What do you feel the most justified retroactive justice would be in an anarchist society concerning a murderous outlaw? Death? Imprisonment? Say that there is damning evidence, such as a video tape of the murder, but no cirumstantial evidence (motive).
Justice belongs to the victim. It is not the business of anyone else what kind of punishment to enact.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
The penalty for murder should be the same as it is for civil wrongful death: the full value of the life of the victim measured in money and, again as in civil wrongful death, the victim's conscious pain and suffering.
I favor the death penalty for murder. It seems to me that taking a life, one forfeits his own. Your view might be more common historically, though. Even bedouin will waive vengeance in exchange for blood money.
--Len.
Stranger:Justice belongs to the victim. It is not the business of anyone else what kind of punishment to enact.
I agree, although I think this would still be decided by an arbiter court with a list of varying punishments already decided upon before. To answer the OPs question, the punishment will be whatever the people who hire the security firms will want, as these security firms will have contracts between each other with regards to what court they use. If a customer doesn't like what court and system of punishment a particular PDA goes to, they will look for another that satisfies their demand.
We cannot answer the question of what the punishment would be. Only statist social engineers who legislate without regard to the demands of the people can do this.
In a primary sense, yes. However, anyone who wants to can recover stolen property from a thief. The property would still belong to its original owner, so whoever recovers it must return it to the owner. He can at most seek compensation for his effort. Free-market bounty hunting is perfectly reasonable.
I agree. I'm against any institutionalized murder.
Dealdy force is appropriate by a victum in a number of circumstances, like attempted murder or rape. But after the act it would have no constructive purpose.
If a person commits murder he should be declared a none person under the legal system, forfeiting societies protections.
Peace
Len Budney:In a primary sense, yes. However, anyone who wants to can recover stolen property from a thief. The property would still belong to its original owner, so whoever recovers it must return it to the owner. He can at most seek compensation for his effort. Free-market bounty hunting is perfectly reasonable.
That is not correct. A bounty hunter is pursuing a contract with a victim, which has specifically requested that his property be recovered. However, simply the fact that someone has stolen property does not grant you the right to steal it from them without the authorization of the legitimate owner. Because you are not authorized to possess or handle the property, you would be in exactly the same situation as the original thief.
Well the case is simpler if the murderer belongs to a security organization. But what about the case where someone who is already an exile/outlaw kills. In other words, would you subscribe to a security service that assigns no value to the life of an outlaw? Where it is basically "open season" on their asses.
twistedbydsign99: In other words, would you subscribe to a security service that assigns no value to the life of an outlaw? Where it is basically "open season" on their asses.
In other words, would you subscribe to a security service that assigns no value to the life of an outlaw? Where it is basically "open season" on their asses.
Our current socialist, universal legal system subsidizes crime because it protects the criminal from the victum(and other criminals) at the victum's expense.
Twistedbydesigh99
It would be for the relatives of the murdered person to decide on the means of punishment. Murray Rothbard suggests that punishment should be reciprocal. So, murder means that the next of kin may choose execution.
Should the next of kin choose life imprisonment instead, the question arises as to who will pay for the cost of the imprisonment. The next of kin may choose to pay himself, or the murderer may offer to pay out of his own savings. But, in such an anarchist society, the public at large would not have to pay for this person's incarceration.
For theft, Murray Rothbard suggests that the robber should pay back what he has stolen, plus an equivalent to the amount stolen in compensation. Should the robber not be able to pay, he would then have to work for the person he robbed until the amount was repaid.
With kind regards
Remnant.
would you subscribe to a security service that assigns no value to the life of an outlaw? Where it is basically "open season" on their asses.
That's the original definition of outlaw, actually: one who has excluded himself from lawful society, and therefore from its protection. The outlaw still has a right not to be aggressed against; people have simply declared their unwillingness to stick up for him any longer. That does leave him relatively undefended, and therefore prey to criminals.
In that context, what would it mean for a security service to "assign value" to his life? In Libertopia, to be an "outlaw" simply means that one subscribes to no security firms, nor participates in other mutual defense arrangements. The security firm won't come to his rescue, but only because he isn't a client. Are you suggesting that they should come to his rescue for free?
Byzantine: JonBostwick:Our current socialist, universal legal system subsidizes crime because it protects the criminal from the victum(and other criminals) at the victum's expense. Applause.
JonBostwick:Our current socialist, universal legal system subsidizes crime because it protects the criminal from the victum(and other criminals) at the victum's expense.
Applause.
Just imagine how convincing an argument that would have been if I hadn't spelled victim wrong.
What I was driving at was, would a security firm presume to put its sphere of influence over a person who is completely opted out of the security market. If they would presume, what do you think the ethical implications of that action are? Is it a slippery slope situation that could lead to dominion over the unaffiliated? Personally I would not subscribe to any service that would do this arbitrarily, but given the current support of our current government.. I'm not sure I could rest easy that others wouldnt. I was also noting that this would be retro active justice as the victim is murdered. Therefore killing this outlaw doesn't balance any losses it just prevents future aggressions.
You dont seem to make the distinction between sanctioning murder and refusing to aid an person. Withholding "protection" is no different than withholding any other good. Surely you don't mean to speak out against boycotts.
twistedbydsign99:What I was driving at was, would a security firm presume to put its sphere of influence over a person who is completely opted out of the security market.
What I was driving at was, would a security firm presume to put its sphere of influence over a person who is completely opted out of the security market.
A security firm would not presume to put its sphere of influence over a person. That would make it a government, wouldn't it? What you are envisioning, declaring someone devoid of human rights because they are criminal, is what actually happens today when criminals become property of the state. The market solution already presented is incomparable to that in terms of supporting human dignity.
I guess I am not understanding the argument. Without a government, should I kill my neighbor for whatever reason and refuse retribution, I would no longer enjoy the protections of any security org. right?? Who cares though?? I have tons of able bodied twenty-five yr old friends that will protect me and we own lots of guns. What did I lose? Or say we get really bold and start a gang/mob sort of thing, it seems to have no down side in forming a MS-13 sort of thing.
I guess i'm asking, without a government, won't the most well-connected, well-known, well-armed people be impervious from recourse??? Or am I completely missing something???
javier: I guess i'm asking, without a government, won't the most well-connected, well-known, well-armed people be impervious from recourse??? Or am I completely missing something???
How would that be any different from the case today, where "the most well-connected, well-known, well-armed people" form the government?
If you think the victim should have authority over what punishment is selected, that is fine, but it is society's business to determine the defendent's guilt or innocence. Every person, if accused, has a right <i>habeas corpus</i>, a fair hearing, a public trial, trial by jury, right to have witnesses allowed to testify to his innocence, confront his accusers face to face, no secret evidence, etc. To say that any person can be punished by another person under presumption of guilt is dangerous to liberty and justice, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of the State.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
javier: I guess I am not understanding the argument. Without a government, should I kill my neighbor for whatever reason and refuse retribution, I would no longer enjoy the protections of any security org. right?? Who cares though?? I have tons of able bodied twenty-five yr old friends that will protect me and we own lots of guns. What did I lose? Or say we get really bold and start a gang/mob sort of thing, it seems to have no down side in forming a MS-13 sort of thing. I guess i'm asking, without a government, won't the most well-connected, well-known, well-armed people be impervious from recourse??? Or am I completely missing something???
As paul said, this is already the case. The difference however, which makes the solution to this problem easier in the free market, is that a) everyone is armed, and b) your gang will hardly be the only organised armed force. You'll have to confront PDAs whose profits depend on them successfully defending their clients. While they may initially adopt a fairly passive means of protecting their client, if your gang starts getting overly bold, since you are all criminals and are unprotected by any other agency, they may simply choose to take you out. It's likely, that to make sure they don't taint their reputation, they'd ask for an arbiter's and their clients approval first.
Also, I wouldn't be so certain about the support of lots of friends. Whenever a friend supports an outlaw, he immediately renounces his own claim to any protection both by agencies and by society itself. While in the current climate of bribery and corruption its not tremendously hard to get out of jail through connections (and your example includes a well connected gang), in a society without a government monopoly on justice, this will not be the case.
Fred Furash: The difference however, which makes the solution to this problem easier in the free market, is that a) everyone is armed, and b) your gang will hardly be the only organised armed force. You'll have to confront PDAs whose profits depend on them successfully defending their clients.
The difference however, which makes the solution to this problem easier in the free market, is that a) everyone is armed, and b) your gang will hardly be the only organised armed force. You'll have to confront PDAs whose profits depend on them successfully defending their clients.
Also it's much easier for a government to act this way than a private gang, because the government has at least tacit support from much of the population. When a government hold you up for tribute (taxes, etc.), most people don't care; many even think it's a good thing. When the local gang does the same, most people are outraged. But most people also think it's the government's job to stop the gangs (anyone else attempting to do it is frowned upon, at the very least). Government, however, doesn't have any real reason to care (and is probably even in league with the gang to some extent)
Get rid of the government and (a) every attempt to exercise power will be an outrage, and (b) people will necessarily see it as their concern, and the rather silly argument that private citizens can't "take the law into their own hands" (as if it could ever be in anyone else's!) will be unavailable - so a useful and legitimate response is more likely. Or, rather, gangs are less likely.
If you think the victim should have authority over what punishment is selected, that is fine, but it is society's business to determine the defendent's guilt or innocence.
Technically, that's not true. If someone robs or assaults me, I have the moral authority to defend myself and recover my property, and I don't need anyone else's permission, let alone "society's."
Due process is a voluntary procedure that I adopt out of my own self-interest. If someone assaults me, and a third party happens by just as I defend myself with deadly force, the newcomer is liable to mistake me for the aggressor, and defend my assailant using deadly force against me. "Due process" is how I protect myself from such misunderstandings. If I convince people that my assailant is guilty of aggression, they won't defend him from me when I recover my property, exact damages, etc.
That doesn't translate into a "right of due process." For example, if an attacker kills someone in front of a crowd of witnesses, there's no reason a libertarian can't take him out on the spot. Non-aggression is consistent with summary justice. The only objection is practical: when the heirs come along demanding justice in their turn, we'd rather convince them that justice has already been done, rather than start a feud.
Len Budney:The penalty for murder should be the same as it is for civil wrongful death: the full value of the life of the victim measured in money and, again as in civil wrongful death, the victim's conscious pain and suffering.I favor the death penalty for murder. It seems to me that taking a life, one forfeits his own. Your view might be more common historically, though. Even bedouin will waive vengeance in exchange for blood money.--Len.
Any person who commits murder deserves execution. It seems to me that the wergild system is nothing but subversion of justice and bribery.
Think about it; other than the ethical problems of assigning monetary value to human life based on social rank (which is fascism), there is also the problem of what gives the relatives the right to receive compensation on behalf of the murder victim? Nothing; to claim otherwise would be collectivism in it's ugliest, most primitive form.
To use an analogy, if I sue somebody and he offers me money to drop the case, that's compensation for wrongs done. If he offers the judge money to drop the case, that is bribery, because the judge does not have the right to receive compensation on my behalf.
ami gi:Any person who commits murder deserves execution.
Any person who commits murder deserves execution.
Of course they don't. People who kill in self defense surely don't, and people who accidentally kill another don't either. Lets avoid grandiose blanket statements.
ami gi: It seems to me that the wergild system is nothing but subversion of justice and bribery.
What you are describing isn't justice, which is defined as restitution, its naked retaliation. Its the justice that exists between street gangs.
ami gi:other than the ethical problems of assigning monetary value to human life based on social rank (which is fascism),
It definitely is not fascism, which is a corporatist totalitarian state. Hierarchical social structures are commonly associated with feudalism. But no value is "assigned." It would occur on a case to case basis, and would be mutually accepted.
ami gi: there is also the problem of what gives the relatives the right to receive compensation on behalf of the murder victim?
Relatives have a right to compensation because they have been robbed of a family member. Surely an orphan is just as much wronged as is the corpse. And while a corpse can not be resurrected, an orphan can have justice.
ami gi:Nothing; to claim otherwise would be collectivism in it's ugliest, most primitive form.
No, collectivism would be a person trying to prescribe a universal sentence for murder.
ami gi:To use an analogy, if I sue somebody and he offers me money to drop the case, that's compensation for wrongs done. If he offers the judge money to drop the case, that is bribery, because the judge does not have the right to receive compensation on my behalf.
And what would you call a judge issuing a verdict that is arguable to neither party?
ami gi:Think about it; other than the ethical problems of assigning monetary value to human life based on social rank (which is fascism), there is also the problem of what gives the relatives the right to receive compensation on behalf of the murder victim? Nothing; to claim otherwise would be collectivism in it's ugliest, most primitive form.
They inherited the rights of the victim upon death, unless the victim willed it otherwise.
I like what Doug Casey said in one of his talks: [paraphrasing] 'Look I'm not a complete pacificst. I think there are plenty of people in the world who deserve to be shot. But if you want them shot then you should do it yourself.'
The closer decisions are to the person of impact or influence, the better. If you kill or rape my wife and I know this, best believe I will not petition a jury or some bureaucrat for restitution.
Claims against criminals can be inherited or passed (or sold) on to other individuals. In the case of the death of the victim, close friends and family are naturally suited to be the heirs. See Nozick on the justification of this based on Locke.