Not that I don't have problems with state-enforced "justice".
However, there a few issues I need to address:
(1) Is there a precise non-arbitrary amount you can violate someone's individual sovereignty in response to their violation of yours?
(2) With the fact that all judgements are subjective, can one ever take retributory action?
(3) Is pre-emptive action ever justifiable?
(4) Are "raider societies" a realistic idea?
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
I believe that some areas of justice are irredeemably interpretation-laden and will ultimately be dealt with by way of convention, as in the case of the common law. I don't see this so much a flaw as a recognition of a basic fact of reality. Anyway, on retribution I think you should take a look at this paper by Kinsella. I haven't read it, but he alluded to it in a recent Mises blogpost on retribution, and judging from other things I've read by him, it should be instructive.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Thedesolateone:(1) Is there a precise non-arbitrary amount you can violate someone's individual sovereignty in response to their violation of yours?
Not an amount that can be known a priori, without knowing the specifics of a situation.
Thedesolateone:(2) With the fact that all judgements are subjective, can one ever take retributory action?
I would say no, although not necessarily because of the agent-relativity of judgements. The only thing justified, in my eyes, is restitution.
Thedesolateone:(3) Is pre-emptive action ever justifiable?
In response to a credible and imminent threat, yes. Otherwise, no.
Thedesolateone:(4) Are "raider societies" a realistic idea?
Sure. Not libertarian, but realistic.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
wombatron: Thedesolateone:(1) Is there a precise non-arbitrary amount you can violate someone's individual sovereignty in response to their violation of yours? Not an amount that can be known a priori, without knowing the specifics of a situation.
What I mean is, can we make a judgement prior to any situation, assuming the circumstances.
wombatron: Thedesolateone:(2) With the fact that all judgements are subjective, can one ever take retributory action? not necessarily because of the agent-relativity of judgements
not necessarily because of the agent-relativity of judgements
Then why? And if so, does the agent-relativity (as you put it) matter?
Thedesolateone: What I mean is, can we make a judgement prior to any situation, assuming the circumstances.
Not without knowing all of the facts: the judicial precedents, cultural and social norms, the specifics of the event and the individuals involved, etc. What Jon said earlier is applicable here.
Thedesolateone:Then why? And if so, does the agent-relativity (as you put it) matter?
I say "agent-relativity" because value judgments are subjective in some senses and objective in others. I don't think it matters very much in this particular issue. I think that retribution is illegitimate because the entire point of justice (applied to torts and crimes) is to restore the victim to as near as their previous state as possible, which punishment after-the-fact doesn't do.