And I believe I made the case that as long as said genocidal racist does not specifically ask anyone to kill and does not contract to have anyone killed, he/she has not violated anyone’s natural rights. We may wish to say it is subjectively immoral to do what he is doing, but we cannot say it is objectively unethical unless he actually tells people, “I will give money to those who kill whom I want to to see killed.”

“Are bounties legal?”

If a court finds that person X is guilty of killing or of raping, whether purposefully or by accident; and if the victim wishes for execution be used as the punishment against X (if the victim is dead, we check his will—if the victim is alive, he/she is likely the plantiff); and if the plaintiff suing on behalf of the victim wishes to pursue capital punishment; then it’s perfectly justifiable to hire a bounty to perform the execution. The bounty, of course, must not kill or harm anyone else in his/her pursuit of X.

“The buyers of child porn are essentially putting out bounties, standing orders, for pictures of child abuse (in which the child abuse must actually happen).”

This is where it gets into IP.

If copyrights are just, then the victim necessarily owns the pictures, and may either deny access to them of anyone she/he wants, or may conversely sell them her-/himself for profit.

If copyrights are not just, I think a case could still possibly be made for the victim ownership of the product. But let us assume for a second that such a case absolutely cannot be rationally made. In this scenario, no one can own the images, nor can anyone compell others not to look at the images.

I think, in this situation, that I side against general copyrights yet in favour of the victim homesteading the images. The result is something very similar to classical IP, but rather than being based upon what Kinsella calls “libertarian creationism,” it is based on Rothbard’s homesteading principle.

Let’s look at another scenario: privacy rights. I contend that privacy rights are a negative right, not a positive right. If two famous people have sex on a public beach, and someone record it and sells copies of the recording, the two being filmed have no legal recourse. Likewise, if they are in their home and have the windows open, so that anyone can see what they’re doing; and if someone records their activity from somewhere off their property, makes copies, and sells them; the two being filmed have no legal recourse. Conversely, if they close their shades, and the only way someone can see them doing the act is by coming onto their property and manipulating their shades, then the two being recorded are having their negative rights to privacy infringed upon, and thus have a right to not only the tapes, but to all profits made from their sale.

“Would it be morally legitimate and thus legal in a libertarian society to advertise the fact that I would pay $100,000 to anyone who raped a child and provided evidence of the rape?, or b) just began sending money to people who did?”

(B) would be legally permissible, for reasons I detail in my post at 3:32 AM.

(A) would not.

“If so, then it must also be legal for me to pay people for killing minorities or gays.”

If you advertise that you are going to pay for murder, or ask someone to murder, or contract to have someone murdered, you are acting illegally. If all you are doing is giving money to murderers, you cannot be said to be acting illegally, only charitably.

“After the initial payment, word would get around, and then there would be a de facto contract.”

Nope! That’s exactly where you are wrong, Mr. Smith. There would be no “de facto contract,” and we can be sure of this because contracts are enforceable. This is not. No one can compell you to give money to the murderers, and you’re free to stop giving at any time, or to discriminate by only giving your charity to certain murderers. Not one of these murderers has any legal recourse against you for failure to donate.

Conversely, if you say, “I will give money to anyone who murders Mexicans,” then you are creating a contract, and therefore are acting illegally.

:)

Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak

Given that there are no Alexes in this thread that support pædophilia, I do not know who you could possibly be directing that question.

If you’re asking me, then you clearly haven’t read what I’ve written. The disclaimer I give above states rather clearly that I do not know at what age a person gains the ability to consent, that I do not claim to be wise enough to know, and that I have no intention of ever putting myself in a situation where I do not know if the person with whom I’m engaging in sexual activity has the ability to consent—I wouldn’t even touch that with a ten foot pole.

If you would like a second disclaimer, allow me to add that I oppose the sexual engagement involving persons unwilling to or unable to consent. I’m, philosophically, still trying to figure out where that line is; but believe me, where ever it is, I’m quite far from it. I have zero intent of engaging in any such activity with anyone under the age of 16—Maryland’s age-of-consent—not because the law is there, but because the thought of engaging in activity of that nature with young children personally sickens me.

Do you need a third disclaimer, or will that be enough?

Ruwart 2008!

I currently do give money to murderers, by the way; although the only reason I do so is because Uncle Sam will lock me up if I don’t. The question comes down to whether or not it is injust to volunteer such money, and as long as it’s okay to volunteer the money in the form of charity to some sick nut, it must be okay to volunteer to donate to all the sick nuts of the world. To claim the ‘market signal’ argument upons us up to allowing for the banning of boycotts.

ShadowOutlaw writes, “As I’ve said previously, it can be argued that the subject owns the rights to the photos, but I personally don’t believe in intellectual property.”

I’ve generally come around to opposing IP, but I still remain very open-minded on this one. Nevertheless, let me pose this hypothetical to you:

Let’s say we accept that IP is unjust. Could we instead say that, in the same way a slave has a right to own the land on which he was forced to labour, a woman can own all the copies derived from a photograph taken by a rapist as he is raping her? This wouldn’t simply be an IP case, since we’re not simply dealing with what Kinsella refers to as “libertarian creationism,” we’re dealing with the homesteading of property from an act of aggression. Certainly, among other things, the girl would gain immediate ownership of the original photo. If the rapist takes the photo with him, he is usurping from the girl her just property. Any copies he makes of her property is made without her consent, so her property rights are thereby further violated. Would this violation not allow her to homestead all copies?

I’m not sure where I stand on the thought experiment I pose, but I did want to bring it up to see where you stand.

“As a side discussion, I have to wonder what your opinions on this situation would be: say a young girl decides to photograph herself nude or in lewd sexual positions, but waits to distribute them until she is an adult. Is she committing a crime? Are the people who view the pictures?”

I would say that only a complete fool could say she doesn’t have the right to sell pictures of her younger self.

“As for the issue of paying taxes, I’m still not sure whether you or I are doing the right thing. Certainly, we shouldn’t be held responsible in a lawful sense, since we are vocal in protest and are being forced at gun point. However, do we not share some guilt regardless?”

Why should we feel any guilt? The criminals doing the murdering are the same ones stealing from us: the politicians. THEY are to feel guilty for their many crimes, not us? We are but victims in their sick game. We should feel outrage, not guilt.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak

As for taxation, I would admire people who refused to pay their taxes out of civil disobedience if I knew any. Right now, all I know is deluded people who insist that “there is no law” and that they have secret invocations they can recite before a judge to receive a get-out-of-taxes-free card. I don’t respect these people, at least not for this reason. But I have a family to provide for and a daughter to raise—it would be morally cowardly for me to “take a stand” and go to the state’s dungeons, leaving my child to fend for herself. I guess truly committed libertarians should not have children.

As for the issue of paying taxes, I’m still not sure whether you or I are doing the right thing. Certainly, we shouldn’t be held responsible in a lawful sense, since we are vocal in protest and are being forced at gun point. However, do we not share some guilt regardless? Would we not be better people if we didn’t participate, even if it came at risk to ourselves? I’m still not sure.

Also, it should be noted that you open up a can of worms with your argument, which doesn’t necessarily make it invalid. I wonder how you can even consider paying taxes, since you know that a portion of your money is going to commit evil deeds (I at least imagine that some of what the government does, you would consider evil). In fact, this is even worse. You are literally supporting financially a system that takes property and kills innocents. This is assuming you pay taxes, of course. I realize this is a bit of a different topic, but I’m interested in your response.

Honestly, G.E., I think all questions of consent should be left to common law. And while I still disagree with you on the “commercial purposes” argument, I can understand your viewpoint. My point here was simply that when a libertarian follows the non-aggression principle, they can reasonably end up on either side of the argument. In other words there are gray areas, particularly with the child porn issue.

...these !poor Republicrat prohibitionists, know-it-alls, pecksniffs, etc. ad nauseam..not appreciably different from Hitler as to views on ‘law and order’..

..the ‘hitman analogy’ seems to perplex them..

...particularly as to ‘abortion’..

...where many of these Republicrat crude fakes claim “a first-degree murder” has occured..

...yet they nearly all choke like goddamned fools when you ask them to state, PRECISELY, what the penalties should be for violation of their stinking laws..

..NEARLY ALL of these inconsistent fools, loudmouths, etc. prohibitionists, would punish ‘the hitman’ (doctor) more than the person who initiated, participated in, etc. ‘the murder’..

..thoughtful libertarians, the Republicrattery of Dave Williams, etc. loud, shallow, Republicans here, is bound to happen when GD fools, peckerheads, Republicrats, etc. such as radio “Libertarian” Kneel Boor, etc.. are your/our biggest recruiting tool..and he do appear a tool) ;o)

G.E. – I simply cannot agree that someone who views a recording of an aggression is somehow culpable for the crime. For instance, viewing the picture of the napalm girl does not mean you have helped spray her with napalm, no matter what your reasons for viewing it. Certainly, anyone viewing it for pleasure is positively demented, but they have not committed an act of aggression. If you seriously argue that intention matters, then child pornography is a thought crime, and by extension the viewing of atomic bombings for pleasure is equally (if not more) criminal. As I’ve said previously, it can be argued that the subject owns the rights to the photos, but I personally don’t believe in intellectual property. And as I said, that would be a much different crime, with a very different punishment.

As a side discussion, I have to wonder what your opinions on this situation would be: say a young girl decides to photograph herself nude or in lewd sexual positions, but waits to distribute them until she is an adult. Is she committing a crime? Are the people who view the pictures? I vaguely recollect a situation like this actually occurring.