The question I posed involved this scenario: "I say that it would be Wrong for someone to Punish Kevin for that act. As I understand it, you would agree, because any Punishment after the fact cannot be considered Defensive."
SO: ONCE AGAIN: Do you agree or do you not agree that it would be Immoral to punish Kevin, after the fact, for what he just did? --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Zack Bass wrote: > > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" > > <gfyork@> wrote: > > > >> I will, however, bow to the power of wiki and agree that you have > >> established your point: some AnCaps will allow retaliatory force in > >> excess of mere defense. Limited, and proportionate force, mind you. > >> > >> > > > > And so will I. As Kinsella points out, though, bowing to a practical > > system of deciding what Punishments are proper is not a Moral > > concession that it is not proper to Punish - it is merely something > > that nice people like you and me are willing to agree to. > > > > Here's what I think we have arrived at that we CNA agree on, correct > > me if I've got you wrong again, I do try: > > > You try to get me wrong? I think I believe that. :) You sure did > succeed. > > Suppose Jane goes back on her Promise and refuses to live up to her > > Moral Obligation according to their Contract. So, in accordance with > > their Contract's Non-Performance Clause, Kevin cuts out her heart and > > sells her body to the Organ/Tissue/Bone Banks. > > I say that it would be Wrong for someone to Punish Kevin for that act. > > As I understand it, you would agree, because any Punishment after the > > fact cannot be considered Defensive. > > > > Point one: I am not Kinsella. I didn't quote him; you did. If either > of us can be presumed to accept Kinsella's views, it's surely you. (Of > the prominent AnCaps, it's probably David Friedman who best would > represent my current position. From what I've read of his published > work, I've found nothing substantially worthy of dispute. I believe > I've already mentioned this.) > > Point two: you either neglected to read (despite my hint) or simply > prefer not to mention that Kinsella would consider your Jane/Kevin > contract to be invalid himself. He very specifically considers just > such a scenario as you present. > > Point three: > > The scenario is unrealistic. Organ banks wouldn't survive if they > accepted Jane's organs from you. > > "Abstain from the appearance of evil." (King James version.) It's not > the law; it's just a good idea. Don't walk like a predator, don't talk > like a predator, don't in any way at all act like a predator and it's > unlikely you'll be treated as one. Do try not to frighten your neighbors. > > No "organ bank" in your scenario is going to purchase Jane's heart from > you; they will require (and the neighborhood will require of them) > iron-clad proof of provenance for each organ in their possession and > proof that each was obtained in a fashion nonthreatening to the > community. The alternative is far too scary. Further, to protect > themselves from false suit, it's in the organ bank's self-interest to > require and maintain full documentation. > > Point four: > > The scenario is again unrealistic; Kevin is too stupid to believe. Why > is he messing around with Jane? Compassion? I hardly think so. If he > wants a sex-slave, all he has to do is advertise. Their seem to be > plenty of Submissives who desire a Master. Jane is burdened with > rug-rats; even if they weren't sickly, rug-rats _always_ play hell with > the sex life. Ask anyone "married with children." > > If, on the other hand, Kevin is hoping Jane will default so he may > indulge his -- less attractive urges, then, shoot -- cut to the chase: > advertise for a suicide who is willing to endure a little pain in order > to leave a nice bequest. All done up properly and well documented, I > wouldn't have a problem with that -- assuming you (sorry, Kevin) set > them free if they ask. > > Now Kevin might, of course, try to ensure that they could not possibly > ask. That's a more dangerous course and also stupid. If they ask you > to stop, you not only get to keep your money; you get to play with them > for free. I mean Kevin. (It might even be supposed that Kevin was a > humanitarian: he helped a determined suicide rediscover an urge to > live. Perhaps his new-found will to live will persist. Consider a > career as a therapist. You could pretend dispassion and reluctance and > actually get others to pay you to hurt and/or kill them. You present > the torture as a necessary preliminary to verify that they truly want to > die. And of course you mention that it sometimes proves therapeutic. I > mean Kevin, darn it.) > > But if Kevin is just not going to feel fulfilled unless he can dismember > a truly unwilling victim, I'm afraid I just can't help him. I'd suggest > he try to content himself with virtual reality. Or prepare himself for > that hoard of ravening neighbors. > > G. >
