“In every crime, in every invasion of rights, from the most negligible breach of contract up to murder, there are always two parties (or sets of parties) involved: the victim (the plaintiff) and the alleged criminal (the defendant). The purpose of every judicial proceeding is to find, as best we can, who the criminal is or is not in any given case. Generally, these judicial rules make for the most widely acceptable means of finding out who the criminals may be. But the libertarian has one overriding caveat on these procedures: no force may be used against non-criminals. For any physical force used against a non-criminal is an invasion of that innocent person’s rights, and is therefore itself criminal and impermissible. Take, for example, the police practice of beating and torturing suspects – or, at least, of tapping their wires. People who object to these practices are invariably accused by conservatives of ‘coddling criminals.’ But the whole point is that we don’t know if these are criminals or not, and until convicted, they must be presumed not to be criminals and to enjoy all the rights of the innocent: in the words of the famous phrase, ‘they are innocent until proven guilty.’ (The only exception would be a victim exerting self-defense on the spot against an aggressor, for he knows that the criminal is invading his home.) ‘Coddling criminals’ then becomes, in actuality, making sure that police do not criminally invade the rights of self-ownership of presumptive innocents whom they suspect of crime. In that case, the ‘coddler,’ and the restrainer of the police, proves to be far more of a genuine defender of property rights than is the conservative.This passage means that, in Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalist world, the police from private protection agencies would be allowed “beat and torture” suspects “to find information,” and they would face no penalty or criminal charge for violence against such a suspect, as long as the suspect is found guilty.
We may qualify this discussion in one important sense: police may use such coercive methods provided that the suspect turns out to be guilty, and provided that the police are treated as themselves criminal if the suspect is not proven guilty. For, in that case, the rule of no force against non-criminals would still apply. Suppose, for example, that police beat and torture a suspected murderer to find information (not to wring a confession, since obviously a coerced confession could never be considered valid). If the suspect turns out to be guilty, then the police should be exonerated, for then they have only ladled out to the murderer a parcel of what he deserves in return; his rights had already been forfeited by more than that extent. But if the suspect is not convicted, then that means that the police have beaten and tortured an innocent man, and that they in turn must be put into the dock for criminal assault. In short, in all cases, police must be treated in precisely the same way as anyone else; in a libertarian world, every man has equal liberty, equal rights under the libertarian law. There can be no special immunities, special licenses to commit crime. That means that police, in a libertarian society, must take their chances like anyone else; if they commit an act of invasion against someone, that someone had better turn out to deserve it, otherwise they are the criminals.
As a corollary, police can never be allowed to commit an invasion that is worse than, or that is more than proportionate to, the crime under investigation. Thus, the police can never be allowed to beat and torture someone charged with petty theft, since the beating is far more proportionate a violation of a man’s rights than the theft, even if the man is indeed the thief.” (Rothbard 1998: 82–83).
Rothbard protests that private police cannot be allowed to “wring a confession” – even though there is a fine line between the two. In fact, with no ability to hold to account the activities of private protection agencies anyway, since they would be like private mafia groups, one can imagine what incredible abuses what develop in such a system: corrupt private police and private courts using torture and violence to quickly get a confession from suspects and “guilty” verdict.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Rothbard, M. N. 1998. The Ethics of Liberty, New York University Press, New York, N.Y. and London.
I'm not a Rothbardian but we can clearly see that Rothbard says "police may use" and no "police should use". He doesn't show being in favor of that kind of measures. Still, this passage deserves further attention:
ReplyDelete"If the suspect turns out to be guilty, then the police should be exonerated, for then they have only ladled out to the murderer a parcel of what he deserves in return"
Why does he know that "they have only ladled out to the murderer a parcel of what he deserves" in advance?
Why does he know that "they have only ladled out to the murderer a parcel of what he deserves" in advance?
ReplyDeleteThat's the whole point of the post, and what's troubling about Rothbard's statement.
I'm not a Rothbardian but we can clearly see that Rothbard says "police may use" and no "police should use".
I can see why this would be confusing to a non-native speaker. In this context "may" is an assertion of validity, not possibility. For example "May I have a cookie? Yes, you may have a cookie." So, Rothbard is giving the police his permission.
1/2
ReplyDeleteRothbard was making a case that the POLICE, i.e. governmental enforcers, beating a confession out of an actual criminal, would be justified, as long as the individual is guilty. Yes, this does imply that the same exact actions would be justified if the policeman was a private security enforcer instead.
This passage means that, in Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalist world, the police from private protection agencies would be allowed “beat and torture” suspects “to find information,” and they would face no penalty or criminal charge for violence against such a suspect, as long as the suspect is found guilty.
It's not that they will or won't face penalty charges. It's that there will be no right to impose penalty charges against them. Whether the relevant parties will adhere to that right is another question.
Rothbard protests that private police cannot be allowed to “wring a confession” – even though there is a fine line between the two.
That's why he says that the question of rights and of the morality of the beatings, is contingent upon the guilt or innocence of the person being beaten/questioned.
In fact, with no ability to hold to account the activities of private protection agencies anyway
That is false. There are much larger forces acting upon private protection agencies in holding them to account than there are in holding territorial monopoly institutions (states) accountable.
You believe in the myth that "majority vote" somehow holds individuals who declare a monopoly over security and protection to be more accountable than "market vote."
But how can mere verbal communication from individuals in saying "yes" or "no", despite the state violently acquiring PHYSICAL RESOURCES from those same individuals regardless of their vote, be superior in terms of accountability, relative to a system where individuals can not only verbally communicate a "yes" or "no", but also having the choice to withhold or give their physical resources to a given security agency?
Now, if a private security agency were to start stealing resources from people in a given territory, then they would just become a state, and the people in that territory would live in a society like ours today. If the people who don't want to pay that security agency were forced to pay, then there would be other areas and other security providers that they can turn to, to either stop the offending security agency, or simply let the security agency acquire resources from a territory that has only willing to pay inhabitants. After all, this is the solution that statists give to anarchists all the time: "If you don't like it, then leave."
The superiority of anarchy to statism is that whereas people have nobody else to turn to in statism in order to stop the individuals in the state, in anarchy they do have others to turn to in order to stop the individuals in the offending security agency. In anarchy, violence is isolated to the individual security and protection agencies, their clients, and the spheres of those individual's influence on innocent individuals in the area the violence takes place. It would be far less likely for ALL clients of private security to be stolen from by the people they hire in protecting them, which is the case in statism with states and citizens.
2/2
ReplyDeleteWhen power is decentralized, so too is violence, and the more decentralized violence becomes, the easier it is to protect against.
As peace always generates more wealth than in violence, what will happen is that those areas that are more peaceful, will produce and accumulate more resources relative to those areas that are more violent. With more resources, the ability to protect property is heightened, which itself serves to increase productivity even more.
You statists are catastrophically wrong about "accountability." It is literally impossible for an individual in statism to decrease the power of a violent state (i.e. hold the state accountable for initiating violence), because that individual is forced by the state to give his property and thus his resources to the state, even if he doesn't want that government to be his security protector. To say that people have the "freedom" to SAY they don't support someone (i.e. "vote"), but they don't have the freedom to ACT on that decision, is to actually argue that they don't have freedom at all. A rape victim who has the freedom to say "no", but the rapist doesn't respect that decision and goes ahead and rapes them anyway, is not being held "accountable". To hold that rapist accountable, it is at least necessary that sex actually be withheld by the intended victim. If not, then the rapist is not being held accountable at all.
In anarchy, the majority will still act as a force in regulating private security agencies, the only difference is that each security agency could not declare themselves to be a territorial monopoly and could not demand that everyone in that territory pay them and go to them for protection, and nobody else. An unscrupulous private agency could of course try, but the forces acting against them would be far greater than the forces acting against an unscrupulous statesman who does the same.
since they would be like private mafia groups
As opposed to a centralized, monopoly mafia group called the state?
I'd rather live in a society with many competing mafias that act as checks and balances against each other, than one giant monopoly mafia that has free reign in waging violence with no such checks and balances.
one can imagine what incredible abuses what develop in such a system: corrupt private police and private courts using torture and violence to quickly get a confession from suspects and “guilty” verdict.
LOL, you're perfectly describing statism. One can only imagine what horrors a monopoly mafia group would engage in with no other mafia to check and balance them. Oh that's right, the monopoly mafia (i.e. state) IS torturing people, and if the state tortures an innocent person, the state, being the ultimate arbiter, would of course not hold themselves accountable, and so in statism we get the added bonus of the state not being held accountable and not being punished for their gross violation of individual rights.
But let's not stop LK from claiming that torture and lack of accountability would only take place in anarchy.
Just consider small states who torture people and get held accountable by other security forces (other states) versus a single world government where there are no other security enforcers left. The approach to one world government is an approach to world slavery. The movement towards city states, and then to anarchy, would be a movement towards freedom.
You want to take us on the path to slavery because you refuse to take responsibility for your own life and want to place it in the armed hands of others (the state).
To summarize, for those of you who don't want to wade through Pete's cuckoo vomit: he's arguing that torture is retroactively justified as long as the torture victim is eventually found guilty. I'm sure nobody has a problem with this.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
ReplyDeletehe's arguing that torture is retroactively justified as long as the torture victim is eventually found guilty. I'm sure nobody has a problem with this.
Remember the whole "asteroid" scenario that supposedly debunks libertarianism?
Well, suppose an individual or group of individuals have set a bunch of nuclear bombs around the world that will destroy the entire human race.
Suppose that they are of the type that they will not talk unless they are tortured.
Given these assumptions are unchangeable in the hypothetical example, would the non-torturer advocate claim that it is justified that the human race go extinct if it means not torturing the people responsible?
You would need a consequentialist argument to justify this last argument - even Rothbard's argument above implies means can be justified by ends.
ReplyDeleteGiven these assumptions are unchangeable in the hypothetical example, would the non-torturer advocate claim that it is justified that the human race go extinct if it means not torturing the people responsible?
ReplyDeleteIn your hypothetical example, the purpose of the torture would be to prevent a credible and imminent harm that has not yet occurred.
In the original example, the harm had already occurred, and the purpose of the interrogation was not to prevent potential further harm.
It's also the job of the judiciary to decide guilt or innocence, not the police; and it's an institutional fact that suspects are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So Rothbard is explicitly advocating the torture of innocent people.
It's also not the job of the police to punish criminals: "for then they have only ladled out to the murderer a parcel of what he deserves in return."
So, Rothbard is not only ethically bankrupt, he fails to have even a basic understanding of the legal system.
I used to think Rothbard was just your run-off-the-mill terrible philosopher worshipped by socially awkward white kids that want to feel radical. That Rothbard at least served as some amusement, this one is just a despicable person.
ReplyDeleteYou would need a consequentialist argument to justify this last argument
ReplyDeleteOh that is certainly the case, I was just testing Anonymous to see how far he is willing to take his anti-torture position.
- even Rothbard's argument above implies means can be justified by ends.
Rothbard was vehemently against utilitarianism. It is one the major disagreements he had with Mises. Rothbard rejected the notion that ends justify the means.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteGiven these assumptions are unchangeable in the hypothetical example, would the non-torturer advocate claim that it is justified that the human race go extinct if it means not torturing the people responsible?
In your hypothetical example, the purpose of the torture would be to prevent a credible and imminent harm that has not yet occurred.
In the original example, the harm had already occurred, and the purpose of the interrogation was not to prevent potential further harm.
OK, suppose that there is already occurred harm and further potential harm because the person being interrogated is still posing a threat even while under custody.
It's also the job of the judiciary to decide guilt or innocence, not the police; and it's an institutional fact that suspects are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So Rothbard is explicitly advocating the torture of innocent people.
No, Rothbard quite clearly argued that torturing innocent people is not justified. He argued that torturing an innocent person would result in the torturer acting unjustly and violating the person's rights.
It's also not the job of the police to punish criminals: "for then they have only ladled out to the murderer a parcel of what he deserves in return."
The courts and police in a statist society are of the same agency.
So, Rothbard is not only ethically bankrupt, he fails to have even a basic understanding of the legal system.
Non sequitur based on a straw man.
I used to think Rothbard was just your run-off-the-mill terrible philosopher worshipped by socially awkward white kids that want to feel radical. That Rothbard at least served as some amusement, this one is just a despicable person.
How is he a terrible philosopher? Who is despicable and how are they despicable?
Worthless ad hominems are strong evidence you have no argument.
ivanfoofoo:
ReplyDeleteWhy does he know that "they have only ladled out to the murderer a parcel of what he deserves" in advance?
Rothbard holds the "eye for an eye" method of enforcement. A murderer who is not murdered, but beaten, is, to Rothbard, getting less than he deserves.
"How is he a terrible philosopher? "
ReplyDeleteFor your edification:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/08/rothbard-as-philosopher.html
"Rothbard holds the "eye for an eye" method of enforcement."
ReplyDeleteGreat - for a stone age justice system.
"He argued that torturing an innocent person would result in the torturer acting unjustly and violating the person's rights."
Well, that's reassuring! - afterall he may only have lost an eye or leg to torture.
But don't worry - he can always sue!
"How is he a terrible philosopher? "
ReplyDeleteFor your edification:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/08/rothbard-as-philosopher.html
Edward Feser's article is demolished here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Waaah/comments/cuict/response_to_ed_feser
"Rothbard holds the "eye for an eye" method of enforcement."
Great - for a stone age justice system.
The magna carta is also very old, and yet serves as the foundation for modern law today as well.
Merely smearing a law as "stone age" does not constitute a valid rebuttal.
"He argued that torturing an innocent person would result in the torturer acting unjustly and violating the person's rights."
Well, that's reassuring! - afterall he may only have lost an eye or leg to torture.
You should be all for that, since you're for people being violently robbed of "only" a part of their income, and to be subjected to "only" some draconian regulations. What's "only" a part of someone's body? What, you aren't converting to individualistic natural rights are you? LOL
But don't worry - he can always sue!
Isn't that your response to those who question what would happen under state law enforcement? Oh yeah, that's right. It is.
Just to illustrate how long the libertarians have been at this, here's one of their old leaflets.
ReplyDeleteBritish journalist Louis Theroux brought out an interesting documentary series recently, called Law and Disorder. In one particular episode, he focused on the often brutal methods employed by private security firms (and communities) in poorer parts of Johannesburg, which have arisen in the absence of traditional police enforcement.
ReplyDeleteE.g. For a relevant segment, see 7:00 of this clip. (You can also find links to watch the entire documentary.)