“Just cause” is a relative concept. It means different things in different contexts. In the context of voluntaryist legal theory (the only logically and ethically valid kind of legal theory, methinks), someone has just cause to temporarily detain another person when that person is in the process of committing a crime.
Category: One Voluntaryist’s Perspective
How the State Has Usurped the Administration of Justice
In every “The State vs.” suit, the defendant is being accused of violating an applicable law. Everything else is secondary, and in every case the injured party is “The State”, not the actual victim(s) of a violent crime. The grievance being redressed is not that which is being held by the true victim(s) of a violent crime, but that of “The State” having its rules disobeyed. And what is the result of a conviction in such a criminal suit brought by “The State”? The defendant is charged, must pay some fine to which “the State” will profit, and/or lose his freedom by being forcefully kidnapped and thrown in prison, of which his life expenses are paid not by “the State”, but by everybody else, including the original victim(s).
Laws Don’t Deter Crime, They Create Crime
A major superstition maintained by those who believe in government (the state) is that without their laws, criminals will run rampant in the street preying on anybody and everybody who can’t personally defend themselves. Laws that prescribe harsh punishments on criminal behavior, it is believed, will deter most people from engaging in a life of crime. But I don’t believe that’s true. In fact, I believe the opposite is true: laws don’t deter crime, they create crime. How, you ask as you lean forward and rub your chin?
“Daddy, What’s a Citizen?”
This question is not as easy to answer for me as it once was. Before understanding the facts about government, I would have answered to the effect of , “A citizen is someone who is a recognized subject of the government.” *almost vomits* (My apologies, but that was very difficult to write.) Or rather, in a way understandable to an 8-year-old. Today, that’s not the answer that I can honestly give. So at first, I resisted, and made a few jokes. I needed to time to think on it. While we were brushing our teeth, the following ensued.
When Does Action Become Aggression?
Benjamin Franklin said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” I consider that apropos on the question of how to prevent unwanted albeit non-aggressive actions by others as it concerns our property. I predict that in a totally free society, security will be a higher expense on our personal financial statements than will be reactionary force or violence.
Are Incestuous Relationships Criminal?
Daughter who was adopted away sought her parents, and later started a sexual relationship with her biological father, got married, had a baby. Was a crime committed?
Dreamers’ Parents Never Sinned
I made a comment on a friend’s post on Facebook, which turned into quite the exercise in the Socratic method toward challenging Federal jurisdiction over immigration.
On Getting Libertarianism Wrong
One of my mentors and favorite libertarian theorists, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, has once again gotten it dangerously wrong on libertarianism.
The Reformulation of Rights as Liberties
Everyone and their mom likes to posit that humans have rights, and they shan’t be violated. Some say the source of these rights are God, or the gods. Others say that our rights were bestowed upon us by nature. Others, by “government” (Oy!). Through my study of this concept and the evolution of where my thinking on it stood, I have decided, for now at least, that “rights” are just liberties.
Not Requiring Evidence of Jurisdiction is a Violation of Due Process
Here’s a conversation I’ve had over the past week or two regarding jurisdiction. A number of themes are touched on throughout. This conversation began when a friend shared this success story of someone successfully defending themselves from an IRS attack by challenging jurisdiction, covering a six-year span.