists with regard to C and D. As to the outcome, when A kills C by accident, he is inadvertently supporting the intent of D. If A does not have any expressed intent in evidence, he is a hero. If A has expressed intent of killing B, then he is a villain on balance and should be prosecuted, even if he is inadvertently a hero to D.
I would also like to respond to a few other tidbits (though not to solicit further response, unless you feel my responses deserve further discussion):
<<< aggression, or the threat thereof, consists of an uninvited border crossing, or trespass, where the border is the innocent victim’s body and/or justly owned property
>>> Thank you, I find this to be an excellent definition. My next question would be, what is the condition that enables the concept of “uninvited” to exist in the first place? (I do not request an answer, I merely wish to convey that my line of inquiry continues after this point.)
<<< it’s hard to define. It’s easier to give examples: murder, rape, theft, kidnapping, arson. My twin 4 year old grandchildren ask me stuff, and no matter what I say, no matter how many times I answer, they keep saying, “why.” I’m not accusing you of childish behavior. I’m trying to say that sometimes, often, the best we can do, after a while, is to give examples.
<<< that’s a toughie. Purposefully hurting people? I’m not good at this sort of thing, sorry.
>>> The main reason I ask for these definitions (aside from being genuinely curious as to the given answer), is really to draw attention to the difficulty in defining them. This is actually my final point with these word definitions (and I would actually take it as a compliment to be accused of childish behavior on this particular matter; this is about stripping the words and concepts involved down to their skeletal core, to keep asking “why” much as a child would do until nothing else is left but the fundamentals). These words hold concepts in association; but the words are merely imperfect representations, the associated concepts vary from person to person. Sometimes the concepts, despite being strongly held internally, cannot be fully described by a word, or even a collection of words. Thus, communications become imperfect, and meaning is lost. In some areas, this is acceptable and normal. In others, such as the hard sciences, this is not acceptable, and accurate meaning must be retained at all costs or the outcomes become invalid.
>>> Legal theory and philosophy are considered soft sciences; but what if it were possible to pin down the fundamental concepts behind them in a sufficiently concise and deterministic manner that they could be addressed as if they were a hard science? This is my hypothetical, I do not know if it is possible, and I think it is widely regarded to not be possible. The consensus is more likely correct than the individual, but if so I desire to understand why, in the case of my particular line of reasoning.
<<<in my view, the NAP is only the first approximation of libertarian law. The more sophisticated version would state something along these lines: libertarianism consists of punishment theory. If you violate the NAP, it is justified to punish you. That solves the Martian challenge, see above
>>> Thank you, I agree. I would say that the purpose of the NAP is to “draw a line,” which delineates “justified” aggression/punishment from “unjustified”. I believe the ultimate goal of my inquiry is to clarify and sharpen the line, making it as thin but visible as possible even when viewed by many observers.
I will leave you with a final thought, which underpins my entire line of inquiry, now that you have attempted to define the words “aggression” and “evil” for me (thank you again).
* Definition of “aggression”: Removal of (legitimate) agency. [Action]
* Definition of “evil”: Removal of (legitimate) agency. [Outcome]
* Definition of “agency”: The combination of will and means necessary to effect a change.
Perhaps I am seeing something that doesn’t exist in these definitions.
Thank you again for taking the time out of your day to respond to my impertinent questions. It means a lot. I hope to respond in a few weeks either to thank you for invalidating my line of reasoning, or to request the opportunity for further discussion of it.
D.
2:29 am on April 22, 2020
