Tag Archives: theft

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

Advertisements

Libertarian Law and Legal Systems Part Three – Consent and Contract


Libertarian Law and Legal Systems Part Three – Consent and Contract

By Duncan Whitmore

We will begin our survey of the causative events of legal liability in a libertarian legal system with those that arise from consent because, even though people may view “the law” as being synonymous with wrongs such as crimes and torts, consensual legal relations are, in fact, the most frequent types of legal interaction that arise in an individual’s life.

Contract

The predominant form of legal relations arising from consent is, of course, the contract; a person may enter tens of these contracts every single day by, for example, just purchasing a coffee, a bus ticket, or lunch, whereas most people would scarcely commit a single crime in their entire lives (although we might note that today states are happy to spill oceans of ink in criminalising, through legislation, even the most innocuous of actions). While any good legal system must have strong proscriptions against horrific acts such as murder and rape, it is the contract that is the primary preoccupation of everyone’s daily lives.

The first question to consider, then, is what exactly is a contract? Although it should be clear that all contracts concern some sort of bilateral arrangement, different legal systems have varying and often elaborate definitions. Read more

“I have to say to you” “I have to say to you”


David Davis

This is a droidette of the Enemy Class, order-1.  h/t Mr Eugenides. The machine is being filmed in full flight: it is awesome to behold the brass-neck of the device which is on-camera, non-human as it may be, in its destiny.

The watching of, and the listening to that, is priceless stuff. The evasiveness is nothing, compared with the sheer, astonishing separation of the machine’s perception of reality when compared with where human beings see reality to be.

…and MPs: preparing the world for hegemony


David Davis

The problem of an existing Enemy-Class, and – as a corollary to that – its tendency to Bathe its Hands in the Till, will continue until a revolution in the way individuls view “public service” is accomplished.

In London, at the Libertarian Alliance Conference last weekend, my boy and I, walking about Pimlico in the company of the admirable Brian Micklethwait, spied a number of quite utilitarian but suitable buildings for the battery-housing of MPs. Nothing fancy, just serviceable, warm, fairly comfortable and presumably facilities to make coffee, get up some toasty-cheese sandwiches and tea-without-sugar early before a brisk trot to the House, power the odd electric blanket in winter, and watch “Question Time” if they had to. (But they can’t, because I’ll make them be in the House…for all debates…all the time. And they won’t be able to “claim” for a “VCR machine” because I’ll opine that they ought to be able to afford one already.)

The expenses row gets better: now the bastards are whingeing that they can’t employ their wives or claim for mortgages. Look, if they didn’t think they could afford to be MPs, why ever did they stand at all? Anyway, I thought the point of being an MP away in London is that you could shag your “researcher”? She/he might hope to be your wife in due course, but that was under the Tories: we have moved on now, this is 2010, sonny.

MPs should “enter Parliament” only  _after_  they have had a comprehensive education in reality and proper work, and in living like the people who will be employing them. That might mean they are all conservatives – with a small “c” –  and are cynical and pessimistic about what good the State can do, if even any at all. But that’s good, surely. It will end once and for all the cultural hegemony in modern British politics of the fascist-lefty, professional-activist-Gramscian, all of whose influences have been entirely malign and without any redeeming features at all. These people were only good for acting as Pol Pot’s murderers, and have now truly become what they always were.

Incidentally, I have been politely and informally approached by Various August Libertarians, regarding my use of the term “GramscoFabiaNazi”. As a result I explained, perhaps a bit too forcefully and with a little too high conviction, not only what this term means which they fully understood, but why it is 100% accurate and will continue to be applied at appropriate points, and why it should gain traction. Thus there will be a short digression soon, and I will pen an essay to justify the word intellectually, which will be on here. But I will continue unfailingly to be the eternal foe of these bad, bad, wicked, evil sub-humanoid murderers (who deserve the punishment defined as “Eternal Life” [I explained this OK, didn’t I?] ), and I will call the GFNs names and throw insults at them to the end of my strength keyboard.

But for MPs, who clearly do understand the problem but whose grasp of delightful power now exceeds the reach of morals by so much that they can find the brass-neck to protest at the protestations against them? They may find that in the end, we the People “have not the facilities to properly take their surrender”. They better watch out.

Wrong analysis of rural recession crime


David Davis

Read about it here.

The reason you te more crime in rural areas in the Dark Ages is that there’s fewer people about.

Pubs are all closed and dead because of no-smoking and no vertical drinking.

No possible amount of police you could deploy, owing to logistic problems, could solve the fact that if you have a £15,000 Chippendale Commode under ZanuLieBorg, and you live in an isolated house in Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, then some hood will remove it from you.

The solution is not “more Police”.  This is the typical socialist solution, as propounded by the Tories. I do /not want to/ live in a country which has “more police”. This represents failure, a Falling from Grace for a civilisation, and an suggestion that people can only be made “good” by force and threats: the definition of “good” also suffers as a result, as it becomes artificial and at the whim of the police-paymasters.

This way, crime will not be solved until the entire nation consists of “Police”, and we shall all be watching each other.

The solution is /better people/.

Then, political parties will self-hucksterise on the platform of “fewer police”…or even “no police”.

I would like to live in a society where there was no need for “the police”. They sort of morph, into, well, you know, worse kinds of police. And the more money for police, the faster they morph.

/Better people/ will come into being automatically, when socialism fails to be taught as a /MEME/ in “courses”.

Discuss.

The MP buggers are going to get nasty now….


David Davis

This could be fun. Guido (of course, who else?) has a thing about the panic about the leak about a leak. How could you not laugh, I mean it’s just got silly now? Here’s the rest of it.

If they have allowable expenses, then they can’t complain if details are published – or even published by people they don’t like, which is what the fuss seems to be about.

IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, THEN THEY HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR.

I can’t see that involving the poor, overworked and underpaid British Police (who are of course unarmed as is natural in a Classical liberal civilisation) can help matters at all. The Police are very, very busy, catching burglars and muggers. They can’t cope even with that stuff, so they are also having a rest from time to time by looking for motorists, smokers, illegal parkers, defenders of one’s home, envirocriminals, people who download music tracks (whatever those may be), and other various kinds of nasty antisocial scumbags.

Except to help us to get  _[all]_  the money  _[and houses and bath-plugs]_   back, when a Libertarian Administration will have been elected with a landslide majority.

The Anglosphere still harbours good writers.


David Davis

I have this before me, hitted up for us by Samizdata a minute or two ago:-


“Let’s End the Misery”
The undiplomatic diplomat.

This is the text of an e-mail sent out last week from Britian’s ambassador to Poland, Charles Crawford.

Subject: LOOSEN THOSE EU BUDGET TALKS – LET’S END THE MISERY
Kim/Nicola,

This Budget thing is already dragging on too long. So here is a draft speech for the Foreign Sec or PM to use next week to bring it to a rapid and successful conclusion:

“OK, partners, here is my Budget final offer (Puts a large naff kiddies alarm clock on the table).

We all know that the hypocrisy and absurdity of this process are passing any reasonable limit.

I am being asked to give more UK taxpayers money to an EU which for years can not produce properly audited accounts. Mon ami Jacques with the support of most of you is nagging me to give the EU more money while the refusing to surrender an inch or even a centimetre on the CAP – a programme which uses inefficient transfers of taxpayers money to bloat rich French landowners and so pump up food prices in Europe, thereby creating poverty in Africa, which we then fail to solve through inefficient but expensive aid programmes. The most stupid, immoral state-subsidised policy in human history, give or take Communism.

As for the new member states, we like you so much that we are proposing in the Budget a huge new transfer of funds to you on a scale which will give your people the greatest boost in 1000 years. I will be attacked by my scary new teenage Tory opposition for building roads and hospitals in Poland and Hungary, rather than in poor areas of the UK. We – unlike most other old EU MS sitting here – have opened our labour markets. HMG have created more jobs for Poles in the past year than the Polish Government. Yet not one of you nor a single newspaper in any of your capitals has expressed a single word of gratitude or appreciation for the UK position in all this. So much for solidarity.

Shame on you all. Enough is enough.

In a moment I will press the button on this vulgar clock, made cheaply and well in China. It will ring loudly in exactly an hour’s time.

At that point I will ask everyone round the table whether they accept our current offer. Yes, or No.

If anyone says No, we end the meeting. The EU will move on to a complete mess of annual budgets. Basically suits us – we’ll pay less, and the rebate stays 100% intact. My ratings will go up.

However, despite the rudeness and ingratitude of the new member states as expressed here today, we in London do want to help them So if the Budget deal does end in an hour’s time, we will take action alone.

I have here with me a draft press release which says the following:

Following the failure of the EU Budget talks today because most EU member states refused to accept a generous, innovative new budget proposed by HMG, the UK Gov announces that it is going to set aside a good chunk of the money it was prepared effectively to deduct from its rebate under the current proposals, 5 billion pounds, to set up a new Strategic European Development Fund – the Mother of All Know How Funds, but on steroids.

This Fund will be accessible for those of the V4 plus Balts who agree to join its programme – if they all feel too humiliated by our lack of EU solidarity to join, that’s great – we’ll keep the money for ourselves. If only some of them join, that’s great too- those who do will get proportionately more.

The Fund will cut out all the bollocky EU bureaucracy which comes with the current spending round, which means that for every pound we pay into the EU pot for Structural Funds for new MS about a [make up a suitable percentage] goes in sticky transaction costs, local and Brussels corruption, overhead and other rubbish, and so does not benefit the intended recipients.

The Fund will go for any sensible strategic development idea that comes along, with emphasis on R&D and Innovation, plus reform of the region’s abysmal legal systems, the main Communist – era legacy problem in Europe. But if you want to build some new roads, that’s OK too.

The Fund will be managed according to state of the art transparency and efficiency:

 Internet procurement

 90% money spent to require matching private sector funds, so as to encourage new private investment on a vast scale

 top-level auditing


 explicit buy-in by recipient governments to compensate the fund on a ‘triple damages’ basis for any losses proved by independent auditors to be due to official local corruption, and to prosecute the people concerned

 up-front urgent action by recipient partner governments to set up their own streamlined procedures and new laws to allow this money to be spent fast

 oversight by independent all-party experts and bankers/business leaders in each country to ensure scrupulous honesty and agree national priorities

 hard targets set for spending with regular public updates

 hundreds of short-term fellowships to enable the brightest and best from these countries to see EU best practice in action in the UK


 [Aside: PM Marcinkiewicz: you asked me recently to help with ELT in Polish schools – spend 100 million of the Fund on this, so that every kid learns English, plus save money by shutting down French and German language classes!]

 and so on

This Fund mean that the UK’s money goes much further, much faster and much more efficiently into the regions concerned than it possibly could under any EU programme.

Five billion pounds spent this way equals far more than 10 billion spent through the EU, by building in good incentives at every level to encourage openness, free enterprise, creativity and honesty.

The Fund will give the UK and British expertise and the English language together a dominant economic, political and intellectual position in the most dynamic region of Europe for decades to come, forcing legal and business reform on a huge scale according to the purest Anglo-Saxon principles.

And it will be incredibly popular in the countries concerned, since it will force the region’s governments sitting shiftily round this table to be far more honest and accountable than they are at the moment.

More! The roaring success of the Fund will set in motion the accelerating downsizing of all EU-level spending and a fundamental rethink of global aid philosophy. UK voters and voters all across the EU will love it because it spends their money well, plus highlights the wastefulness of what the EU is doing at the moment and cuts out completely the blathering European Parliament. Wider public pressure for reforms along UK lines will become irresistible.

Basically, a terrific deal for the UK, for the modern European ideal of well-coordinated light-touch integration, and for the populations of the countries concerned.

End of draft press release.

We nonetheless remain willing to sacrifice all that in the interests of discredited, inefficient, socialistic, EU ‘solidarity’ – if that is what you really all prefer – to sign up for the latest offer for the Budget which is on the table.

Over to you, mes chers amis!

(Presses button on alarm clock. Silence. Broken only by loud ticking)

I have a suitable alarm clock if that helps.

Charles


Charles Crawford
HMA Warsaw

« Older Entries