A series of questions from Yaroslav
Is the client of a hitman responsible for the murder, and did the employer commit an act of aggression from a libertarian perspective?
I have already answered almost exactly this question. In short: if the employer and the executor are linked only by market relations, then all responsibility lies with the executor. To the extent that the executor is in a non-market dependence on the employer, a share of the responsibility falls on the employer, because this very share of dependence is effectively their share of participation in the co-organization of the murder.
Is the unintentional infection of a person with a disease a violation of the NAP?
Legally, it is an accident. I have answered questions on related topics a couple of times: regarding provoking an epileptic seizure and regarding killing in response to an imaginary threat.
The measure of responsibility for the person who infected is determined by how capable they were of preventing the infection and how expected these precautions were on their part. For example, in a situation where an epidemic is occurring, it is expected that people maintain distance, wear masks, and so on. If all this took place but the infection occurred anyway, responsibility is waived. If the infector carelessly led a normal lifestyle, responsibility is not waived. The same criteria apply to the infected person—what they did to avoid being infected. However, if there is no epidemic or nothing is known about it yet, then no particular claims arise against the infector.
Should infection be considered a violation of the NAP? As you wish. A violation of the NAP is a purely theoretical construct, while in real life, what matters is who should bear the property claims.
What is the difference between contractual jurisdiction and a state?
The presence of a contract that clearly specifies the conditions of jurisdiction. The more blurred the range of issues for which a subject is subject to a certain organization is, the more difficult it is for them to actually avoid jurisdiction, and the more implicit the contract is, the smaller the difference between contractual jurisdiction and a state.
For instance, a hypothetical island owner who places a sign on the shore stating that anyone who steps onto the island’s land thereby accepts a contract of indefinite gratuitous employment for an unspecified range of labor duties—has de facto created a state, which will exist exactly as long as he can produce enforcement of the aforementioned oppressive contract, enslaving all accidental tourists and shipwreck survivors.
When does a person reach the age of agency?
It makes sense to read my old answers under the “children” tag; there are reflections on emancipation scattered across several posts. In short: others recognize the guardian’s right to guardianship until the child expresses a clear desire to terminate this relationship. Accordingly, a child has the right to break the connection with current guardians at any moment, and thereafter either live independently or agree on guardianship with someone else. Since a child does not learn to defend their interests immediately, they will likely need the help of adults, and the task of those adults is not only to ensure the child’s rights but also to convince other adults that the child’s rights have been respected.
