Does unprovoked murder previously consented to by contract violate the non-aggression principle? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14842250
Suppose a billionaire has a quickly progressing lethal heart disease, and there are no donators. Suppose he wants to make sure he gets a healthy heart in time, and so he invites 1,000 completely broke people with healthy hearts to participate in "a lottery with only one loser" and to sign a contract according to which 999 of them, the lottery winners, will get one million USD each from the billionaire. The one lottery "loser", picked by a provably perfect randomizer, will be seized, kicking and screaming, and killed by the billionaire's staff, after which the billionaire's medical team will transplant that person's heart into the billionaire's chest.

This would be unprovoked murder, and so it seems it would violate the non-aggression principle of right-wing libertarianism. After all, the victim most likely won't consent to getting killed once it's clear he is the one who is going to get killed.

However, on the other hand, the loser did, prior to losing, consent to the conditions. He signed a contract, and contracts should be honored. So, wouldn't stopping the billionaire's staff from enforcing the contract violate the non-aggression principle, by preventing the billionaire from executing an initially mutually voluntary contract that makes him lose a lot of money for nothing if it's not executed both ways?

How does libertarianism solve this dilemma?

I know most countries have laws that limit the legitimacy of contracts such that a contract of said kind would be considered "unreasonable" and thereby invalid. However, those countries are not libertarian (there is no purely libertarian country today as far as I know), and also, the lottery described above wouldn't be anywhere near clearly unreasonable to participate in. Think of it: if you're broke, it's entirely plausible that it would be rational for you to take a 0.1 percent risk of dying within the hour for a 99.9 percent chance of becoming a millionaire, isn't it? Life is not only about minimizing risk of premature death, but also, and even more, it's about life quality, and life quality can definitely be thoroughly enhanced by a million dollars if you are broke. And even if you personally wouldn't participate in such a dangerous lottery even if you were broke, you might be willing to admit that perhaps the decision in the lottery case should be up to each lottery participant as an intelligent, mature, informed adult, rather than being up to you, or a court, or the majority of the people, or anyone else but each lottery participant? People are legally allowed to deliberately risk their lives by far more than 0.1 percent for far smaller gains than a million dollars, in all sorts of ways, including many ways which most people think are stupid, in most countries today, and this would presumably be the case *especially* in a libertarian society.

Still, when the loser of the above described death lottery goes from "Yes, of course I want to take a 0.1 percent risk of dying for a 99.9 percent chance of getting a million dollars" to "Er... now that I lost, I change my mind! I don't want to die! Please don't kill me!", it somehow tends to make enforcing the contract feel morally repulsive to most people, including most libertarians, I would presume. And hey, it's *murder* - and murder is incompatible with the non-aggression principle of (right-wing) libertarianism, isn't it? On the other hand, so is the act of forcibly preventing a mutually voluntarily entered contract from being executed, something the police might have to do to save the lottery loser's life. It seems to be a dilemma. What's its proper (right-wing) libertarian solution?
#14933588
A voluntarist consent to being killed would not violate the NAP; hence consenting to such terms could not lead to a violation of the NAP, the NAP is violated only by non-consensual (assuming agents-of-consent) violation of one's rights to life, liberty, and property.

This even differs from the social contract; where the terms of the contract on the collective are binding even on individuals who themselves do not (or did not) consent or are overruled by the majority, even this system technically violates the NAP, but the scenario in this OP does not.
#14933621
Image

https://www.theonion.com/popular-new-am ... 1819917496

SEATTLE—Reporting that millions of customers had already signed up for the feature in the few hours since its launch, Amazon announced a new service Friday that comes to your house and kills you. “Amazon has always offered unparalleled customer service and convenience, and Amazon Slay is part of that philosophy,” said company spokesperson Leslie Rivera, adding that the service, which allows customers to choose between being shot, strangled, or beaten to death with one of several available blunt objects, was currently only available to Amazon Prime customers but would be expanding in coming months to satisfy the unprecedented demand. “In addition to giving subscribers the choice of multiple disposal options, including having their bodies buried in a shallow grave in the wilderness or being dissolved in a barrel of acid, Amazon Slay also features real-time text alerts that let you know exactly when one of our employees will be arriving at your home to take your life, or the life of a friend or relative if you choose the gift option.” At press time, Amazon announced it was working to improve the service’s compatibility with Amazon Echo so that customers could simply have their Alexa digital assistant kill them directly.
#14933803
SolarCross wrote:If you want to look at the ethics of contractual killing then the box standard everyday occurrence of euthanasia (assisted suicide) is more than sufficient.


Agreed.

A Deal is a deal, whether its ethical or not.

If its done without a deal, or without just cause (retaliation, etc.), then it is a violation of the NAP.

Simple as that.
#14933808
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Agreed.

A Deal is a deal, whether its ethical or not.

If its done without a deal, or without just cause (retaliation, etc.), then it is a violation of the NAP.

Simple as that.

That might be true for an atheist libertarian but I wonder if a Christian libertarian might not take a somewhat different understanding if they were to factor in their god and his property rights. See within the Christian world view man is the creation of god, so in some sense man begins as the property of god. God allows his property free will but also has some obligations too for how man should conduct himself. One of those obligations is the obligation not to murder, "thou shalt not murder". What kinds of killing counts as murder is potentially a complex and contentious question but potentially we can say that the lottery loser did not have the right to accept this bargain because that which he was choosing to give away, his life, didn't belong to himself wholly but at least in part belonged to god whom we could not reasonably presume to consent to the bargain given what we know of his intentions in his scripture.
#14933810
SolarCross wrote:That might be true for an atheist libertarian but I wonder if a Christian libertarian might not take a somewhat different understanding if they were to factor in their god and his property rights. See within the Christian world view man is the creation of god, so in some sense man begins as the property of god. God allows his property free will but also has some obligations too for how man should conduct himself. One of those obligations is the obligation not to murder, "thou shalt not murder". What kinds of killing counts as murder is potentially a complex and contentious question but assuming we can say that the lottery loser did not have the right to accept this bargain because that which he was choosing to give away, his life, didn't belong to himself wholly but at least in part belonged to god whom we could not reasonably presume to consent to the bargain given what we know of his intentions in his scripture.


The Christian answer to this point is only that Christians shouldn't concede to unethical contracts in the first place.

There are examples of this in Scripture, such as when Jephthah sacrificed his own daughter (contrary to Biblical Law prohibiting human sacrifice), in order to honor his own oath.

The issue here was that Jephthah made a foolish oath, but it neither negates the validity of oaths or of Biblical morality.

So, when it comes to contracts, I would not agree to the contract mentioned in the OP, nor would I join a voluntary nudist colony in Ancapistan, both would be valid contracts of an immoral or unlawful (biblically speaking) nature.
#14933816
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So, when it comes to contracts, I would not agree to the contract mentioned in the OP, nor would I join a voluntary nudist colony in Ancapistan, both would be valid contracts of an immoral or unlawful (biblically speaking) nature.

What of an atheist libertarian though? How could they come down against the enforcement of this contract?
#14933819
SolarCross wrote:What of an atheist libertarian though? How could they come down against the enforcement of this contract?


I don't think you can really be against the enforcement of a valid contract, and if your were morally opposed to it, you never should have joined it to begin with.

So lets use another example.

Lets say you sign a contract with a big black muslim that he can violently fuck you in the ass and then castrate you if you fail to hold up your end of the bargain to supply him with 15 pine trees by Noon.

If you fail to meet your end of the pre-signed contract, he is not violating the NAP by fucking you in the ass and cutting your balls off. He just isn't. This is true whether the retard (you in this case) that agreed to such a dumb fucking contract was a Christian or an atheist and bringing up your moral objections when the chickens come home to roost, whether valid or not, is too little too late.

Once again, I am not opposed to the enforcing of this contract (by the consenting parties) and I am not saying it is not a valid contract. The OP and my example are both valid contracts that the consenting parties have a natural right to enforce, but both are wicked and immoral and both parties are engaging in sin by entering into, and fulfilling, such contracts (according to my worldview).

That is my point.

As far as what sort of contracts an atheist can morally enter into versus what sort of contracts a Christian can enter into is dependent on their moral systems respectively.

Technically, I am a theonomist, so the sort of laws enforced on my property would look eerily similar to Sharia to most outsiders, but on my property and with people who voluntarily assent to abide by their enforcement via a contract or covenant on my property, such enforcement would not be a violation of the NAP and even an atheist could not object to their enforcement if he was stupid enough to agree to such a contract.

Thus, Contractual Validity ≠ Morality.
#14933823
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Contractual Validity ≠ Morality.

Contractual validity is a subset of morality, surely. The essential elements of a valid contract as recognised by English Common Law (in no small measure derived from Christian morality):
1. Offer
2. Consideration
3. Knowledge
4. Acceptance
A contract is not valid if it is not valid in all four qualities.

Everybody agrees that the OP's contract is valid on points 1, 3 & 4. However whether it is valid on point 2 depends on whether lottery loser actually wholly owns his life which is the consideration here. I believe only an atheist or perhaps also a pagan could begin to contemplate that lottery loser was the sole owner of himself. A christian or a jew, basically has the idea that there is another higher being with a higher claim on that life, thus lottery loser is in fact not in full ownership of the thing he is giving away making the contract invalid and unenforceable on point 2. For example there is nothing wrong in me selling something I own but no one would consider the selling of something I stole to be a valid contract no matter if the buyer understood completely what he is buying and agreed to buy it.

I think what I want to get at is that the OP contrived this scenario to deceptively leverage an unspoken Christian assumption on the sanctity of life to smear the ethics of contracts but the truth of what he is actually doing is he is using contractual law to smear atheism.
#14933833
SolarCross wrote: I believe only an atheist or a perhaps also a pagan could begin to contemplate that lottery loser was the sole owner of himself. A christian or a jew, basically has the idea that there is another higher being with a higher claim on that life, thus lottery loser is in fact not in full ownership of the thing he is giving away making the contract invalid and unenforceable on point 2. For example there is nothing wrong in me selling something I own but no one would consider the selling of something I stole to be a valid contract no matter if the buyer understood completely what he is buying and agreed to buy it.

I think what I want to get at is that the OP contrived this scenario to deceptively leverage an unspoken Christian assumption on the sanctity of life to smear the ethics of contracts but the truth of what he is actually doing is he is using contractual law to smear atheism.


That is an interesting claim, but once again, being moral agents purchased by the blood of Christ must effect what sort of contracts we consent to. Which goes to #2 you mentioned, I think even under a Christian ethic (which I hold to with a fundamentalist zeal), I don't see how the OP's scenatio lacked #2. If the consenting parties acknowledged and voluntarily consented to those terms, then they have bound themselves to the contract and the other party (the billionaire) cannot be said to be violating the NAP, as he created a contract and the other parties consented.

So let me go back to your remarks that I have placed in bold above.

Your point, if conceded, still brings up the question as to whether the billionaire had violated the NAP in enforcing the contract that the other party voluntarily consented to. I still say no even as a Christian.

You bring up that if Christian morality is true (atleast your interpretation of it) that one is not self-owned, but owned by God, then the contract is invalid. But assuming this interpretation is correct, we still have only two ways at looking at this scenarion:

1. If this morality is universally shared by all, then such an invalid contract could not and would not be struck and had no power to obligate anyone, in which case, the OP's scenario is nonsensical.

2. If we have a contract between a non-Christian billionaire and a Christain, and they have different ethical systems, then we would have conflicting views between the two parties as to whether the contract was valid. (Note: this is why marxists believe the state is necessary for property rights, in order to preserve contracts and enforce a common law-code for their making.....of course, a common religious worldview as in feudal Europe, is entirely sufficient for common-ethic contracts without need of a state).

Thus, if this is the case (having a non-Christian billionaire and Christian lottery-guy), the Christian has no moral right to assent to a contract that is believed to be invalid (why would he do that?); otherwise, if he does assent to such a contract he is granting its validity in the mind of the other party, thus the party cannot be said to violating the NAP as the consenting party communicated that he believed the contract to be valid from the start through his own consent (even if such a consent was contrary to his own professed Christian beliefs), so even if the Christian's morality is that such a contract cannot be valid, if he consents to it as if to validate it, the billionaire cannot be said to be violating the NAP by simply going on the other party's words and the terms of the agreement.

So, as far as the contract being invalid because the person that the billionaire is killing for a heart actually belongs to God, this is a theological point that the billionaire simply cannot contractually account for because God is not likely to come demanding reparations for a dead Christian who stupidly engaged in a contract that was technically invalid from the Divine perspective. :lol:

Thus, absent a common religious foundation, Christians simply must avoid engaging in contracts they believe to be immoral (theologically invalid); otherwise, by consenting to them, they validate the contract and consent to its validation, thus it cannot be reasonably maintained in that scenario that the billionaire is violating the NAP.

It just can't.
#14933840
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Thus, absent a common religious foundation, Christians simply must avoid engaging in contracts they believe to be immoral (theologically invalid); otherwise, by consenting to them, they validate the contract and consent to its validation, thus it cannot be reasonably maintained in that scenario that the billionaire is violating the NAP.

It just can't.

Definitely the billionaire if he was an atheist would in his own mind consider it to be a completely valid contract even on point 2, or indeed any atheist, pagans too I think. I think if the billionaire had enforced this contract in pagan Rome he would have gotten away with it, or indeed if he had done it under the jurisdiction of pagan vikings but if this had come up within the jurisdiction of a Christian court they would not allow it, even if they accepted that the billionaire in his own mind was not violating the NAP, because from a Christian point of view he objectively is violating it regardless of what he personally believes because of the Ten Commandments.
#14933852
this assumes a third party court though, and of course a Christian court would invalidate the contract in a civil suit, but what about in the absence of a court, we still must ask if the enforcement of the contract by the billionaire violated the NAP, and if both parties consented, the contract's enforcement by the billionaire manifestly is not.

Thats all I was saying.
#14933857
Victoribus Spolia wrote:this assumes a third party court though, and of course a Christian court would invalidate the contract in a civil suit, but what about in the absence of a court, we still must ask if the enforcement of the contract by the billionaire violated the NAP, and if both parties consented, the contract's enforcement by the billionaire manifestly is not.

Thats all I was saying.

We can't consider this "dilemma," as the OP calls it, separately from a "third party court" because by the very act of evaluating and judging this scenario we are ourselves acting as a third party court... Wouldn't that be a performative contradiction?

Consent just comprises two of the four parts to a contract (offer and acceptance) though and a valid contract needs all four. What if the billionaire had lied about the odds, thus point 3, knowledge, would not be valid and wouldn't that result in a NAP contravention if enforced? Just so, if point 2, consideration, is invalid, then that would be a NAP contravention if enforced. What if instead of being a child of god lottery loser was married? Prior to this scenario he had made all sorts promises to have and to hold, in sickness in health etc to a person, his wife, who presumably then through those promises contractually acquires a proprietorial claim on lottery loser's life which would require her to also consent to the deal with the billionaire for it to be valid. What if she prefers a living husband over a million dollar inheritance? If the billionaire enforces his claim then he is violating the wife of lottery loser's property claims on her husband's life.

To evaluate the non-aggression principle we must consider more than just consent we must consider also property rights.
#14933863
SolarCross wrote:We can't consider this "dilemma," as the OP calls it, separately from a "third party court" because by the very act of evaluating and judging this scenario we are ourselves acting as a third party court... Wouldn't that be a performative contradiction


Nice dig there with the performative contradiction ;) , but no, we are evaluating this scenario by the universally accepted laws of logic, from which the NAP derives, assuming the acceptance of the NAP alone in the context of Ancap thought, I believe it is rationally non-sensical to say the billionaire violated the NAP.

SolarCross wrote:though and a valid contract needs all four.


I am only going along with the common-law definition of yours for your sake, but I think we may be speaking past each other, so how exactly is common-law defining consideration in case I am thinking of something else?

SolarCross wrote:Just so, if point 2, consideration, is invalid, then that would be a NAP contravention if enforced. What if instead of being a child of god lottery loser was married? Prior to this scenario he had made all sorts promises to have and to hold, in sickness in health etc to a person, his wife, who presumably then through those promises contractually acquires a proprietorial claim on lottery loser's life which would require her to also consent to the deal with the billionaire for it to be valid. What if she prefers a living husband over a million dollar inheritance? If the billionaire enforces his claim then he is violating the wife of lottery loser's property claims on her husband's life.


The problem with this seems to be your claim that a person cannot enter a contract if his fulfilling of the terms might cause him to violate different contract obligations elsewhere, but this claim is outlandish.

For instance, if you under-perform at work, a term of the employment contract may require your termination, but if you are terminated, you cannot honor your contract with your bank to pay the mortgage on your home, so under your argument a business could never fire an employee? That is insane.

Please tell me how I am misunderstanding?

Also, didn't you leave the AnCap movement anyway?
#14933960
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Nice dig there with the performative contradiction ;) , but no, we are evaluating this scenario by the universally accepted laws of logic, from which the NAP derives, assuming the acceptance of the NAP alone in the context of Ancap thought, I believe it is rationally non-sensical to say the billionaire violated the NAP.

Within the context of Ancap thought yes the billionaire is within his rights because Ancap thought presumes self-ownership, thus if lottery loser wholly owns himself then he is within his rights to give it away and once it is given away it is no longer his. Instead of losing a heart he could sell his self-ownership and become a slave or have it repossessed on the basis of an unpaid debt. This is why ancap thought is essentially atheist and not Christian. A pagan of ancient times would find ancap thought remarkably familiar. (just for fun ancap is an anagram of pacan)
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I am only going along with the common-law definition of yours for your sake, but I think we may be speaking past each other, so how exactly is common-law defining consideration in case I am thinking of something else?

The terms of the contract, those property rights being operated on by the contract. In the OP's case that is the heart and the conditions upon which it will be transferred.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:The problem with this seems to be your claim that a person cannot enter a contract if his fulfilling of the terms might cause him to violate different contract obligations elsewhere, but this claim is outlandish.

For instance, if you under-perform at work, a term of the employment contract may require your termination, but if you are terminated, you cannot honor your contract with your bank to pay the mortgage on your home, so under your argument a business could never fire an employee? That is insane.

Please tell me how I am misunderstanding?

No, because the bank has a property claim with the mortagee not the company. It's not the same thing at all. I am saying that whether it is right for lottery loser to sell his heart depends on whether he has exclusive ownership over it or whether others also have claim on it. What if lottery loser was the chattel slave of another person would he be able to sell his heart then?
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Also, didn't you leave the AnCap movement anyway?

Yes a bit. I still consider myself a fellow traveller though. I don't think ancaps properly appreciate the is-ought fallacy, especially where it concerns their non-aggression principle. The non-aggression principle is a perfectly fine summation of civilised conduct, in that respect there is nothing new in it, but that isn't a natural law nor can it be unless a creator god willed it to be. It's an "ought" not an "is". The natural law is might is right. I have some other quibbles too but I won't get into it now.
#14933965
SolarCross wrote:This is why ancap thought is essentially atheist and not Christian.


Here is where we fundamentally disagree, I joined the AnCap movement because I found it to be more consistent with Christianity, not less.

Your insistence of the Christian concept of "belonging to God" is way overblown in this context, for that concept is a theological triviality if anything (especially in this conversation), for those who are un-redeemed are utterly lost and are hopelessly depraved and those who have been converted are said to belong to God, but this "belonging" has only to do with ecclesial fellowship, soteriological standing, and moral responsibility. Nothing more.

It really has no bearing on the question of self-ownership as AnCaps describe, just like God technically "owning all the world" really has little bearing on individual property rights other than Christians are expected to use their own resources in ways that honor God.

Which is my point, you are trying to prove too much with your narrowing in on very peripheral theological notions like men "belonging" to God.

Further, AnCap thought has problems without a common moral code to mediate contracts (which Christianity provides), which is why the break-up of Christendom during the Reformation lead to nationalisms and the rise of statism (as a unified Christian order was compromised) which was then accelerated by the enlightenment (I make this critique even as a Lutheran).

the Medieval and Renaissance world of Christendom approximates AnCap ideals about as closely as any society ever has and this is not a coincidence. A Biblical and Augustinian worldview does give a basis for this (The Just War Theory is basically the same as the NAP).

Certain texts, warning against having a kings like in 1 Samuel 8:10-22, and the responsibility for covenant-obligation resting clearly on family-clans as in Joshua 24:14-15 all seem to indicate the default model, and as I cited earlier, that evil contracts are still valid contracts is clearly seen in how vows and oaths were handled in the Old Testament (Judges 11:29-40). The Christian tolerance and pragmatic use of statist-systems was always just that, pragmatic. However, states, whether monarchies or empires, are always viewed in a negative light even if God can "use them" for good; rather, it appears that the model most directly instituted and most theologically ideal, was always the decentralized rule of patriarchs over their own family holdings in accordance with theonomic law, which is nothing more than Anarcho-Capitalism.

Bet let me address a couple of your other points on this for clarification:

SolarCross wrote:The terms of the contract, those property rights being operated on by the contract. In the OP's case that is the heart and the conditions upon which it will be transferred.


If that is the case then I don't see how you could possibly claim that the OP's contract scenario lacked consideration, it clearly met this criteria.

SolarCross wrote:I am saying that whether it is right for lottery loser to sell his heart depends on whether he has exclusive ownership over it or whether others also have claim on it.


I get your point, I do, but the question is whether the billionaire violates the NAP, if he is acting on the presumption of a valid contract based on the consent of the other party, his enforcing of the terms of that contract are not an act of unjustified aggression, this is the same with receiving stolen property under the presumption it was not stolen, If you sell me an iphone that does not belong to you, and I buy it based on all available information to me, my demanding the phone in exchange for the money I gave you is not extortion, it is a fair demand until the REAL owner of that phone comes and clarifies matter, in which case, he gets his phone back and I get my money back. However, if no owner ever claims that iphone as his "Stolen property" I am not obligated to assume such a transaction as automatically invalid under the presumption that such a phone was in fact stolen. Otherwise, how could any transactions ever occur?

But this situation becomes even more stark when we contrast the "doctrine" you are focusing on v. your example of chattel slavery.

SolarCross wrote:What if lottery loser was the chattel slave of another person would he be able to sell his heart then?


I would say this example is the same as in the case of someone selling stolen property (as my phone example above), the purchaser is not obligated to presume every marketed good he seeks to buy as being stolen, thus, up until the point that the property is claimed to belong to a third party (thus invalidating the contract), the buyer enforcing the terms of the contract cannot be said to violate the NAP.

The billionaire would thus only be violating the NAP if the owner of the slave provided clear evidence that the slave was in fact his.

Thus, in that instance, if the slave-owner refused to return the slave in light of such evidence or reimburse the owner (assuming he already killed the slave), only at that point would he be violating the NAP (note: I am not necessarily saying that chattel slavery is unqualifiedly acceptable in Ancapistan, I am a voluntarist after all, but that is a separate conversation).

Now, this point above goes right back to my point that you are really misusing and misunderstanding the doctrine of Divine ownership. Unless God comes down and tells the atheist billionaire not kill the Christian because he has no right to sacrifice himself, the owner cannot be said to be violating the NAP just as in the case of the chattel slave. But once again, this is not how the idea of divine ownership is construed in Scripture anyway, its a concept regarding redemption and one's standing before God and one cannot infer from that doctrine against the Ancap notion of self-ownership anymore than one can infer from the notion that God "owns" the world the idea of collectivism. It just not what those doctrines are about.

SolarCross wrote:I don't think ancaps properly appreciate the is-ought fallacy, especially where it concerns their non-aggression principle.


Fuck dude, who have you been reading then? The reason I accepted the NAP from my formerly Will-To-Power position was because I found that it avoided the is-ought fallacy as a deductive (Rather than an empirical) principle. Hume's is-ought was about the problem of inferring obligation from observation after all. Something the NAP does not do.

Perhaps we need to have a talk about bringing you back into the the Ancap fold. We need to have a coherent team on the PoFo right after all if we are going to successfully cock-block the marxists on here who want to ass-fuck the western world..... ;)
#14933973
@Victoribus Spolia,

But wouldn't that mean that Christians have to be okay with others having abortions on their own property?

Also, why would slavery be wrong? If you own them you own them. :excited:
#14933997
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Here is where we fundamentally disagree, I joined the AnCap movement because I found it to be more consistent with Christianity, not less.

Compared to the modern cult of "statism" yes of course. The overlap is not 100% though. To the sensibilities of a medieval Christian modern ancaps would be Shylocks as in the Merchant of Venice. The OP is really a degraded reprise of the Merchant of Venice with the billionaire standing in for Shylock and the lottery loser standing in for Antonio, instead of a pound of flesh, a heart.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Your insistence of the Christian concept of "belonging to God" is way overblown in this context, for that concept is a theological triviality if anything (especially in this conversation), for those who are un-redeemed are utterly lost and are hopelessly depraved and those who have been converted are said to belong to God, but this "belonging" has only to do with ecclesial fellowship, soteriological standing, and moral responsibility. Nothing more.

It's not overblown at all, I was understating it if anything.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:If that is the case then I don't see how you could possibly claim that the OP's contract scenario lacked consideration, it clearly met this criteria.

It had a consideration but the consideration is not valid if lottery loser doesn't have exclusive ownership over the thing he intends to give away. Just as you later realise it's comparable to selling stolen goods.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:I get your point, I do, but the question is whether the billionaire violates the NAP, if he is acting on the presumption of a valid contract based on the consent of the other party, his enforcing of the terms of that contract are not an act of unjustified aggression, this is the same with receiving stolen property under the presumption it was not stolen, If you sell me an iphone that does not belong to you, and I buy it based on all available information to me, my demanding the phone in exchange for the money I gave you is not extortion, it is a fair demand until the REAL owner of that phone comes and clarifies matter, in which case, he gets his phone back and I get my money back. However, if no owner ever claims that iphone as his "Stolen property" I am not obligated to assume such a transaction as automatically invalid under the presumption that such a phone was in fact stolen. Otherwise, how could any transactions ever occur?

But this situation becomes even more stark when we contrast the "doctrine" you are focusing on v. your example of chattel slavery.

I would say this example is the same as in the case of someone selling stolen property (as my phone example above), the purchaser is not obligated to presume every marketed good he seeks to buy as being stolen, thus, up until the point that the property is claimed to belong to a third party (thus invalidating the contract), the buyer enforcing the terms of the contract cannot be said to violate the NAP.

The billionaire would thus only be violating the NAP if the owner of the slave provided clear evidence that the slave was in fact his.

Thus, in that instance, if the slave-owner refused to return the slave in light of such evidence or reimburse the owner (assuming he already killed the slave), only at that point would he be violating the NAP (note: I am not necessarily saying that chattel slavery is unqualifiedly acceptable in Ancapistan, I am a voluntarist after all, but that is a separate conversation).

I don't find it particularly obvious in this case that it is reasonable for the billionaire to safely assume that the lottery loser has the right to sell his heart. Given the seriousness of the consequences of making a false assumption he should really not be surprised if he faces murder charges.

But no this isn't a separate question. Alone of all ideologists Christians came down against the chattel slavery of humans. Christianity rejected the idea that someone can sell themselves into slavery. Ancap logic exactly like pagan logic has no way to reject it. This is a big difference.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Fuck dude, who have you been reading then? The reason I accepted the NAP from my formerly Will-To-Power position was because I found that it avoided the is-ought fallacy as a deductive (Rather than an empirical) principle. Hume's is-ought was about the problem of inferring obligation from observation after all. Something the NAP does not do.

Perhaps we need to have a talk about bringing you back into the the Ancap fold. We need to have a coherent team on the PoFo right after all if we are going to successfully cock-block the marxists on here who want to ass-fuck the western world..... ;)

I was always a pretty shallow ancap and I never read that much but here on pofo many moons ago I was presented with an argument by Hans Hoppe that the non-aggression principle was something like a natural law which I debunked in seconds flat. I don't think that's a huge issue mind because as I said the NAP is just fine as normative thing anyway. I think my problem is that the NAP as a norm ultimately rests on "might is right" to work which is okay but I never saw an ancap demonstrate awareness of that.

I think in a way you are like Annatar's parallel. He is trying to tie communism into Christianity as if Christianity isn't good enough on its own and despite the fact that communism is fundamentally atheist or even satanic. You are trying to tie Anarcho-Capitalism into Christianity as if Christianity wasn't good enough on its own and despite the fact that anarcho-capitalism is fundamentally atheist or even pagan.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Ireland joins South Africa in the charges of genoc[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Everything is good here, @wat0n :)

Sounds like perfect organized crime material ex[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]