Since it is not a crime to be alive (except during over-population), only our actions can be considered criminal... it is a matter of choice... do we have a choice not to steal? Unless we suffer from over-population, then yes we do...
If we (as individuals) have sufficient access to natural resources, then a crime (to be defined soon here, below) cannot be justified. If there are not sufficient natural resources for everyone then chaos (to mean the antonym of peace) and violence will be inevitable. But since there are sufficient natural resources for everyone, there is no legitimate reason not to have peace.
So then, it can be said that given that we do have a sufficiency of natural resources to commit a crime is an avoidable act and it is natural (and not objectionable) for you to face consequences for doing so.
It is not a crime to be alive (except perhaps if the environment is over-populated) so then we can commit a "crime" only by doing something, in contrast to not doing anything (being inactive). The law concerns actions...
A crime is when we impose ourselves on another person (or property, in this context they can be seen an synonymous) in a way that has not given them a chance to (reasonably? see "ambiguous violence" below; some circumstances might be argued either way) refuse.
So we can consider (compare) some behaviours (actions) against this definition (of crime) to see what is a crime and what is not... Firstly violating someone's personal property (bodily harm if we allow self-ownership) is a crime because (presumably) the victim did not consent to the action. Consenting sex is not a crime, rape is a crime. Freedom of association is not a crime unless one or more of those involved is present against their will... Equally free trade (to mean voluntary co-operation) is not a crime...
So if the State chooses to observe the NAP and to "punish" only crimes under this definition, what type of activities will constitute crime? We could argue that to occupy an unfair share of the natural resources is a crime since it relies on prior aggression. Even if land has been acquired in the past with State approval, the argument is still valid if we allow that the State (in the past) acted in contravention of the NAP. Other crimes could include damage to the (shared) environment such as air or land pollution... A more contentious crime might be anti-social behavior if we have suffered "ambiguous violence" such as noise pollution.
Given that we don't have the "right" to object to freedom of association we cannot object to a party going on at our neighbour's house unless we suffer in some way, perhaps from noise pollution. Our only right is not to be transgressed against (we then have only negative rights).
Violence and the threat of violence...
If we have freedom of speech, is it criminal to threaten violence towards another person or property? Do we have the right to prevent someone from speaking in this way? We might have the right to prevent someone from creating noise pollution (whatever the content) but should we be able to prevent consenting people from threatening one-another? Do we have the right to prevent someone from reporting (perhaps to the potential victim) that someone else has stated an intention to perform violence?
We must presume (in the absence of a claim of noise pollution) that the threatened person does not object, so then if no one is harmed there can be no crime. Equally consenting harm is not a crime as in the case of ill-advised plastic surgery. But has a crime been committed if a person is told something they would not want to hear? Yes, it could be argued that this is anti-social behavior causing distress and is a type of "ambiguous violence"... So the threat of violence is also a contravention of the NAP.
The criteria for determining if an action constitutes a crime is not whether other people will object, but rather if they do object (and if (potentially) affected parties are unaware, would they object if they were knowledgeable of your actions...), are those objections reasonable?
If we want to live in a peaceful Society we should ask what actions if they are performed by everyone lead to harmony? If everyone violates the NAP then clearly we end up with a disordered and violent Society. If everyone observes the NAP, the opposite is true. But do we have the right to harm ourselves? If the NAP is "valid" because it is good (for everyone) if everyone follows it, then do I have the right to prevent you from harming yourself for the same reasons? Which would deny self-ownership... Self-harm is not disruptive to others.
Crimes are defined by punishments... If someone has done a crime it is acceptable for them to be punished (eg repatriation of stolen goods, proportionate).
We seek to determine what is (and isn't) a crime in order that we may allocate (and justify) punishments, so that we can live in a more harmonious Society. What logic is it then for anyone to punish what is not a crime, punishment for its own sake... We cannot think that punishment is good for everyone to do. It is certainly a violation of the NAP but does punishment (by everyone) lead to more peace? No, it is the opposite of peace... If we want a peaceful Society we should punish only in retaliation. Since to collaborate co-operatively (by their (our) own "free will") does not violate the NAP then Income Tax is a crime. For violence (or the threat of violence) not to be a crime it needs to be a justifiable retaliation (to some prior crime).
If a crime is defined to be that which is punishable under the law of the State then voluntary co-operation (employment) is a crime (according to the State) since it is punished by Income Tax. Anything that is punished is illegal (even if the punishment is minor) and by this definition, employment is illegal.
So if we have the right to prevent people from (certain) actions, but not insist that they do certain things (we have negative rights) what things is it reasonable for us to have the right to prevent them from doing? Clearly it is not reasonable for me to object to a pair of consenting adults having sex, but if I am sleeping in the next hotel room (and they are loud) perhaps I have a stronger case because I have been affected. It is not reasonable for me to complain that I don't like people having sex (without giving a justifiable reason) since I cannot hear the activity. People are free to have sex because it is a free country and it has not been shown that to have sex is bad for people as a whole to do and until it is, we presume that no one has the right to prevent it...
Privacy is peace...
Privacy means that we have the right to refuse others access to our person and property... They do not have the right to control our actions (self-ownership) unless it is harmful to them personally (or a bad thing for everyone to do? But who gets to decide what is healthy? Self-ownership is more important than the "public good", if only because we can't know for certain what is good for Society (should the Messiah be allowed to kill himself (or herself)? If no then being "virtuous" becomes a disadvantage, if we don't want that outcome (for Society) then we must allow (for) self-ownership and assess harm only among those who have not given consent, or who weren't aware of the action in question and might not have given consent)... Self-harm (such as taking drugs, if it is harmful to do so...) should not be illegal? But does a healthy person lose property rights when a drug addict needs a fix? If no, then self-harm punishes itself... and we must allow the "right" for (consenting) self-harm). Harm to one's self is different from harm to a non-consenting other person. Can there be harm if the action is known to the affected parties and no one objects? Is it legitimate to violate the NAP out of love and affection? No, unless it can be established that self-ownership has ceased to be valid due to mental illness or insanity (but this is a weak position since who can say for certain?)...
So we are "allowed" to kill ourselves but not to violate the NAP (because both are consistent with (derived from?) from self-ownership)... we can do harm if consent is given (but is it still harm?). No harm (is done) if all involved agree.
...and if we have the right to refuse others access to our person and property this means that we have privacy (if we want it). To have peace means that we cannot retaliate against someone who has denied us access to their person or property. The NAP means that we do not have the right to force other people to do what we want, unless it can be established that they have performed a crime.
To deny self-ownership (either by contravening the NAP or by seeking to prevent (consenting) self-harm) leads to bad outcomes... It is better that we each make our own decisions (according to our preferences). Why should people be prevented from doing what they want to do, unless a crime has been proven? We have the right to intervene in other's actions only if they are negatively affecting other people...
(Unless we reject self-ownership) Our only right is the right to prevent other people from acting a certain (harmful) way (which denies the self-ownership that other people have over their property, including their person). We can only, if we accept self-ownership, act (to mean the use of force) in self-defence (be it that of a group or individual)... To think the opposite is a "survival of the fittest" approach.
Friday 10 April 2009
1 comment:
but isn't this nonsense?
Post a Comment