Nostr Web Client

nostr:nprofile1qqst0mtgkp3du662ztj3l4fgts0purksu5fgek5n4vgmg9gt2hkn9lqpzdmhxue69uhhwmm59e6hg7r09ehkuef0qys8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytn9d9h82mny0fmkzmn6d9njuumsv93k2tchdvwsu I have a question:

If someone breaks into private property (illegally) and uncovers proof that the owner has stolen property — should that evidence be considered valid in a libertarian legal framework?

Rothbard and Hoppe would argue, no. But this does not make sense to me. What is your viewpoint on that? This is not a deductive objective step anymore it seems to me

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Max 6mo ago

Libertarian legal theory prioritizes procedural consistency over outcomes. Even if the evidence is factually true, its acquisition through coercion invalidates its use in a justice process. To accept such evidence would imply that aggression can be a legitimate tool for uncovering truth, opening a dangerous precedent where anyone could trespass or violate rights "for the greater good."

SpontaneousOrder 6mo ago

Okay I still have “buts”:

- aggression would still not be legitimate, as the aggressor would be punished non the less (regardless if he finds eve fence or not

- information (here the evidence) is not scare? and thus no property.

- if the evidence would be uploaded to the internet, third parties would have gotten the information without aggression, and it could then be used legally

Also it feels wrong, but I now feelings are not objectively. But it’s basically saying, the truth does not exist legally.