Charles Manson: where's the victim?

[alaric89]

Al, fuck chas manson and fuck this thread...

You think I come back to this board lightly? Ali made a good point and us voluntarist need a better argument then "because I said so" or "your stupid".
In a way I am trolling, but its only because I want answers to the question.

Did Manson force or trick Tex to take the drugs?

[david]

I think most of the Manson people used drugs willingly.

Nevertheless, is a person responsible for manipulating weaker minds for the purpose of violence?

Imagine this. We are standing on top of a tall building and you are on PCP or LSD. I know that you are hallucinating and in a dream-state. I use this knowledge to convince you that you can fly and to jump. If you jump and die, am I in the smallest way responsible for your death? Is it aggression to talk you into killing yourself while you are out of touch with reality?

Intention is important. Manson clearly intended harm. He used his personality and his follower's self-drugged state to accomplish it. He planned the crimes. He helped them accomplish their deeds. That's why he is in jail for conspiracy to commit murder and murder.

I am new to the Liberty movement, so I am having trouble seeing why anyone would claim this psychopath is improperly imprisoned (regardless if he did the stabbing, cutting and fetus-removing or not). I will never see this as acceptable behavior.

I think the people who say Manson did not commit a crime know little about the Manson case. That's obvious. If you are going to pick a case about principle, you need to find somebody who is not violent. Manson is a losing argument and you just look crazy. Those that are defending Manson don't seem to know a whole lot about him or what he did. You didn't even know he shot Crowe and committed other violent crimes. Do some research first.

Here's a good place to start: http://kat.ph/helter-skelter-the-true-story-of-the-manson-murders-vincent-bugliosi-amp-curt-gentry-epub-t6205863.html

If Manson was a talk show host and ranted about killing people all day, never met his followers, never planned murders with them, and they just shot people on their own, it would be a different case. Manson would be guilt free: still a jerk, but not involved in those crimes. That's not what happened. Manson helped. End of story.

Why do you want to support a violent criminal who obviously violated the non-aggression principle on so many occasions?

[Fred]

I don't think you're trolling - I just don't have much interest in this.

Seems like justice was served as far as removing a monster from society.  I personally think death would have been more just though.

[david]

If you meant me, I am not trolling. I'm just trying to destroy the Manson-is-innocent argument because I find him so revolting.

[Turd Ferguson]

 I personally think death would have been more just though.

Not me,

I think he should be released from prison and forced to work in a day-care center.

[alaric89]

I think most of the Manson people used drugs willingly.

Nevertheless, is a person responsible for manipulating weaker minds for the purpose of violence?

Imagine this. We are standing on top of a tall building and you are on PCP or LSD. I know that you are hallucinating and in a dream-state. I use this knowledge to convince you that you can fly and to jump. If you jump and die, am I in the smallest way responsible for your death? Is it aggression to talk you into killing yourself while you are out of touch with reality?

Intention is important. Manson clearly intended harm. He used his personality and his follower's self-drugged state to accomplish it. He planned the crimes. He helped them accomplish their deeds. That's why he is in jail for conspiracy to commit murder and murder.

I am new to the Liberty movement, so I am having trouble seeing why anyone would claim this psychopath is improperly imprisoned (regardless if he did the stabbing, cutting and fetus-removing or not). I will never see this as acceptable behavior.

I think the people who say Manson did not commit a crime know little about the Manson case. That's obvious. If you are going to pick a case about principle, you need to find somebody who is not violent. Manson is a losing argument and you just look crazy. Those that are defending Manson don't seem to know a whole lot about him or what he did. You didn't even know he shot Crowe and committed other violent crimes. Do some research first.

Here's a good place to start: http://kat.ph/helter-skelter-the-true-story-of-the-manson-murders-vincent-bugliosi-amp-curt-gentry-epub-t6205863.html

If Manson was a talk show host and ranted about killing people all day, never met his followers, never planned murders with them, and they just shot people on their own, it would be a different case. Manson would be guilt free: still a jerk, but not involved in those crimes. That's not what happened. Manson helped. End of story.

Why do you want to support a violent criminal who obviously violated the non-aggression principle on so many occasions?

See, I thought someone would have the right answer.
Last time I forced a question on this board I was also accused of trolling etc and it took like a month before a reasonable answer was forthcoming. It was about bounty hunters.
This one only took a couple of days.
Looks to me like Manson had a actual victim by any definition, and I'll bet every psycho guru who deserves punishment has one. In a way Dale was right earlier it is just a red herring. To bad he got all emotional.
Thank you, Mr ecigarettes. First you simply answered the OP question, then you addressed the moral argument anyway. Hopefully Kdus will chime in too.

[KDus]

Yes, the question was, "where's the victim?"

Manson had victims.
I don't see anyone on this thread that has defended or supported Manson and we all seem to think he is a bad person, and dangerous.

The Hitler example involves coercion. Apples and oranges.

I reject the claim that intention is relevant. Intent is a thought, we can only be held responsible for our actions.

Until coercion is used, the individual and only the individual is responsible for his/her actions. 

[Bill Brasky]

People talk about the drugs like turning on and off a light switch.  Thats not the way LSD and charismatic societies work.

You can't un-ring the bell.

I know for a fact, my perceptions are permanently altered from experimentation twenty years ago.

I've had conversations on this board, in completely unrelated topics, where I've said I will NEVER take LSD again, willingly. 

Now..  there is a slight chance, I might be tempted if the situation was absolutely perfect.  But not just for kicks.

There have been plenty of people, like Dr Tim Leary who've surrounded themselves with some very experienced acid heads, and he tripped just fine well into his geriatric years. 

In the proper environments, with the proper positive history, it's probably just dandy.

Acid is like a key.  And if your prior experiences were all over the map, some bad some good, and somebody doses you mightily, then throws a bunch of ugly at you, you're absolutely gonna have a weird experience.

And truth be told, even if you're stone-cold sober, and someone starts fuckin with your head, you're probably gonna get a little sketchy.

Look at Syd Barrett.  Its pretty well documented that he had some issues all throughout his life, in his later years.  I doubt he dabbled and tripped at all, after his melt-down.

Nobody (here) really bothers to speculate whether these Mansonites were in perfect mental order before, during, or after the "situation", but I suggest to you, they were not.

And that is exactly what a person like Manson preys upon.  People who were vulnerable to suggestion, or on the fringe of mental illness.

[alaric89]

Well, I guess I will have to hope that if a society was raising its children in a free but accountable way a type of more responsible person would evolve. If people feel and understand they are exclusively responsible for the action they took and the results we wouldn't need so much leadership. As long as we can be manipulated we need good people to help us save us from ourselves.

[david]

I reject the claim that intention is relevant. Intent is a thought, we can only be held responsible for our actions.

What about the consequences of our actions? Are we responsible for those?

If intent has no relevance, consider the following two scenarios:

Case One: Person A is angry at Person B. Person A says, "I'm gonna kill you!!" Person A gets a gun and shoots Person B in the stomach.
Case Two: Person A asks Person B if the gun is loaded. Person B says no. Person A jokingly picks up the gun, points the gun at Person B, says, "bang" and pulls the trigger. The gun goes off and Person B is shot in the stomach.

In Case One, Person A attempted murder.
In Case Two, Person A is a dumb-ass and should be avoided, however, they did not attempt murder.

My question to you is:
In your world, is there a difference between the two shootings? If not, why?

What do you think about yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? If a person does and somebody tramples some old lady, has the provoker done anything wrong?

[alaric89]

Somebody could be said to be responsible for the results of their actions. Good point in my opinion.
I still think the blunt of the punishment should go on the weak minded asshole "Just following orders" though.
If Ali will be on FTL tonight I might call in on this subject, I would like her to give her take on all this.
For such a cute little thing she seems pretty damn smart.

[KDus]

Intent is for a jury to consider.

If we consider bad intent we must also consider good intent.

Does it matter that a social worker has good intent when she rips my family apart and I spend $100k to try to put it back together?
 Does it matter if a crime is racially motivated? I say no, the results are the same regardless of the intent.
I would accept that a jury should consider intent when determining appropriate restitution.

[Bill Brasky]

None of those scenarios consider a situation where a person is under the total command of a psychopath, and acts under his (or her) behalf.



My question to you is, are you fucking retarded?  The answer is, apparently, yes.


The real question is, are you responsible for murder if a person takes control of your mind.  And the answer is, obviously, no.

[alaric89]

I think that if one was "just following orders" from some charismatic or powerful douchebag they are responsible for their own actions. If someone is tricked or drugged then they are not responsible I agree with that.
The weak minded can be taught the difference between right and wrong in a world where there was no such thing as a victimless crime. Under the state no one knows the difference. You can be rewarded or punished for pretty much anything. In this confusing paradime people a susceptible to "leaders".

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Just rediscovered this thread.

I remember very vividly a class in my seminary where our Rebbe elucidated on a topic by going off on a tangent (which he normally did not do). He said that in Jewish law, there would be no such thing as RICO. Since everybody is responsible for himself, no one could say "I was just following orders." If a mob boss slams a gun down on his desk, and tells a goon to kill someone, its entirely the fault of the goon who did it, and he alone is liable for punishment. After all, "who is your real boss?" he said. The mob boss just talked. It was the other guy who did the murder.

I think this is the most reasonable position. Absolute liability. An anthropologist that I used to go to synagogue with said that KGB officers used to have a saying "we weren't bad people. We were just forced to do bad things."