How would prisons work in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society? After watching Moore's movie (gulp which is full of illogical fallacies) he claims since private prisons need to make profit they'll pay off judges to send more people in jail. I was wondering how to debunk this claim and how actual private prisons work.
I'm not so sure there would be prisons...
Somebody has to pay for these prisons. In all likelihood, it would be insurance/defense agencies. However, in the absence of a state, the primary goal of these institutions would be restitution for a criminal's victims. I doubt there would be much of a market for prisons anyway.For those prisons that remain, they would have an incentive to get as many customers (inmates) as possible - however, insurers have an incentive to pay for as few inmates as possible. They would balance each other out I guess.
In an anarcho-capitalist society who do you think will pay for a person's stay in prison? Unless the victim has the financial means to keep his offender jailed for the entirety of his sentence or the victim has enough money to pay for his stay in prison himself or insurance companies see the offender as a big enough threat to merit the cost of keeping him jailed then prison isn't even an option. Instead of using prison as a punishment for each and every crime commited there would be alternative means of punishment which would better reflect the the damage the criminal caused. For example if someone robs a store he would most likely be required to pay the victim back for everything he stole and to cover the cost accumulated in catching him. This would ensure that the victim of the crime isn't forced to suffer an even greater financial burden in keeping the thief jailed.
Anyone have a free version of this article? http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/250110
I think the global prison population would fall drastically, but I don't see them going extinct. Some of you might enjoy this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_State_Penitentiary
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
CuriousGeorge: How would prisons work in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society? After watching Moore's movie (gulp which is full of illogical fallacies) he claims since private prisons need to make profit they'll pay off judges to send more people in jail. I was wondering how to debunk this claim and how actual private prisons work.
This is what happens today, under a state. The lawmakers, judges, police and prisonguards are all on the same team. So they invent phony victimless crime laws so that they and their friends get to keep their jobs.
Judges are already 'paid off' in our current Corporatist system. Much like the Military-Industrial Complex, there's a Prison-Industrial Complex.
1. If the judges are a part of a monopoly institution, that argument certainly holds, because the person who the judge will judge, the potential prisoner, cannot choose the person who will be his judge. If, however, the judges are a part of a non-monopoly institution, the argument does not hold anymore, because the potential prisoner can indeed, to some extent, choose the person who will be his judge. In both the former and the latter conditions, the potential prisoner will attempt to avoid unfair and corrupt judges but would obviously be much more successful in that venture within a non-monopolistic system vis-à-vis a monopolistic system.
2. If prisons exist within a free society, insurance companies would have to fund them. In such a situation, the prisons, as profit-oriented establishments, would indeed want to sell their services as much as possible and therefore to accumulate as many prisoners as possible in order to profit as much as possible; but the insurance companies, also as profit-oriented establishments, would want to minimize their cost of production as much as possible and therefore to pay the prison system as little as possible and therefore to fund the incarceration of as little of an amount of prisoners as possible. In such a situation, the profit-motive of the prisons and the profit-motive of the insurance companies would, atleast to some extent, balance each other in that respect.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Here is a free copy of Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory in which he constructs a society that is 100% based on voluntary exchange. There is a section concerning private prisons, punishments, defence and various other private entities. It does not go into much detail but it is a perfect for getting a basic understanding of how a free society would function.
CuriousGeorge:How would prisons work in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society? After watching Moore's movie (gulp which is full of illogical fallacies) he claims since private prisons need to make profit they'll pay off judges to send more people in jail. I was wondering how to debunk this claim and how actual private prisons work.
Knight_of_BAAWA: You don't have to debunk the unproven.
You don't have to debunk the unproven.
If a legitimate argument is an argument which one must debunk in order to undogmatically continue to believe what the argument implies that one should not believe, the argument which Moore advanced is actually a completely legitimate argument against the idea that the prison system should be 'privatized'. If you do not believe that the precedent sentence is true, I would like to hear what you believe constitutes "pro[of]".
I. Ryan:If a legitimate argument is an argument which one must debunk in order to undogmatically continue to believe what the argument implies that one should not believe, the argument which Moore advanced is actually a completely legitimate argument against the idea that private prisons should be 'privatized'.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Non sequitur. Moore's "argument" isn't an argument at all; it's an unbacked blatant assertion.
Non sequitur. Moore's "argument" isn't an argument at all; it's an unbacked blatant assertion.
I see that you failed to quote the second part of my response. I will re-post it here:
I. Ryan: If you do not believe that the precedent sentence is true, I would like to hear what you believe constitutes "pro[of]".
If you do not believe that the precedent sentence is true, I would like to hear what you believe constitutes "pro[of]".
Ok. Who's going to pay for the incarceration? And if word gets out that the judge is being bought off, what's that going to do to their reputation? Perhaps Moore should put some thought into the crap he spews.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
What part of "the unproven does not need to be disproven" do you not get? Are you purposefully being obtuse? Do you think your red herring about "what constitutes proof" means anything to me? Listen up: I can say that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't make it so, now does it. Similarly, Moore can make all sorts of smear-tactic accusations he wants to, but unless he has something other than his say-so: it won't fly with anyone who has a functioning brain.
Jon Irenicus: And if word gets out that the judge is being bought off, what's that going to do to their reputation? Perhaps Moore should put some thought into the crap he spews.
And if word gets out that the judge is being bought off, what's that going to do to their reputation? Perhaps Moore should put some thought into the crap he spews.
If the institution wherein the judge works is a monopoly, that information is worthless because the persons who must see a judge cannot choose which judge to see.
Then maybe Moore should get a clue and focus his ire on that.
That would be way too much like having to admit that he's wrong.
Knight_of_BAAWA: What part of "the unproven does not need to be disproven" do you not get? Are you purposefully being obtuse? Do you think your red herring about "what constitutes proof" means anything to me? Listen up: I can say that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't make it so, now does it. Similarly, Moore can make all sorts of smear-tactic accusations he wants to, but unless he has something other than his say-so: it won't fly with anyone who has a functioning brain.
It is amusing that you believe that you can both (a) determine whether an argument constitutes proof and (b) not define what actually constitutes "proof".
Why would anyone in their right mind go before a judge that they know for sure will unfairly convict them of a crime?
I. Ryan:If the institution wherein the judge works is a monopoly, that information is worthless because the persons who must see a judge cannot choose which judge to see.
Then they could choose not to go to a judge at all or both parties could find someone each of them trusted to hear the case. What they couldn't do is to force each other to see a judge the other party didn't agree to see.
socialdtk: Why would anyone in their right mind go before a judge that they know for sure will unfairly convict them of a crime? I. Ryan:If the institution wherein the judge works is a monopoly, that information is worthless because the persons who must see a judge cannot choose which judge to see. Then they could choose not to go to a judge at all or both parties could find someone each of them trusted to hear the case. What they couldn't do is to force each other to see a judge the other party didn't agree upon.
Then they could choose not to go to a judge at all or both parties could find someone each of them trusted to hear the case. What they couldn't do is to force each other to see a judge the other party didn't agree upon.
In the post which you quoted, I was discussing our current situation, not the situation which would exist in a free society. In our current system, you cannot choose who will judge you.
I. Ryan:It is amusing that you believe that you can both (a) determine whether an argument constitutes proof and (b) not define what actually constitutes "proof".
Knight_of_BAAWA: It's even more amusing that you think your use of fallacies actually helps you.
It's even more amusing that you think your use of fallacies actually helps you.
Do you ever try to actually substantiate any of your claims?
That's what I'm asking of Moore. Apparently, that point flew right over your head.
what contested claim do you think he needs to substantiate?
i'm just going to throw it out there for your consideration that perhaps you are being contrarian just for the sake of it. do you thing KoB is your enemy to be bested?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Knight_of_BAAWA: That's what I'm asking of Moore. Apparently, that point flew right over your head.
If you claim that some one failed to substantiate their claim, you must, if they or some one else requests it and if you want to remain undogmatic, substantiate your claim that they failed to substantiate their claim. I can, therefore, also assert that "[t]hat's what I'm asking of" you, "[a]pparently, that point flew right over your head". In other words, you claimed that Moore did not prove his point and then I asked you to prove that Moore did not prove his point.
Moore argued that if, in our current system, we "privatize" the prison system, such action may cause some purely profit-oriented prisons to "pay off" members of the justice system to convict more individuals and therefore to provide to them more prisoners, in order to maximize their profits. Then, I, on the previous page, argued that his argument only applies to situations where the prison system becomes non-monopolic while the rest of the justice system itself remains monopolic and, therefore, that it is not a successful argument against the doctrine anarchocapitalism because, in an anarchocapitalist society, both the prison system and the rest of the justice system would be non-monopolic. But you, as you often do, dismissed his argument as merely "unproven" or 'irrelevant' without any substantiation of that claim.
I. Ryan:If you claim that some one failed to substantiate their claim, you must, if they or some one else requests it and if you want to remain undogmatic, substantiate your claim that they failed to substantiate their claim.
Knight_of_BAAWA: No, I must do no such thing.
No, I must do no such thing.
I added the condition "if you want to remain undogmatic" because I anticipated that, if I did not include that, you would provide a response which would be similar to the above response. I, apparently, was incorrect; although I added a condition which preëmptively diffused the above response, you decided to still say it.
I will say what I always say in situations like this one: I acknowledge your concession.
nirgrahamUK: what contested claim do you think he needs to substantiate?
I answered that question in the post which directly precedes my previous post.
nirgrahamUK: i'm just going to throw it out there for your consideration that perhaps you are being contrarian just for the sake of it. do you thing KoB is your enemy to be bested?
I just tend to value arguments as a function of their soundness and not just of the content of their conclusion. If I agree with the content of your conclusion, that does not imply that I will not attack your argument.
I. Ryan:I answered that question in the post which directly precedes my previous post.
you think he needs to substantiate the claim that Moore did not substantiate his claim. so you think that Moore substantiated his claim? or are you just being a pedantic contrarian?
I. Ryan:I added the condition "if you want to remain undogmatic"
And I acknowledge your concession on this matter.
nirgrahamUK: you think he needs to substantiate the claim that Moore did not substantiate his claim. so you think that Moore substantiated his claim? or are you just being a pedantic contrarian?
If you read my previous posts, you would know the answer. In the following post, I answered your question explicitly:
I. Ryan: If you claim that some one failed to substantiate their claim, you must, if they or some one else requests it and if you want to remain undogmatic, substantiate your claim that they failed to substantiate their claim. I can, therefore, also assert that "[t]hat's what I'm asking of" you, "[a]pparently, that point flew right over your head". In other words, you claimed that Moore did not prove his point and then I asked you to prove that Moore did not prove his point. Moore argued that if, in our current system, we "privatize" the prison system, such action may cause some purely profit-oriented prisons to "pay off" members of the justice system to convict more individuals and therefore to provide to them more prisoners, in order to maximize their profits. Then, I, on the previous page, argued that his argument only applies to situations where the prison system becomes non-monopolic while the rest of the justice system itself remains monopolic and, therefore, that it is not a successful argument against the doctrine anarchocapitalism because, in an anarchocapitalist society, both the prison system and the rest of the justice system would be non-monopolic. But you, as you often do, dismissed his argument as merely "unproven" or 'irrelevant' without any substantiation of that claim.
I. Ryan:I just tend to value arguments as a function of their soundness and not just of the content of their conclusion.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Which you then have to support. And I acknowledge your concession on this matter.
Which you then have to support.
I also added the condition "if they or some one else requests it" because I anticipated that, if I did not include that, you would provide a response with would be similar to the above response. I, apparently, was incorrect; although I added a condition which preëmptively diffused the above response, you decided to still say it.
I, now, must, in order to remain undogmatic, substantiate the claim which you implicitly challenged:
I said that "[i]f you claim" X, "you must, [...] if you want to remain undogmatic, substantiate your claim". A relevant circumlocution of the word "dogmatic" is, as an example, "a person who does not substantiate his claims". Therefore, the judgement that "to remain undogmatic" means that you must "substantiate your claim" is tautological.
I. Ryan:I also added the condition "if they or some one else requests it"
Again: I accept your concession on this matter. Feel free to continue to flail about.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Which has no bearing.
Which has no bearing.
If one were to have to substantiate every single connection in his argument in order to remain undogmatic, no one whatever would remain undogmatic, because, in every argument, implicit assumptions exist because to completely anticipate what will be the assumptions which your opponents will contest is impossible. So, then, when some one requests that you substantiate one of your implicit assumptions, you must, in order to remain undogmatic, substantiate and therefore explicitize that assumption. As a conclusion, such a condition does "ha[ve] [...] bearing".
Knight_of_BAAWA: And what of Moore's unsupported assertion was sound? Recall: an argument can be sound. Assertions devoid of backing are not arguments, but rather idle talk.
And what of Moore's unsupported assertion was sound? Recall: an argument can be sound. Assertions devoid of backing are not arguments, but rather idle talk.
I already answered those questions:
I. Ryan: Moore argued that if, in our current system, we "privatize" the prison system, such action may cause some purely profit-oriented prisons to "pay off" members of the justice system to convict more individuals and therefore to provide to them more prisoners, in order to maximize their profits. Then, I, on the previous page, argued that his argument only applies to situations where the prison system becomes non-monopolic while the rest of the justice system itself remains monopolic and, therefore, that it is not a successful argument against the doctrine anarchocapitalism because, in an anarchocapitalist society, both the prison system and the rest of the justice system would be non-monopolic. But you, as you often do, dismissed his argument as merely "unproven" or 'irrelevant' without any substantiation of that claim.
"I [...] argued that his argument [...] applies to situations where the prison system becomes non-monopolic while the rest of the justice system itself remains monopolic."
That's a pretty bogus claim, even if you're talking about semi-privatized prisons and not full-blown anarchy. Anyone can still pay off anyone else to get something done, but that doesn't mean we completely abolish free enterprise and capitalism. Bribery is already illegal, so the answer to Moore is simply this: don't let bribery happen. If you have a good police force and strong punishments for those convicted of bribery, you will see the rate of bribery fall.
Moreover, don't you think that the public would vote out a judge who was shown to put plenty of innocent people in jail?
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju: That's a pretty bogus claim, even if you're talking about semi-privatized prisons and not full-blown anarchy. Anyone can still pay off anyone else to get something done, but that doesn't mean we completely abolish free enterprise and capitalism. Bribery is already illegal, so the answer to Moore is simply this: don't let bribery happen. If you have a good police force and strong punishments for those convicted of bribery, you will see the rate of bribery fall.
I know that his ultimate conclusion is that capitalism is evil. But, in the post which you quoted, I only dealt with his argument that, in our current system, the "privatization" of the system of prisons would cause perverse incentives to become existent; I did not deal with his ultimate argument that, because that argument and other arguments are allegedly true, capitalism is evil.
krazy kaju: Moreover, don't you think that the public would vote out a judge who was shown to put plenty of innocent people in jail?
No. The democratic system does not work. I am sure that, as a member of this forum, you understand that.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And what of Moore's unsupported assertion was sound? Recall: an argument can be sound. Assertions devoid of backing are not arguments, but rather idle talk.
I. Ryan:I already answered those questions
Look: if you wish to continue in your delusion that Moore's blatant assertions are sound, so be it.