I believe it is immoral to sell a gun to someone you know is a murderer. If you sell a gun to someone who is dangerous, or someone you should have know was dangerous, you should be held partially accountable for all immoral actions carried out by that dangerous person. Likewise, I believe it would be immoral to do be immoral to do buisness with a tyrant as you would be funding their tyranny.
How does a libertarian society deal with this? Does the seller of the gun owe restitution to the victims or their families?
I would say yes, and, as far as gun control goes, this should help keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals. Gun salesmen would be extra careful with private backround checks and waiting periods if they knew they would be responsible for crimes commited by their customers.
But someone doing buisness with a tyrannt cannot pay restitution to the victims, it simply isn't feasible as they have no way of prosecuting the salesman.
Perhaps private activists groups would seek arbitration on their behalf. For sake of arguement we could assume that in a libertarian-anarchist society there are international peace and charity groups that seek to fight injustice (Hopefully, a good and righteous people would flock to these organisations when free from the tax-burden).
These groups could seek out foriegn nations which abuse their people and set up a sort of private embargo on them, or a boycott. They could prosecute those who do buisness with the tyrannt-nation on behalf of its victims.
Some might argue that this idea puts too much faith in charity and the thrid sector and perhaps it does, but the long-term effects of governmental restrictions on trade or the idea of open trade with anyone, even a genocidier, are infinately worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment