An eye for an eye?

Yes

No

[thomasjack]

You wouldn't need to patronize such a system. If you don't want to go after the murderer that killed your family, don't. But don't fucking stop me from doing it, because I will.

If the murderer is me or one of my family members, I will attempt to stop you in self-defense.

Anyway, say you successfully kill my father the murderer in revenge. Now I sue you. What happens then? You think I have no right to restitution for my father's death simply because he committed murder before you killed him?

(A more general problem occurs to me: if someone goes to a free-market jail/work camp type thing to pay off his criminal debt, does he have a right to have some of his earnings diverted towards the livelihood of his children? Or should all his earnings, less the cost of room and board, go towards paying off the debt?)

Also, what if the murderer lives on my property? You break into my house to murder him in revenge. Don't I have a right to kill you? If you instead politely inform me that you'd like to murder him in revenge and ask permission to enter, and I refuse, do you have a right to use force against me to enter and kill the dude? Maybe you think that in harboring a murderer I have violated your right to revenge, and so force against me isn't aggression? This seems insane to me.

Just to clarify: You think that you have an ethical right to kill the murderer in revenge and that a just legal system should uphold your right to murder in revenge? Do you think that murder is the only crime which generates a right to revenge?

This seems like a very important issue for a free-market justice system to deal with. I'm stunned that a good many here at FTL, who are among the most liberty-minded in the world, think this way about it. Worries me a bit.

[BonerJoe]

You wouldn't need to patronize such a system. If you don't want to go after the murderer that killed your family, don't. But don't fucking stop me from doing it, because I will.

If the murderer is me or one of my family members, I will attempt to stop you in self-defense.

Anyway, say you successfully kill my father the murderer in revenge. Now I sue you. What happens then? You think I have no right to restitution for my father's death simply because he committed murder before you killed him?

(A more general problem occurs to me: if someone goes to a free-market jail/work camp type thing to pay off his criminal debt, does he have a right to have some of his earnings diverted towards the livelihood of his children? Or should all his earnings, less the cost of room and board, go towards paying off the debt?)

Also, what if the murderer lives on my property? You break into my house to murder him in revenge. Don't I have a right to kill you? If you instead politely inform me that you'd like to murder him in revenge and ask permission to enter, and I refuse, do you have a right to use force against me to enter and kill the dude? Maybe you think that in harboring a murderer I have violated your right to revenge, and so force against me isn't aggression? This seems insane to me.

Just to clarify: You think that you have an ethical right to kill the murderer in revenge and that a just legal system should uphold your right to murder in revenge? Do you think that murder is the only crime which generates a right to revenge?

This seems like a very important issue for a free-market justice system to deal with. I'm stunned that a good many here at FTL, who are among the most liberty-minded in the world, think this way about it. Worries me a bit.

Ignored.

I swear to God, the new posters here are dumbshits.

[thomasjack]

Haha, I went reading Rothbard expecting to find an excellent argument against capital punishment, only to find that he agrees with you people. E.g:

In the question of bodily assault, where restitution does not even apply, we can again employ our criterion of proportionate punishment; so that if A has beaten up B in a certain way, then B has the right to beat up A (or have him beaten up by judicial employees) to rather more than the same extent.

Ignored.

I swear to God, the new posters here are dumbshits.

I started this thread to argue about this. Fuck off if you don't want to.

[DogOn]

Dear Fatcat...
I don't care who you are, where you are, or what you are...
If you rape and/or murder me and/or any of "mine"...
You WILL be hunted down and humanely extinguished...
If they don't put you down during the perpetration...

Don't care what you think about it...
What your friends and family think...
Or anyone else for that matter...

Food for thought...

Right.........

food for thought that doesn't involve thinking?

"I don't care what you think about it" is another way of saying shut up. You can drag out the sentiment as long as you want, but if you're only argument is because I want to and shut up, its not going to persuade me or any other rational thinking person.

I never put into question whether there are people who would murder, why would you go to the lengths of dragging it out like you where spoon feeding an obvious conclusion to a retard when I never contested the point in the first place?

If you don't care what I think why even mention me? If discussion of ideas and beliefs isn't what you're after, why even bother posting. Surely writing on a piece of paper would serve the same purpose.

The issue of murder, rights and justice is a hard one, and its hard to define what would be a system consonant with the nature of being and objective truth, especially when you have to deal with free market justice AND abstract human morality at the same time, but if you're not even going to make a meager attempt at discussing it above a level of personal preference and emotion, why bother talking about it? its significantly easier to say what ISN'T a good or logically consistent system.

Through this whole thread I've seen no argument on the side for revenge killing/eye for an eye above:

-If you kill then you deserve to be killed
-If you kill one of my family I'm going to kill you.
-If you don't agree with this you're inferior/beneath talking to
-Nothing you can say will change my mind/no other reason is needed

If murder is suddenly okay in the right circumstances, it can be right in any circumstance, so long as you think you have the right justification. If you don't believe there is any objective backing to people having a fundamental right not to be murdered then make that case, but then be consistent.

Its a very satisfying and self sealed logical package to say if you kill then you lose the right not to be killed, especially seeing as it satisfies a near universal emotional thirst for revenge, but its shallow logic. Why does the right to life encompass the right to kill those who take it?

 Murder does nothing to defend your rights, and if you get to murder because murder is wrong, its self defeating logic. You're permitted to do whatever is in your rights that harms no one else, and of restitution to restore what was lost during those rights violation.

When someone kills someone you know, you haven't lost anything that can be reclaimed by murder, except maybe a feeling, but even if feeling is basis for anything, can I make a girl sleep with me cause I felt bad when she turned me down? Can I not be fired because I will feel bad?  Morality is not a zero sum game, you don't get murder points when someone murders your mother, either its immoral, or its not.

If you [blank] one of my family members, I WILL [blank] you.

This statement is logically void, put any word you like in there, marry, fuck, touch, you need something more otherwise its just a specious catchphrase that means shit. Eye for an eye relies on an earnest emotional conviction from the person who believes it to glaze over the lack of founding in reality and the logical contradictions that come from it, and merely be satisfied with the appearance of reason, and a tidy justification for the satiation of your urge for revenge.

Tired now, but will come back and edit any meaningless waffle I let slip in.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

I've heard it said that the trouble with "an eye for an eye" is that eventually everyone is blind.

I've heard that as well. But I prefer to think that if enough people get gouged then those with remaining sight will "see the light".

That's what I've always believed, besides the incentive towards us types who would have a distinct advantage against those who were blinded because of their own deeds.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

If you are harboring murderers on your property, you deserve what's coming to you.

[BonerJoe]

If you are harboring murderers on your property, you deserve what's coming to you.

[Taors]

If you are harboring murderers on your property, you deserve what's coming to you.

I'd like to see their property go up in flames, Waco-style.

[trollfreezone]

If you are harboring murderers on your property, you deserve what's coming to you.

I'd like to see their property go up in flames, Waco-style.

I'd like to see Washington DC go up in flames, Waco-style--but I refuse to take part because it prolly wouldn't be productive.

[BonerJoe]

If you are harboring murderers on your property, you deserve what's coming to you.

I'd like to see their property go up in flames, Waco-style.

I'd like to see Washington DC go up in flames, Waco-style--but I refuse to take part because it prolly wouldn't be productive.

You'd have to find the datacenters first.

[Blackie]

Now if a guy takes out one of your eyes, and you would like restitution in the form of having the guys eye taken out

Take my eye out, I take your head off.

[Blackie]

If I rape your daughter do you get to rape mine?

No, I get to kill you and hide the body.

I don't need a system to help me.

My logic: Making the world a better place.

[DogOn]

If I rape your daughter do you get to rape mine?

No, I get to kill you and hide the body.

I don't need a system to help me.

My logic: Making the world a better place.

So the same logic of welfare, the holocaust, lynching, forced sterilization and a bunch of other really shitty ideas?

For everyone who's so sure that they'll do the right thing in revenge murdering, no ones said much beyond their will to revenge kill and how right it is.

I'm sure some of you might have some good reasons, but all I've seen so far is emotion, blood lust, "I will" and "I'm going to" which is not enough reason for any belief. Unless you think morals are purely subjective you need bigger basis for a belief other than "its whats right" and "eye for an eye". If you can justify murder for rape, why not 10 brutal assaults? Subjective morals are a dangerous thing.

[Taors]

If I rape your daughter do you get to rape mine?

No, I get to kill you and hide the body.

I don't need a system to help me.

My logic: Making the world a better place.

So the same logic of welfare, the holocaust, lynching, forced sterilization and a bunch of other really shitty ideas?

For everyone who's so sure that they'll do the right thing in revenge murdering, no ones said much beyond their will to revenge kill and how right it is.

I'm sure some of you might have some good reasons, but all I've seen so far is emotion, blood lust, "I will" and "I'm going to" which is not enough reason for any belief. Unless you think morals are purely subjective you need bigger basis for a belief other than "its whats right" and "eye for an eye". If you can justify murder for rape, why not 10 brutal assaults? Subjective morals are a dangerous thing.

I'm not only justifying revenge killing for rape, I'm justifying torture. Am I a sick mother fucker? Sure. I've never denied it.

[BonerJoe]

If I rape your daughter do you get to rape mine?

No, I get to kill you and hide the body.

I don't need a system to help me.

My logic: Making the world a better place.

So the same logic of welfare, the holocaust, lynching, forced sterilization and a bunch of other really shitty ideas?

For everyone who's so sure that they'll do the right thing in revenge murdering, no ones said much beyond their will to revenge kill and how right it is.

I'm sure some of you might have some good reasons, but all I've seen so far is emotion, blood lust, "I will" and "I'm going to" which is not enough reason for any belief. Unless you think morals are purely subjective you need bigger basis for a belief other than "its whats right" and "eye for an eye". If you can justify murder for rape, why not 10 brutal assaults? Subjective morals are a dangerous thing.

I'm not only justifying revenge killing for rape, I'm justifying torture. Am I a sick mother fucker? Sure. I've never denied it.

There's a good reason I put fatcat on ignore.