Tag Archives: murder

Libertarian Law and Legal Systems Part Four – Liability for Wrongs


Libertarian Law and Legal Systems Part Four – Liability for Wrongs

By Duncan Whitmore

The fourth part of our survey of libertarian law and legal systems will explore causative events of legal liability arising from wrongs – that is a breach of some obligation owed by one legal person to another without the necessity of a pre-existing relationship such as a contract.

There are two issues that demarcate the approach of a libertarian legal system towards wrongs as opposed to that of a contemporary legal system. First is the definition of a wrong and second is the standard of liability – that is, the point at which the defendant becomes legally liable for a wrong.

Libertarian Definition of a “Wrong”

In contemporary legal systems, a wrong is some sort of act on the part of an individual that is viewed as being subject to legal sanction. Unfortunately, we have to start off with such a vague tautology as, looking at the variety of acts that are subject to legal regulation, this is about as precise as we can get. In many cases, of course, the wrong will be some form of harm caused by one individual to another which serves as the causative event to generate a legal response.

“Harm” is very broadly defined and can include violent and physical inflictions, such as murder, serious bodily injury, or damage and destruction to property, all the way to more ethereal harms that may include nothing more than speaking one’s mind such as “defamation” and causing “offence”. However, events currently classified as legal wrongs needn’t have a victim at all as the act may either be wholly unilateral or take place between consenting individuals. As an example of the former we can cite nearly all offences related to drug possession and dealing, and of the latter the criminalisation of certain sexual practices owing either to their nature (such as in sadomasochism) or to the gender of the participants (i.e. homosexual intercourse). Basically, it is no exaggeration to admit that a wrong, legally defined, in our contemporary, statist legal systems means nothing more than some act that the ruling government or legislature doesn’t like and wishes to outlaw, to the extent that even quite innocuous behaviour may find itself being subjected not only to legal regulation but to criminal sanction.

As we outlined in part one, no legal liability is generated in a libertarian legal order unless the wrong, or the “harm”, consists of a physical invasion of the person or property of another – in other words, only those actions that violate the non-aggression principle are subject to legal regulation. Read more

Pink teddy-bears: Angels of Death


David Davis

I often wonder about what modern British people think teddy-bears are for. I thought that teddy-bears, as in “die Bährchen”, was a harmless toy originating in 19th-century Germany. But not now, and not here.

And jelly-babies are “Gummi-Bährchen”, or “little rubber bears”…..

More on Obama: Lockerbie, the “Scottish Government”, socialism, and tail-twisting


David Davis

Surely, this does not surprise anyone. At least President Obama and even Hillary Clinton had the grace to criticise the usurping Stalinist mountebanks who currently tyrannise poor old Scotland (I’ll reserve comment on the mountebank Scots who have tyrannised Westminster for 12 years, until later.)

I chanced to watch the Wireless Tele Vision “News” at 10.00pm last night. The adulation and celebration, positively dripping from the lips of the “Lady News Caster”, at the joy over this murderer’s release, was a sight to behold – I mean a sound to savour. I was very angry for many minutes, and could not concentrate on Max Hastings’ “Overlord” during the vital last chapter.

This is done, probably not with the connivance of the Scottish voters at all, but as an anti-Anglosphere-tail-twisting exercise on purpose. The Scottish people are in the position of the Germans in 1933: they have simply walked into a potentially great future disaster by failing to reject GramscoFabiaNazi mountebanks at an important series of elections.

All the same, this does not convince me of the necessity to keep on trying to preserve the United Kingdom. I do not really know what the majority opinion about it is currently in Scotland, but all in all it seems better for Scotland to go its own way, even, slightly comically, in Foreign Policy towards Libya and murderers therefrom. “WE” would not need “Libyan Oil and Gas” if only GreeNazis in the West did not prevent development of vast fields still available to all people, “due to Caribou” etc.

We could tell the posturing Libyan tent-dweller and his spoilt son (I bet you 9p they’re really wannabe-Lebanese: they look just like my uncles and cousins did) who I bet you also 17p (longer odds) will take over as President of Libya aka the Kim-dynasty in North Korea, exactly [with anatomical details] what to do with his blasted oil. (I’m sure the Chinese will buy it anyway.)

The Friday ranting non-extraordinaire


Peter Davis

I am going to try and make this a regular (and probably fail): every week I will aim to rant about something and (trying to) get thouroghly angry about something  (and failing), and basically turning the post into a message board to let other people also write about something that pisses them off in the comments.

Let everybody know what has pissed you off about our “leaders”, each week.

Now, what’s with this Ian Tomlinson thing: what exactly did he do to deserve that cheap blow from the police? From what I can tell, he was walking around with his hands in his pockets.

WTF?

Has walking around with your hands in your pockets suddenly become illegal? What kind of a nation is this that lets the police kill people for just walking around with hands-in-pockets?

Please feel free to write about what pisses you off in the comments.


Greens: like Kermit in a liquidiser, green outside, running red with blood and Gore inside.


David Davis

“Sir” “Jonathon Porritt”, (….on…? Bit prissy, n’est-ce-pas?) described as an “adviser”, has apparently come out in the true colours of GreeNazis, and on the original 1960s paleophilosophic Rachel-Carson-Paul-Ehrlich-Hegelian battle-ground. This was human population, its supposed right size, its growth, and what should be done about it in the light of their belief that lots of humans is bad, and a few well-chosen ones is good.

The Landed Underclass integrates his own thoughts about why Greens and other antihuman-oids have these ideas about population levels, with the notion of what populations would become, for a polity, under different market conditions.

The Devil, also cited by Landed, has this. I tend to agree that people who advocate population levels of humans under those which currently exist, are deliberately wicked and evil killers.

Guns: confiscation of legally held weapons in Germany will be next.


David Davis

UPDATE1:- On second thoughts, perhaps the poor tormented bugger was just deranged and so could not get a girlfriend like we even managed to do, despite being barking and turning into libertarians. See … Here.

…..But….why do the deranged always seem to have access to shagloads of guns? Does the presence of guns actually lead to mental derangement? I’d not have thought so, but I do not know. Do you?

David Davis

I almost can’t watch this saga any more – I really can’t. It’s like a tragic play, in which you always know what’s going to happen in the next scene, but you’re not sure where.

In one civilised Western nation after another, a multiple-fatal-shooting is staged, usually at a school (to maximise the parental anguish involved, and to mobilize a million mums, plus harden public opinion against “shooters”.) 

The Australians were clever: they did it at a popular tourist/beauty spot in Tasmania. The British rather overdid it at Dunblane, using a primary school (really gross, that – you could just about stomach the slaughter of secondary-school pupilas but not little kids, surely?) but I guess they were in a hurry to get all of absolutely everbody’s firearms before the 90s-Tories’ New Labour Project was to kick off properly.

Then, in more or less short-order, “legislation is enacted” to deprive one more section of the law-abiding community of all its guns – category by category, one at a time.

Of course, illegally-held weapons remain untouched. Some “security-theatre” about “amnesties” is staged, for effect, but produces little. In the meantime you can go to a pub in Catford, get to know certain people, and get a shooter, and some food if you’re rich, in the fullness of time, for a wad of cash. I expect this is still the case.

A totally-disarmed citizenry is a pre-requisite for a tyrannical government being able to entrench itself permanently – just look at the Third Reich, and Stalin’s USSR before that, its mirror.

At least the USA still has the Second Amendment, but for how long I wonder?

A libertarian wonders to what extent States are now prepared to go, via the public slaughter of (chiefly and on purpose)  children, to deprive citizens of all the world’s most civilised nations, of firearms. When will they start on kitchen-knives, I wonder, or angle-grinders, or power drills? Or chain-saws? (Perhaps that’s why you can now be fined for doing moderate electrical repairs in your house, like rewiring it yourself, or changing a window without certification….)

Why doesn’t this go on in Africa, which is bursting at the seams with guns? Or South America? Or Saudi-Arabia? Or Syria?

Why the first-world West? Can anybody help me here?

…and I think Mr Underclass quietly agrees with me, about my main hypothesis.

« Older Entries