—–Original Message—–
From: L
Sent: Sun 7/16/2017 2:36 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Are Creeps Defendable?
Dear Dr. Block, I have been a fan of your work since I was in high school 8 years ago. Particularly, I am a fan of your *Defending the Undefendable* series to which the theme of this email relates. I am writing to you because I am trying to parse out whether it is deontologically libertarian to support private sting operations that publicly expose potential child sex predators (i.e. Creep Catchers, POP Squad, Internet Interceptors) and if so, to what degree? If you are not familiar with the trend, it is when a group of private citizens pretend to be a child, known as a “decoy”, online and wait for a potential predator to initiate the first chat and subsequently inform the potential predator within the first 3 messages that they are an underage child. If the potential predator continues the chat knowing that they are speaking to a child, the vigilante then sets up a usually public meeting place, films, and publishes the interaction which usually leads to a public or private shaming and/or police arrest if they so choose to contact the police. I assume you agree with me that, per libertarian ethics, an individual cannot be punished, by the state or otherwise, if he or she has not aggressed against anyone. This includes one who has merely typed some messages to an imaginary person. Would I be acting within libertarian principals if I complete the sting and publish the video/chat log while maintaining to never contact the police or hurt the potential predator for the duration of the meet? If yes, one can argue that by publishing the materials, the police will inevitably get involved and subpoena all parties to court anyway, which would then increase the likelihood that the potential predator, who has not committed aggression against anyone, would go to prison thus violating libertarian ethics. So, I ask you, would “creep catching” be a pointless endeavor to ruin the lives of innocent people or a courageous way to use the private sector to raise awareness?
Also, if yes, based on the severity of the online chat, would it be deontologically libertarian to call the police? Say for example, the potential predator agrees to meet a decoy mother who says she will pimp out her 6-year-old for money; as seen here . In this case there is no question that the imaginary child is objectively unable to consent and the potential predator is innocent given that he has not aggressed against anyone or even threatened to aggress against a *real* person. As vile as the case might be, and with the objectivity of the age of consent out of the question, is the potential child sex predator defendable? Thank you in advance, Luke.
Dear L: Thanks for raising this very important and intriguing challenge to libertarian theory. Every fiber in our being cries out to heavily punish these creeps, and, yet, have they really violated the non-aggression principle (NAP), the foundation of libertarianism, given that they have seemingly not (yet) actually DONE anything untoward? I think the proper answer to this conundrum lies in the same direction of our libertarian analysis of attempted murder. It is not clear that the latter has violated the NAP, either. He aimed to murder an innocent person, but his bullet missed. Still, I think, we can properly punish the attempted murderer on the ground that he is guilty of a threat. Remember, the NAP not only proscribes actual physical invasion, but also the threat thereof. Surely, the child molester constitutes a threat. If kiddie sex predators do not constitute a threat to the innocent, it is difficult to see how any threat can exist. Ok, if all that these creeps do is think about what they would like to do to children, or, even write about it or draw pictures about it, that is one thing. But, in your example, these creeps are actually attempting to engage in their evil deeds. In my view, they have stepped way over the line of violating the NAP, and therefore libertarian theory has no difficulty in engaging in punitive violence against them. To sum up, my short answer is No, these creeps are not Defendable.
For libertarian readings on attempted murder, see the following:
Kinsella, Stephen. 1996. “Punishment and Proportionality: the Estoppel Approach,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring, pp. 51-74; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf
Kinsella, Stephen. 2006. “The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression.” July 17; http://blog.mises.org/5327/the-problem-with-fraud-fraud-threat-and-contract-breach-as-types-of-aggression/
Kinsella, Stephen. 2009A. Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach.” February 3; http://blog.mises.org/9367/fraud-restitution-and-retaliation-the-libertarian-approach/
Kinsella, Stephen. 2009B. “The Libertarian Approach to Negligence, Tort, and Strict Liability: Wergeld and Partial Wergeld.” September 1; http://blog.mises.org/10572/the-libertarian-approach-to-negligence-tort-and-strict-liability-wergeld-and-partial-wergeld/
12:17 pm on July 20, 2017
