The Ethics of Lawsuits

The BBQ Pit
101

Hitler would have said that! He also would have said the exact opposite! In fact, every post so far in this thread–including this one!–has said something which Adolph would have endorsed!

Oh ohh, sorry about that, but these unfortunate and unsubstantiated “Hitler allegations” means that this thread has “unraveled”, and needs to be closed so that it is put out of its misery, which is probably for the best, because it’s located in the wrong forum anyway.

Dorothy (the one in the Wizard of Oz) closed her eyes and murmured, “There’s no place like home”, and lo and behold, she returned home, and was welcomed, and vowed never to wander from her domicile again. Which was located next door to the house where the prodigal son lived, who also was happy to be back. Two individuals, one secular, the other sacred, both worthy of emulation.

102

Thanks Lib

Since you’ve been actually had to do some work, and I’ve actually had to do some work as well, I’ve taken some time to put my thoughts and questions in order.

It seems to me that everyone else here is focusing on the questions of the relations between Libertaria and other “countries” in the area. These are a fascinating and important issues, but I’d like to continue to ask some questions about the internal law of Libertaria applicable to citizens of Libertaria for actions taking place wholly within the borders of Libertaria.

Perhaps you can think of me as a potential citizen of Libertaria, who is just making inquiries before he signs the contract to join up. What I’m interested in is what my neighbors and I in Libertaria can do, leaving aside for the moment the questions about what will happen when my neighbors and I interact with folks in another country.

In the Anglo-American legal system there are two broad classifications of legal actions, civil and criminal. Oversimplifying, in a civil suit, an individual (or other legal entity), the plaintiff, is suing another individual (or other legal entity), the defendant, for some sort of injury to the plaintiff that the defendant is alleged to be legally responsible for. In a civil suit, the plaintiff can seek a variety of relief, including monetary damages, a declaratory judgment (a declaration that something is legally true, such as the plaintiff owns property claimed by the defendant), specific performance (a court order that the defendant fulfil what the defendant promised in a contract), or injunction (an order that the defendant do or refrain from doing something). One major class of civil litigation is torts, civil wrongs, which deal with injuries to person or property (or sometimes other interests) caused either intentionally or by negligence, the failure to exercise due care under the circumstances.

In criminal law, an arm of the government, the prosecution, is seeking to prove that an individual (or other legal entity), the defendant, committed a crime and should therefore be punished by imprisonment or a fine (or, rarely, some other punishments). The theory in criminal law is not that the defendant caused an injury to someone, but rather that the defendant “breached the King’s peace” (to use an obsolete, but still useful, metaphor), and therefore is entitled to be punished.

We have previously focused on legal responses to trespassing. This is actually a very good choice because most crimes and intentional torts against person or property derive from the ancient legal writ of trespass vi and armis (with force and arms). Now there are many actions that would be both actionable under civil and criminal law. For instance, if our landowner unjustifiably shot at our trespassing kid and injured him, he would be liable to pay the kid compensation for the injuries he received under the civil tort of battery. He would also be liable to be prosecuted for the crime of assault.

(1) My initial question is whether Libertaria subjects its citizens to both criminal and civil liability (and I’ll number my questions for ease of reference). More specifically, in the example given above, we’ve already established that unless the landowner was justified (i.e. had tried all lesser force to protect his property), he would have breached the “one law” by initiating force. Well, in this case is the landowner (a) subject to prosecution by the “government” of Libertaria for initiating the force, (b) subject to personal liability to the kid to compensate him for his injuries, © both, (d) neither or (e) some other answer.

(2) Now there are many times that something which is a crime creates no civil liability, and conversely, when there is civil liability but no crime. One example of a crime without civil liability would be reckless endangerment. For instance, if the landowner, while hidden behind his house, recklessly fired his gun into the air so that the bullets fell near a kid standing, with permission, on a neighboring property, but fortunately not hitting the kid or causing any other harm. Now, this would be considered a “breach of the peace” in the Anglo-American legal system, and I assume that it would be an initiation of force under the one law of Libertaria (even though that force ultimately was expended harmlessly). In this case is the landowner (a) subject to prosecution by the “government” of Libertaria for initiating the force, (b) subject to personal liability to the kid to compensate him for the risk he faced (or for some other reason), © both, (d) neither or (e) some other answer.

(3) Another crime without civil liability is attempt. Let’s say, for instance, the landowner, without justification, aimed and fired his gun at the trespassing kid, but the bullet sailed past the kid without the kid’s realizing it. This would be, most likely, considered attempted murder under the Anglo-American legal system, and I imagine, an initiation of force under the one rule of Libertaria. In this case is the landowner (a) subject to prosecution by the “government” of Libertaria for initiating the force, (b) subject to personal liability to the kid to compensate him for the risk he faced (or for some other reason), © both, (d) neither or (e) some other answer.

(4) Switching it around, civil liability without a crime may be found in an uintentional trespass. For instance, let’s say the kid, honestly and reasonably believing he has permission to be there, trespasses onto the landowner’s land, causing damage to the property. Under the Anglo-American legal system there would not be a crime, because the kid did not have a criminal state of mind (and I can do a short side number about mens rea and actus reus if you’d like), but the kid would be liable for the damage he caused. I’m not sure whether the law of Liberteria would consider this to be an initiation of force. Anyway, in this case is the kid (a) subject to prosecution by the “government” of Libertaria for initiating the force, (b) subject to personal liability to the landowner to compensate him for damage caused, © both, (d) neither or (e) some other answer.

(5) Another area of civil liability without a crime is neglegence, or the failure to exercise due care. Let’s say that the kid is driving, with permission, on a road adjacent to the landowner’s land. His mind wanders, and during a period of inattention he loses control of his car, which goes on to the landowner’s land and causes damage. Under the Anglo-American system, this would be negligence and the kid would be liable for the damage, but there is no crime. Initiation of force in Libertaria, I don’t think so, but it’s Lib’s country. Again, here is the kid (a) subject to prosecution by the “government” of Libertaria for initiating the force, (b) subject to personal liability to the landowner to compensate him for damage caused, © both, (d) neither or (e) some other answer.

I think that’s enough for now, though I have some more questions banging around my head.

Thanks for your help, Lib. But, here in the Pit, if you don’t answer you’re a corrupted carrot.

103

Jesus Christ, you guys, can’t we summarize this? I recommend “Fuck you and yo momma.”

104

Wasamatta, Ed. Can’t you see that this is all a little light-hearted ribbing.

105

Ed Zotti said

You know, one of you moderators could slide this thread into GD…

Oh, and Fuck you, yo mamma, and yo great greasy grandma just to stay OT for this board.

Kevin Allegood,

“At least one could get something through Trotsky’s skull.”

  • Joseph Michael Bay
106

Oh, Albert Einstein, Ed. Why the Hale do you have to pick my God’s name for your Hawking curse words?

See y’all Sunday.

107

This thread has attained the state of nirvana. Its desire for anyone else to post to it has been extinguished.

Possible alternate activities, now that this thread is become complete:

  1. Mow an entire lawn, one blade of grass at a time, using fingernail clippers.
    or
  2. Roll a large rock to the top of the hill, let it roll down (taking advantage of the ready available of gravity), repeat until the sun burns out.
    or
  3. Arrange all the items in your kitchen cabinets by color. Then by height. Then by weight. Then in alphabetical order. Then by country of origin. Then by solid, liquid, gaseous, plasma, or Bose-Einstein condensate. Then, reverse order for all of the preceding. Next, buy more stuff, and start all over again.
    or
  4. Chain yourself to a rock, and let a large bird pluck at your liver, for all eternity.
108

Guys, I wonder how long it’ll take whitetho to figure out that we’re just doing this thread to piss him off. Looks like it’s working.

109

Sorry if I misunderstood your position, Riboflavin. It seemed that you were saying that Lib and I were outside the libertarian mainstream by saying that “excessive defensive force=coercion.” In what I’ve read by libertarians, discussions about self-defense have usually included phrases such as “by whatever means necessary”, “in an appropriate manner”, “using all necessary force”, etc. Words like “necessary” and “appropriate” are obviously subjective; I took it as a given that subjectivity is available within the philosophy.

I don’t want to continue misunderstanding you; can we clear something up? All these hypotheticals we’ve been using basically center around this problem:

Libertaria citizen Y trespasses on Riboflavia citizen X’s property; X kills Y in defense.

Your objections to a libertarian context seem to be:

  1. Libertaria can’t do anything about the problem, since X is acting in self-defense, which is permitted. Therefore X gets away with evil.
  2. If Libertaria does try to do something about it, it violates its own principles in one of two ways:
    a) It invents a notion of “excessive defensive force=coercion” out of thin air, since this subjective notion cannot be derived from the clearly objective definitions of coercion and force that are the core of the philosophy.
    b) Even if Libertaria is granted “excessive defensive force=coercion,” then it still violates its principles if it insists on applying its subjective measure of “excessive” to X’s actions. The incident took place in X’s (and Riboflavia’s) domain, so the subjective measure rightfully should be made by X and Riboflavia.

Is this a fair assessment of your position? Please correct me if I have it wrong.

As for your other objections to “Libertaria,” these are more directed at Lib’s implementation; I’ll have to let him answer them tomorrow.

110

Gaudere

Yeah, I started thinking that some time ago. It reminded me a bit of the free-will/predestination debate. Looking back over my own posts, after being away from them for several days, I can see where someone coming in from some other reference frame might easily go, “Huh? What the hell are they arguin’ about?”

I’ll just restate my whole assertion set this way: if you consider the end to be defined as a praxis, then yes, the means (also a praxis) are always justified by the end. But if you consider the end to be defined as a state (as I do), then no, the means are never justified by the end.

Billdo

Cool. Yes, I got practically everything done that we had targeted.

Okay.

Neat.

If this is headed where I think it’s headed, then a tip o’ the hat to you!

Wow. Breaching the King’s peace. Fascinating.

Let me say how much I appreciate your teaching me about that. By your simply taking the time and trouble, I now understand much better why I often get the message board equivalent of “a weird look” whenever I talk about the law in Libertaria. I’ll presume these matters you’ve enumerated are common knowledge among most people, though they weren’t to me. Knowing it now, however, makes me very glad that my study of ethics came by way of philosophy rather than by way of law. I always knew instinctively that ethics and the law are two different things, but thanks to you, I now know why they are.

My question to you about that is, did you just “get lucky”, or did you figure out, from your discussions with me, that your explanation might be necessary (and indeed it is!) to continue them?

Given what you’ve taught me, the answer is no. Libertaria does not “subject” its citizens to both criminal and civil liability, but to civil liability alone. It is an unfortunate happenstance of language that Libertaria calls that sort of liability “criminal”. Please understand that there is no intention to obfuscate by using a word in a sense different from some borrowed context. It is simply necessary to call what you’ve described as civil liability criminal in Libertaria because of how crime there is defined.

Crime is the initiation of force or fraud, i.e., the abridgement of rights. I love the phrase you use, “breaching the King’s peace,” because it does a wonderful job of pinning down just what Libertaria is missing (thankfully so!), in terms of law, that is prevalent in Anglo-Saxon societies. In Libertaria, even if it were a monarchy (which is entirely okay, of course, so long as all are voluntary subjects), the King would have no such context. He has no more rights than anyone else; he is merely the hereditary Chief Arbiter, nothing more.

By the very nature of Libertaria’s law, peace is exactly that to which everyone is entitled. Not just the King. Peace, in Libertaria, is a synonym for freedom; that is, peace is the absence of coercion and fraud. If any man — even one — is coerced, then the society cannot be said to be peaceful (since all of its elements are not at peace). Thus, if even one man is not free, no man is free.

Thanks for this terrific discussion, Billdo. The introduction you gave to your numbered questions has greatly edified me. I don’t believe that, without it, I would have been able to answer your lettered questions in a way that might make sense to you.

Therefore, as to whether a citizen of Libertaria is, “subject to prosecution by the “government” of Libertaria for initiating the force” or “subject to personal liability to the kid to compensate him for his injuries”, the answer is either both, since

111

Thanks for the full response, Lib. I figured that I would have to explain what I was talking about before I asked questions.

Anyway, I have to think about your post for a bit before I respond. I have some further questions about your civil/criminal distinction (and who has standing to sue), but I want to get the questions clear in my mind before I ask them.

Bill

You don’t have a thing to worry about. I’ll have the jury eating out of my hand. Meanwhile, try to escape.

Sig by Wally M7, master signature architect to the SDMB

112

Billdo

Okay, but unless I misunderstood myself ;), Libertarian law/ethics does not draw any distinction between “civil” law and “criminal” law. Rather, what Anglo-American law calls “civil” law, Libertarian law/ethics calls “criminal” law. And what Anglo-American law calls “criminal” law, Libertarian law/ethics calls “ain’t nobody’s business if you do.”

113

Billdo

Sorry, one last thing. When I wrote…

…please note that that applies without distinction as to whether the initiator of force is, to use the traditional terms in an unusual context, “domestic” or “foreign”.

In other words, the essence of what libertarian government does for you, in securing your rights, is no different whether your aggressor is or is not a citizen of Libertaria. Aggressors waive their rights in the very act of their aggression; i.e., they have “breached the peace”. People who ask what happens when the aggressor is not contracted with Libertaria miss the point. The Libertarian contract is not with the aggressor; it is with you.