In the modern state the main purpose of punishment is usually considered to be the protection of society and deterrence of future crime.
In a libertarian world, there is no such thing as "society", there is just an individual who was harmed, and has to be restituted. So the purpose of punishment in the libertarian world is only restitution.
So how in the libertarian world can people be protected from a criminal if for instance the victim is not a vengeful person and decides not to demand restitution and not to punish the criminal? How can future crimes be deterred if the criminal was not punished? What if the criminal goes to murder someone else a week after? If only the victim decides about the punishment and restitution, what happens when the victim is not interested? Can we just let a violent aggressor go free?
your whole assumption is wrong that in a libertarian society the only way to punish is resitution.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html
http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block30.html
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
I read all these links. They don't explain the externality involved in the association between the victim and the criminal. The externality is quite significant as everyone in the neighborhood is immediately and seriously affected by the character of the punishment. If the punishment is too light, a deterrence against future crimes is not achieved, and the criminal may go to continue his violent rampage.
If any of these bizarre situations were real, pervasive problems in a functioning stateless society, people will figure out ways to deal with them. I don't see how this could ever be an issue. If there are non-materialist individuals who don't mind that their possessions are stolen from them, "thieves" will not take this as a signal that everything is up for grabs, only that the possessions of non-materialists are up for grabs. In the case of murder... well, the victim is dead. If his close relatives don't want restitution, others may be liable to claim some of it (his life insurance company, his employer, etc.), and there are still consequences for the murderer. He may still be apprehended, see a massive blow to his "credit," be cast out as an outlaw, etc.
And note that, in the real statist world today, many victims do not report crimes to the police, as collaborating with the police and courts in the hope of apprehending and punishing criminals is very costly and often not worth it. Bruce Benson:
The [Figgie Report on Fear of Crime] also pointed out that crime statistics understate the true level of crime. According to the report, an estimated 60 percent of all personal larceny cases where there is no contact between the thief and his victim go unreported; and less than 50 percent of all assaults, less than 60 percent of all household burglaries, less than 30 percent of household larcenies, and only a little more than half of all robberies and rapes are reported.
"thieves" will not take this as a signal that everything is up for grabs, only that the possessions of non-materialists are up for grabs.
Yeah, that's a good point. If the non-materialists as you call them don't care, then there was no real aggression.
By the way, do you accept the notion that libertarian courts will usually consider only restitution, and nothing else? Also, do you accept the eye for an eye principle as advocated by Kinsella?
In the case of an individual being killed then someone could work under the assumption that the individual did not want to be killed and therefore he could be charged with the crime of theft by any court of law.
Technically one is not a criminal if one does something that another does not care if it is done. If today I broke into someone's house and took there stuff and the individual said that it was ok then I assume that this is not illegal today because the "victim" chose to drop charges.
Possibly most importantly, how many people do you believe would not press charges?
As to your most recent post, I do not believe in eye for an eye, and one cannot predict exactly how the anarchist courts will turn out, however I would expect that some crimes would demand far higher restitution payments than others. Murder is likely to be seen as far more despicable than mere theft.
Human nature is naturally vindictive. You could think of law as a limiter on the human impulse for revenge. Hence, I don't think it's a serious concern that victims will systematically fail to demand as much restitution and retribution (yes, retribution) as they are entitled to. Instead, the law will act as a restraint on the impulse to revenge and victims will generally collect all the damages to which they are entitled under the law (and I could imagine a "repo" market arising - as in medieval Iceland - where victims can sell their collection rights to a professional collections agent at a discount).
I don't think that courts - in a true free market in law - would consider "deterrence" in making their decisions, either, since "deterrence" implies that some portion of the punishment is unrelated to the damage done and is, in fact, intended to "make an example" of someone. Rather, I see the situation thusly, that the court will look at the damage done and say something to the effect of, "based on the damage done and as the person responsible for the damage, you're going to have to agree to pay restitution for all the damage done and agree to X, Y or Z retributive damages in order to get the victim to settle with you." If the court instead said, "... you're going to have to agree to pay restitution for all the damage done and agree to X, Y or Z retributive damages because if you aren't forced to pay these retributive damages, other people might think it is worth it to do what you did...", the aggressor/tortfeasor could reasonably reject this by pointing out that it's not his job to be made an example of in order to deter crime/torts generally. So, I think the whole concept of punishing people to make an example out of them is inherently Statist. However, I disagree with non-retributionists (such as Roderick Long) and I think that, in a natural order society, punishment would exist but it would be an offering to satiate the vengeance of the victim. Basically, once you've paid the accepted penance, the victim has no further claim on you and any violence by the victim against you is now its own tort.
Clayton -
Most likely his friends or realatives would go after him. Even those like me who don`t necesarly care might go after him because I`m concerned for my and my family`s safety. I don`t want someone like that on the loose.
I might also ignore it and stay away from people like that.
I don`t really think these situations are relevant. Asking how a ``AnCap society`` will solve this is somewhat obvious, it will be solved like in most societies. Last time I checked most civilazations don`t tolerate murder.
Also there is such a thing as `society`it just doesn`t exist as an organism.
Murder is likely to be seen as far more despicable than mere theft.
My view is that murder, once established, would almost always result in outlawry. My reasoning is this. In a free market of law, a 'judge' is nothing more than an arbitrator, a person who facilitates discussion between two parties in a dispute for the purpose of settling the dispute hopefully without bloodshed or violence. As such, the restitution/punishments that courts approve would only be accepted by the aggressor precisely because it is better than the alternative (namely, being outlawed and then hunted down and killed by the victim's PDA). I think that the only appropriate deterrent for murder is death because any other punishment fails to fully internalize all the costs of the decision onto the aggressor (any fine, no matter how large, is still less of a loss to the murderer than the loss suffered by the murderer's victim). But death is not a penalty which a free-market court could ever suggest because the aggressor would never agree to certain death as an alternative to anything. Hence, the only possible outcome that preserves the victim's right for revenge-in-kind (death for a death) and which does not presuppose some kind of Hobbesian Leviathan with the power to impose whatever punishment it chooses on the parties to a dispute, is outlawry. So, I think outlawry would be how murder would be dealt with. Once outlawed, the aggressor would no longer have access to defense by any legitimate PDA (legitimate PDAs would not want to be seen protecting outlaws) and his only chance of surviving would be if he were very rich and could escape off to some remote territory where gangs would be willing to protect him until they figured out where his cache of gold was and killed him and took it. But once someone is outlawed, they are "fair game" since killing them is no longer murder. The victim's relatives will, of course, desire revenge and will be willing to pay a PDA to hunt the aggressor down and kill him.
I think it's actually a much more civilized system than what we have.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/child-killer-michael-woodmansee-early-release-victims-father/story?id=13086509
The State is clearly violating this man's natural right in revenge against his son's murderer by providing protection of the murderer against his victim's father. This is just one of uncountable examples of how Statist law turns justice on its head.
Eugene: I read all these links. They don't explain the externality involved in the association between the victim and the criminal. The externality is quite significant as everyone in the neighborhood is immediately and seriously affected by the character of the punishment. If the punishment is too light, a deterrence against future crimes is not achieved, and the criminal may go to continue his violent rampage
I read all these links. They don't explain the externality involved in the association between the victim and the criminal. The externality is quite significant as everyone in the neighborhood is immediately and seriously affected by the character of the punishment. If the punishment is too light, a deterrence against future crimes is not achieved, and the criminal may go to continue his violent rampage
I disagree that there arn't externalities involved in these writings. but assuming that to be true, that still misses the initial point of my post. You claim that in a libertarian society, the only way to prosecute is by restitution. I am just saying that the claim is wrong to begin with...
Okay, why do we take for granted the right of an individual for vengence? Restitution is completely understandable, however vengence is not something very rational. Why is it an axiom that individuals have the right to exact vengence?
Another question, Kinsella argues for an eye for an eye principle. But he never mentions what happens in cases in which someone caused damage to someone else by mistake, or by being negligent. Surely, an eye for an eye in this case would not serve justice.
Eugene:why do we take for granted the right of an individual for vengence?
Well according to Block, once you break the NAP in this case, the person who commited the crime loses his rights. "It is simply not true that "every individual is sovereign in a system of anarchy." Criminals are not sovereign. This applies, only, to non-criminals" -walter block (said here )
Eugene:Restitution is completely understandable, however vengence is not something very rational. Why is it an axiom that individuals have the right to exact vengence?
You saying that restitution is not very rational is totally subjective on your part...What moral system are you exactly refering to? If you are refering to either Utilitarianism, NAP, Natural Right Theory, Kinsella eye for an eye principal, or Kantian moral theory, then "vengence" brought onto a criminal is justified in ALL of those moral theories
Eugene:Another question, Kinsella argues for an eye for an eye principle. But he never mentions what happens in cases in which someone caused damage to someone else by mistake, or by being negligent.
be more specific, give me an example of someone causing damage to someone else by mistake or by being negligent....
@Eugene
I might be mistaken, so correct me.
You're looking at this as if we are supposed to follow someones ethics(Kinsella's). I too, do not believe in vengeance myself. If someone killed your family it's still up to you to decide whether you want to take them to court or go "rogue" and pursue them(kill them).
If not, what do you propose? If someone causes damage to me by mistake it is still up to me to decide whether I want to pursue him or not. Depending on my view of it all.
What do you mean "by mistake"? "Sorry I blew up your house, by mistake....", the question whether individual A has wronged individual B lies between them.
If I killed you in a car accident in which my blame is only partial, I don't expect you to get me killed for that. That's not justice. If two people can't reach an agreement about restitution, or an agreement about a third party arbitrator, I also wouldn't want the strong and more ruthless one to prevail. Therefore justice cannot be just a matter of the people involved, because its not justice, its jungle law.
Eugene:In the modern state the main purpose of punishment is usually considered to be the protection of society and deterrence of future crime. In a libertarian world, there is no such thing as "society", there is just an individual who was harmed, and has to be restituted. So the purpose of punishment in the libertarian world is only restitution. So how in the libertarian world can people be protected from a criminal if for instance the victim is not a vengeful person and decides not to demand restitution and not to punish the criminal? How can future crimes be deterred if the criminal was not punished? What if the criminal goes to murder someone else a week after? If only the victim decides about the punishment and restitution, what happens when the victim is not interested? Can we just let a violent aggressor go free? First off, let's distinguish two meanings of "criminal" in modern English - "one who has committed a crime" and "one who has, does, and will habitually commit crimes if given the chance". Note that these definitions, while both involving the concept of "committing a crime", are fundamentally different in that the former focuses on a particular action or set of actions while the other focuses on the person inherently. Modern statist "justice" seems to emphasize the second meaning of "criminal" over the first, to the point at which today most people seem to believe that rehabilitation is practically impossible. "Once a criminal, always a criminal," they say. Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, typically emphasize the first meaning of "criminal" over the second. They support the notion of rehabilitation and the chance for criminals (in the first sense) to "buy back" into the social order - should they so choose. Restitution is fundamentally concerned with restoring the previous state of affairs to the fullest extent possible. Therefore restitution is fundamentally concerned with specific criminal actions. In other words, it's concerned with the first sense of "criminal" above, not the second. That said, nothing can prevent crimes from occurring. If someone wants to commit a crime badly enough, he'll find a way to do it. This is as true in statist societies as it would be in non-statist societies. Given this reality, restitutive justice can only be applied after the fact. Therefore, it relies on claims of harm put forth by people. If a person who was harmed decides not to put forth a claim of it, then (in effect) justice has already spoken and has already been served. I think the notion of "deterring crime" or "deterring criminals" is a result of the statist monopoly over courts. Apparently, it's difficult for states to increase the number of courts in proportion to rising demand for them. So as time has gone on, the caseload of each court has skyrocketed. Focusing on "deterrence" seems to be an alternative strategy for reducing caseloads. Based on my understanding of economics, a free market in courts would lead to far more of them than we see today. "Deterrence" would become a thing of the past. The keyboard is mightier than the gun. Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem. Voluntaryism Forum | Post Points: 5
First off, let's distinguish two meanings of "criminal" in modern English - "one who has committed a crime" and "one who has, does, and will habitually commit crimes if given the chance". Note that these definitions, while both involving the concept of "committing a crime", are fundamentally different in that the former focuses on a particular action or set of actions while the other focuses on the person inherently.
Modern statist "justice" seems to emphasize the second meaning of "criminal" over the first, to the point at which today most people seem to believe that rehabilitation is practically impossible. "Once a criminal, always a criminal," they say. Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, typically emphasize the first meaning of "criminal" over the second. They support the notion of rehabilitation and the chance for criminals (in the first sense) to "buy back" into the social order - should they so choose.
Restitution is fundamentally concerned with restoring the previous state of affairs to the fullest extent possible. Therefore restitution is fundamentally concerned with specific criminal actions. In other words, it's concerned with the first sense of "criminal" above, not the second.
That said, nothing can prevent crimes from occurring. If someone wants to commit a crime badly enough, he'll find a way to do it. This is as true in statist societies as it would be in non-statist societies.
Given this reality, restitutive justice can only be applied after the fact. Therefore, it relies on claims of harm put forth by people. If a person who was harmed decides not to put forth a claim of it, then (in effect) justice has already spoken and has already been served.
I think the notion of "deterring crime" or "deterring criminals" is a result of the statist monopoly over courts. Apparently, it's difficult for states to increase the number of courts in proportion to rising demand for them. So as time has gone on, the caseload of each court has skyrocketed. Focusing on "deterrence" seems to be an alternative strategy for reducing caseloads. Based on my understanding of economics, a free market in courts would lead to far more of them than we see today. "Deterrence" would become a thing of the past.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Eugene: Another question, Kinsella argues for an eye for an eye principle. But he never mentions what happens in cases in which someone caused damage to someone else by mistake, or by being negligent. Surely, an eye for an eye in this case would not serve justice.
http://blog.mises.org/10572/the-libertarian-approach-to-negligence-tort-and-strict-liability-wergeld-and-partial-wergeld/
Yes he does.