AC Hypothetical

[Msgr. Martinez]

While standing in my backyard, I shoot and kill my neighbor who is mowing his lawn. I have signed no agreement such that it could be said that I have voluntarily submitted to the authority of an arbitrator, homeowners' association, etc. What happens?

[WordWhiz]

You don't need an explicit agreement to submit to arbitration. Every person has universal authority to remedy acts of aggression against him. Such a right may of course be delegated. While I hesitate to make predictions about how exactly the market for justice would work in an AC system, I imagine that representatives of your neighbor's protection agency will attempt to bring you to justice for your act. They may try you first and then try to apprehend you, or vice versa.

In the end, however, if you choose to resist, the result would almost certainly be nearly identical to what it would be now: many men with guns would surround you and use force--lethal if necessary--to bring you to justice.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
While standing in my backyard, I shoot and kill my neighbor who is mowing his lawn.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you don't.

I'm noticing that most of these counter-AC hypotheticals make a ridiculous assumption of human behavior, then use that to contradict Austrian theory.

In the absence of a government monopoly, there is still a profitable demand for protection. No one is going to contract with a security company whose protection services become void if the client is killed, because that means anyone can simply kill you and get away with it. THe incentives it creates are ridiculous. Your neighbor, if he is sane, wants to be protected, wants those around him to know that he is protected, and that if he is aggressed against, the aggressor will be destroyed; that way we can all get along with mowing our lawns.

How many lawn-mowing fellows in society do you really think are worried about their neighbor going nuts and shooting them for no reason? Practically none, I'd wager. Funny, because it would be ridiculously easy to do. A guy mowing his front lawn is a sitting duck; he's dead in the water against anyone with a gun, and is almost totally defenseless against someone sneaking up with a knife. He doesn't worry because there are many incentives against killing him, and few incentives for killing him. All you need to do is re-create those incentives, and the residents of Ancapistan can mow their lawns with peace of mind. You killing your neighbor is a pathological premise.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
They may try you first and then try to apprehend you, or vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without the use of coercive force?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They may try you first and then try to apprehend you, or vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without the use of coercive force?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without the initiation of force. How many times does this have to be corrected?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They may try you first and then try to apprehend you, or vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without the use of coercive force?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without the initiation of force. How many times does this have to be corrected?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully not too many. It's the first time I've seen it.

Non-initiation of force only applies if the "defendant" is presumed guilty. What if he is innocent?

[Msgr. Martinez]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't need an explicit agreement to submit to arbitration. Every person has universal authority to remedy acts of aggression against him. Such a right may of course be delegated. While I hesitate to make predictions about how exactly the market for justice would work in an AC system, I imagine that representatives of your neighbor's protection agency will attempt to bring you to justice for your act. They may try you first and then try to apprehend you, or vice versa.

In the end, however, if you choose to resist, the result would almost certainly be nearly identical to what it would be now: many men with guns would surround you and use force--lethal if necessary--to bring you to justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, I'm bound by unwritten laws that I didn't agree to and that I may not agree with.

[Msgr. Martinez]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While standing in my backyard, I shoot and kill my neighbor who is mowing his lawn.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you don't.

I'm noticing that most of these counter-AC hypotheticals make a ridiculous assumption of human behavior, then use that to contradict Austrian theory.

In the absence of a government monopoly, there is still a profitable demand for protection. No one is going to contract with a security company whose protection services become void if the client is killed, because that means anyone can simply kill you and get away with it. THe incentives it creates are ridiculous. Your neighbor, if he is sane, wants to be protected, wants those around him to know that he is protected, and that if he is aggressed against, the aggressor will be destroyed; that way we can all get along with mowing our lawns.

How many lawn-mowing fellows in society do you really think are worried about their neighbor going nuts and shooting them for no reason? Practically none, I'd wager. Funny, because it would be ridiculously easy to do. A guy mowing his front lawn is a sitting duck; he's dead in the water against anyone with a gun, and is almost totally defenseless against someone sneaking up with a knife. He doesn't worry because there are many incentives against killing him, and few incentives for killing him. All you need to do is re-create those incentives, and the residents of Ancapistan can mow their lawns with peace of mind. You killing your neighbor is a pathological premise.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the particular facts of my hypothetical are somewhat farfetched, surely people will occasionally murder one another in AC land.

[WordWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't need an explicit agreement to submit to arbitration. Every person has universal authority to remedy acts of aggression against him. Such a right may of course be delegated. While I hesitate to make predictions about how exactly the market for justice would work in an AC system, I imagine that representatives of your neighbor's protection agency will attempt to bring you to justice for your act. They may try you first and then try to apprehend you, or vice versa.

In the end, however, if you choose to resist, the result would almost certainly be nearly identical to what it would be now: many men with guns would surround you and use force--lethal if necessary--to bring you to justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, I'm bound by unwritten laws that I didn't agree to and that I may not agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. Or do you think we should have to get the permission of murderers to stop them?

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While standing in my backyard, I shoot and kill my neighbor who is mowing his lawn.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you don't.

I'm noticing that most of these counter-AC hypotheticals make a ridiculous assumption of human behavior, then use that to contradict Austrian theory.

In the absence of a government monopoly, there is still a profitable demand for protection. No one is going to contract with a security company whose protection services become void if the client is killed, because that means anyone can simply kill you and get away with it. THe incentives it creates are ridiculous. Your neighbor, if he is sane, wants to be protected, wants those around him to know that he is protected, and that if he is aggressed against, the aggressor will be destroyed; that way we can all get along with mowing our lawns.

How many lawn-mowing fellows in society do you really think are worried about their neighbor going nuts and shooting them for no reason? Practically none, I'd wager. Funny, because it would be ridiculously easy to do. A guy mowing his front lawn is a sitting duck; he's dead in the water against anyone with a gun, and is almost totally defenseless against someone sneaking up with a knife. He doesn't worry because there are many incentives against killing him, and few incentives for killing him. All you need to do is re-create those incentives, and the residents of Ancapistan can mow their lawns with peace of mind. You killing your neighbor is a pathological premise.

[/ QUOTE ]

The -EVness of criminality does not prevent people from doing criminal things. The OP wasn't suggesting ACland is a lawless carnage-fest. He just wanted to know if coercive measures are taken against perceived aggressors who have made no voluntary contract with anyone. I've seen some say no, which I can't fathom. The answers in this thread seem more reasonable. But that's not some refutation of Austrian theory. It's just acknowledgment that market solutions are not always voluntary.