FOUR LEGAL MODELS AND BLACKMAIL Given that necessary morality is objectively def

FOUR LEGAL MODELS AND BLACKMAIL

Given that necessary morality is objectively defined (in-group cooperation: the prohibition on free riding), and unnecessary moral rules are defined (in-group signals and rituals) and out-group cooperation is also defined (rothbardian ethics – the ethics of states) we can look at four possible permutations of representing the causes of criminal, ethical and moral in-group conflict under different legal prohibitions:

1) ILLEGAL or LEGAL and NON-MORAL: If two people want to engage in blackmail, but the victim doesn’t want to prosecute, then there is no crime, because without a state there is no one else to make the claim of wrongdoing.

2) ILLEGAL: If blackmail is illegal, because it is immoral, and the party wants to sue, he can.

3) LEGAL: If it is not illegal but it is immoral, then the victim has no other recourse but violence.

I do not see how one can claim innocence if one aggresses via blackmail, then is murdered for his aggression.

4) MINIMUM LEGAL SCOPE, FREEDOM OUTSIDE THAT SCOPE. So that means the fourth scenario is that violence is of course always available as a means of settling unethical and immoral conflicts. So the law can only be used for rothbardian levels of conflict (crime) and violence remains available for unethical and immoral actions.

Cheers.