Did Rothbard really write, "You and him go and rob?" I always thought of Murray as a good grammarian. On the other hand, maybe Rothbard was writing realistically about how actual criminals spoke. I lost my copy of the book in my 2007 fire and so I don't know what Murray actually wrote.
Couldn't a reasonable definition of accessory vs incitement be whether the person provided incentives to others to commit the crime (either compensation for cooperation or punishment for refusal)? I think that's generally how I see the difference between "ordering" and "telling". If a politician orders some action then government employees who refuse will be fired, and if a mob boss's goons refuse an order probably something worse will happen to them.
There are too many unstated ways to retaliate. I don't think that's a useful distinction. If nothing else, a rabid crowd makes disobedience social suicide.
That doesn't follow at all. Actually committing the crime itself is always, well, criminal.
It's just a question of what incentives (be it payments or threats) would also incriminate someone 'telling' or 'ordering' another party to commit that crime.
Sorry, maybe I was unclear. I'm talking about Rothbard's example of someone saying "You and him go ahead and riot!”, without participating in the riot themselves. Then there's a difference between whether you just suggested people riot, and actually paying people to riot. Actually participating in a riot or bank robbery is wrong whether or not you're being paid.
I very much appreciate the critical comments. I did not notice the discrepancy on first appraisal. Long chapter but I couldn’t help agreeing with almost all of it.
I think the rationale for defamation laws is the fact that damage to one's reputation can be much worse than many other things that libertarians(and everyone else) think should be illegal. Would you rather be falsely accused of rape(in a way that seems plausible to your acquaintances) or have $10000 stolen from you? I think this isn't a hard question to most men. In fact, these days, a false allegation of sexual misconduct is probably less to be preferred than all sorts of crime committed against you.
I'm not claiming that our current system is flawless, but without some recourse to victims of libel and slander, great wrongs will be committed with impunity.
The difference between an “order”and a “telling” is that an order is given from a position of authority, or by a person who can seriously constrain the actions of one who disobeys. Sometimes the same person can order you or tell you. See marriage.
Rothbard does a good job of pointing out the weakest points of libertarianism, by making it clear all of the edge cases he supports. Licensing the airwaves, I don’t see how to make this work in a purely libertarian fashion. It’s very cheap to ruin a range of spectrum for broader use by transmitting on it locally. Just due to the underlying physics, it’s much more valuable for everyone to slice up chunks of the spectrum and allocate the rights to particular companies. You kind of need a government-run process here.
No you don't. Read "Political Spectrum" by Thomas Hazlett for a history of the FCC. The courts had just started to recognize a common law property interest in the radio spectrum, and that freaked out Herbert Hoover (Commerce Secretary) and the nascent radio network heads who wanted to control radio spectrum allocation.
The radio spectrum works fine as property. As equipment improves, broadcasters need less spectrum and can sell off the excess. Other technologies can share spectrum. Government allocation is just another crony boondoggle.
Don't confuse allocation with reserving different bands for the military, weather balloons, airports, and other treaty obligations. They are as different as with land property.
Did Rothbard really write, "You and him go and rob?" I always thought of Murray as a good grammarian. On the other hand, maybe Rothbard was writing realistically about how actual criminals spoke. I lost my copy of the book in my 2007 fire and so I don't know what Murray actually wrote.
Yes, that is a literal quote. Just checked. But if he was was trying to write "realistically", the "such and such a bank" fails :-)
Thanks.
Couldn't a reasonable definition of accessory vs incitement be whether the person provided incentives to others to commit the crime (either compensation for cooperation or punishment for refusal)? I think that's generally how I see the difference between "ordering" and "telling". If a politician orders some action then government employees who refuse will be fired, and if a mob boss's goons refuse an order probably something worse will happen to them.
There are too many unstated ways to retaliate. I don't think that's a useful distinction. If nothing else, a rabid crowd makes disobedience social suicide.
Also, by that reasoning, being an unpaid volunteer who assists a bank robbery would be OK!
That doesn't follow at all. Actually committing the crime itself is always, well, criminal.
It's just a question of what incentives (be it payments or threats) would also incriminate someone 'telling' or 'ordering' another party to commit that crime.
Sorry, maybe I was unclear. I'm talking about Rothbard's example of someone saying "You and him go ahead and riot!”, without participating in the riot themselves. Then there's a difference between whether you just suggested people riot, and actually paying people to riot. Actually participating in a riot or bank robbery is wrong whether or not you're being paid.
I very much appreciate the critical comments. I did not notice the discrepancy on first appraisal. Long chapter but I couldn’t help agreeing with almost all of it.
I think the rationale for defamation laws is the fact that damage to one's reputation can be much worse than many other things that libertarians(and everyone else) think should be illegal. Would you rather be falsely accused of rape(in a way that seems plausible to your acquaintances) or have $10000 stolen from you? I think this isn't a hard question to most men. In fact, these days, a false allegation of sexual misconduct is probably less to be preferred than all sorts of crime committed against you.
I'm not claiming that our current system is flawless, but without some recourse to victims of libel and slander, great wrongs will be committed with impunity.
The difference between an “order”and a “telling” is that an order is given from a position of authority, or by a person who can seriously constrain the actions of one who disobeys. Sometimes the same person can order you or tell you. See marriage.
Rothbard does a good job of pointing out the weakest points of libertarianism, by making it clear all of the edge cases he supports. Licensing the airwaves, I don’t see how to make this work in a purely libertarian fashion. It’s very cheap to ruin a range of spectrum for broader use by transmitting on it locally. Just due to the underlying physics, it’s much more valuable for everyone to slice up chunks of the spectrum and allocate the rights to particular companies. You kind of need a government-run process here.
No you don't. Read "Political Spectrum" by Thomas Hazlett for a history of the FCC. The courts had just started to recognize a common law property interest in the radio spectrum, and that freaked out Herbert Hoover (Commerce Secretary) and the nascent radio network heads who wanted to control radio spectrum allocation.
The radio spectrum works fine as property. As equipment improves, broadcasters need less spectrum and can sell off the excess. Other technologies can share spectrum. Government allocation is just another crony boondoggle.
Don't confuse allocation with reserving different bands for the military, weather balloons, airports, and other treaty obligations. They are as different as with land property.
And speak of the devil! I forgot to include a link to a great review of the book ...
https://www.hoover.org/research/how-electromagnetic-spectrum-became-politicized
... by none other than the commenter after you.