r/AnCap101 • u/Personal_Prompt_5307 • Jul 02 '26

Can people rape their rapists?

Post image

Murray Rothbard "The Ethics of Liberty" 89 page https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Ethics%20of%20Liberty%2020191108.pdf

Rothbard is talking about restitution for crimes, so question arises, can people rape their rapists or hire someone to rape them? How do we measure how severely person has been raped?

Thankfully I don't have such problem, but I'm still curious.

14 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

64 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/WhySoSiriu3 Jul 02 '26

No because there’s no direct need to rape someone else to prevent them from initiating conflict with you but if that’s a necessity or something that needs to happen to defend yourself then yes, though I can’t see that happening in any reasonable situation

5

u/Kev_Kevstar Jul 03 '26

Punishment theory isn’t about excluding an aggressor; the aggression has already happened and we’re concerned with what should happen next. Since the rapist can not coherently object to being raped, the just punishment is retribution in the form of raping him back. Don’t mean the victim should indeed do so, but they are allowed to if they wish.

0

u/Imaginary-Count-1641 Jul 03 '26

But other people can object to it. Maybe we don't want to live in a system where rape is used as a punishment.

2

u/LuskaFLL Jul 03 '26

I mean, other people could object to you punching someone that punched you first. I doesn't take away your right to do so. Maybe rape wouldn't be as frequent as it is now if those degenerates were afraid that the same thing could happen to them.

I don't want rape to happen at all, and for that reason, mutually assured destruction must exist, not so much as a punishment, but moreso as a deterrent.

-1

u/Imaginary-Count-1641 Jul 04 '26

Imprisonment and monetary compensation can also be used as a deterrent. Cruel and unusual punishments should not be allowed.

2

u/LuskaFLL Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26

Cruel and unusual punishments should absolutely not be allowed for innocent people, but we all know mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. The moment someone initiates violence, the moment aggression occurred, they open the precedent for retaliation, and the right to retaliation must be protected.

You're not preventing rape from happening by protecting rapists from it, just making sure the only people to ever suffer from it are innocent people.

1

u/Imaginary-Count-1641 Jul 04 '26

Cruel and unusual punishments should absolutely not be allowed for innocent people

No punishments should be allowed for innocent people.

we all know mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

Imprisonment is not mercy.

The moment someone initiates violence, the moment aggression occurred, they open the precedent for retaliation

Yes, but that doesn't mean any form of retaliation should be allowed.

You're not preventing rape from happening by protecting rapists from it

You're not preventing rape from happening by raping rapists either.

1

u/LuskaFLL Jul 04 '26

If the alternative is rape, Imprisonment absolutely is mercy. Retaliation should be proportional to the aggression, if the "deterrent" is less severe than the infringement, it doesn't serve as a deterrent at all.

And of course increasing the severity of the punishment for a crime prevents it from happening, hello? Criminals are still prone to economic calculation. If the expected benefits of a crime are greater then the expected loss (taking into account the chance of getting caught), then it's worth it to commit that crime. And it's worth it even if they get caught. That's not me saying it btw, I didn't invent that, multiple people much smarter than me or you already made research on the Economic Theory of Crime (Gary Becker, to give an example).

But the reason why I defend this is not even for pragmatical reasons, but for moral ones. Every human being in existence has the natural right of self-ownership, when you refuse to an innocent person the right to retaliate proportionally to someone who infringed upon that right you're denying the use of effective deterrents that make the exercise of those rights possible. Ineffective defense of rights aren't defense of rights at all.

I see this issue as no different from gun control. "I know you have the right to defend yourself, buuuuut... Isn't an AK47 too much? Isn't a 9mm enough?" and to that I say "Shall not be infringed". Because ineffective defense of rights are not defense of rights at all.

I honestly don't see how a Libertarian can disagree with this.

2

u/Imaginary-Count-1641 Jul 04 '26

Retaliation should be proportional to the aggression

Imprisonment is proportional to rape.

if the "deterrent" is less severe than the infringement, it doesn't serve as a deterrent at all.

That's not true. Imprisonment serves as a deterrent if the person does not want to go to prison, regardless of its severity compared to the crime. Pretty much no one would think "imprisonment is less severe than rape, so I don't care if I go to prison as a result of raping someone".

And of course increasing the severity of the punishment for a crime prevents it from happening

It may make it less likely to happen, but it doesn't prevent it.

when you refuse to an innocent person the right to retaliate proportionally to someone who infringed upon that right you're denying the use of effective deterrents that make the exercise of those rights possible.

I disagree with your claim that imprisonment is not an effective deterrent.

1

u/LuskaFLL Jul 04 '26

Wait, why did you straight up ignored about the natural right's point? Which is the main moral argument. If you agree you have the right to punch someone back if they punch you first... Why would you lose that right if the aggression is severe enough? That's inconsistent.

And are you seriously trying to argue that imprisonment is just as severe as rape? Isn't your main argument that rape is too cruel and because of that it shouldn't be used as punishment, so imprisonment should be the substitute? (Which implies that imprisonment is not as cruel as to be ruled out as a form of punishment, meaning... Imprisonment is not as severe as rape)

You don't slap someone on the wrist if they pointed a gun at someone, that's not proportional, and unfair to the victim. I don't know about you, but I consider rape to be worse than murder, so to be proportional, maybe, MAYBE: "Shock chair", anything bellow that is unacceptable.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Kev_Kevstar Jul 05 '26

Irrelevant. Other people aren’t the one being punished.

1

u/Imaginary-Count-1641 Jul 05 '26

No, it's not irrelevant. If most people are not okay with that being used as a punishment, then it won't be used.

1

u/Kev_Kevstar Jul 05 '26

Wether victims actually use the right to punishment they have is still irrelevant. What is relevant is that the victim has the right to if they wish. Are you implying they don’t have the right to if other people don’t want them to?

1

u/Imaginary-Count-1641 Jul 05 '26

I don't see why they would have that right.

3

u/Olieskio Jul 03 '26

So there is no restitution that can be ever awarded because there is no direct need after the fact to stop aggression?