Clayton:Sorry to go off-topic a bit...
That's OK - I started this thread for the specific purpose of off-topic conversation (hope that's ok with the mods, hehe). Thanks for the post. Do you believe in the iluminati by any chance?
No, but you don't need conspiracy theories to realize how messed and immoral government is.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
I didn't used to but now I do. However, I don't believe in the Illuminati as some kind of "super-secret super-powerful society." That's definitely a myth.
But the idea of secret societies is actually quite ancient, so it's rather absurd that "believing in" secret societies is treated as a sign of at least mild neurosis if not outright paranoid schizophrenia. Any sort of fraternal order usually has a tendency towards secrecy... priestly orders, criminal cartels, military fraternities, chivalric orders, and so on. In fact, if you want to learn about secret societies that certainly wield real power, look up chivalric orders... start with the Order of the Garter... just take a quick glance at its membership.
And, of course, there's the Jesuits, probably the original "secret society" in the modern sense. I suspect that most of these new-fangled secret societies - Freemasons, Illuminati, etc. - were either started by the Jesuits or infiltrated by them. The Freemasons, especially, have a very "Catholicky" flavor about them.
Clayton -
Private, non-profit organizations were instrumental in saving the bison populations in the 1800s and 1900s American west. In fact, they were ahead of the government in these efforts.
"It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost." - Murray N. Rothbard.
Clayton:...
I have to admit I've always been suspicious of these 'conspiracy theory' types but when you put it that way it does sound a lot more reasonable. Also, the Freemasons, as we all know have been around for a long time.
I just had a quick question or two for Libertarians;
(1) In light of the civil turmoil in Libya it appears that suppliers in both the UK and US have been supplying him the country with arms for a long time now. In the case of extreme humanitarian situations would you support state intervention to restrict arms trade over to military dictatorships? Or would you stick to your non-aggression principle and argue for laissez-faire - leave it be? Or is there a third way? Bad market reputation and so forth incurred in the free market. Arguably empowering authoritarian states goes against most libertarian principles in any case; the issue is when you desire to prevent the flow of weapons abroad using coercive powers...
P.s. I realise that the arms trade is vital for the economy.
EvilSocialustFellow:I also have objections to capital punishment where the evidence is not always conclusive (I have no problems with capital punishment when the killer is clearly guilty - e.g. irrefutably CCTV footage) because it means the suspect never has a chance to reappeal. Hence, I personally prefer life imprisonment. What about crimes of passion or crimes on diminished responsibility (though I realise Mises' disagrees with light punishment for diminished responsibility in human action on the grounds of all action being rational).
Actually, I also agree. That's why I'm against capital punishment by the state. Too many variables, too many prosecutors hiding evidence, etc. CP should only be used when there is concrete evidence to the murder. Maybe this would still be a problem in an uncap society? I don't know.
The whole question of non-appealability of retaliatory execution is solved by strict liability... if someone commits a capital crime against you and you, in turn, execute the wrong person, you are liable for murder. People will be motivated not to wrongly accuse someone because, if it ends in execution of an innocent, they themselves will become liable for murder.
Clayton:The whole question of non-appealability of retaliatory execution is solved by strict liability... if someone commits a capital crime against you and you, in turn, execute the wrong person, you are liable for murder. People will be motivated not to wrongly accuse someone because, if it ends in execution of an innocent, they themselves will become liable for murder. Clayton -
Respectfully, I disagree! :P
Since after all, the problem that applies to the prosecutor (who becomes a 'murder suspect' himself) is the same problem that applied to the original murder (or rape) suspect in the first place!
My own position is that nothing is immoral about capital punishment provided that there is irrefutable evidence demonstrated (and I mean irrefutable CCTV footage, like with the crossbow killer in the UK who was captured on video taking prostitutes [soon to be victims] away in his car and branding his crossbow in front of surveillance shortly after killing them - it was he himself who referred to himself as 'the crossbow killer' rather smugly in court, thinking he would go down in history as some sort of legend) that proves the suspect is guilty. If there is irrefutable evidence, then there is no point giving the murder suspect a chance to reappeal, because we already know that he is guilty! If he is innocent, he should be put behind bars for the rest of his life unless new evidence comes to light in which case he has a chance to reappeal.
An example is Al Megrahi whom I believe was innocent; http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/christine-grahame-almegrahi-is-home-and-he-is-innocent-1776188.html . The thing the state controlled media don't tell you about Al Megrahi is that it was not until he released a 300 page document of evidence that he was given a choice; (a) immediate release on grounds of 'compassion' or (b) attempt to reappeal (and try to release the document) and spend the rest of your life rotting in jail. Well, he would never have had the chance to reappeal had he gone through capital punishment. There was only inconclusive evidence, as I believe an EU (maybe UN?) spectator/official who witnessed the court at the time pointed out. I realise that private courts are more efficient but I obtain my stance on this.
Also, if the prosecutor is a good guy, just doing his job and trying to bring justice to the world, I believe he should be discredited if it is proved he was wrong (and maybe lose his job) but I think trying him on grounds of murder is going to far. You know that in Roman times, a prosecutor who launched a prosecution (and lost) was branded on his forehead - with a red hot iron - with a 'K' standing for a Latin word (can't remember what it is) meaning 'slanderer'?
So something similar to what you are suggesting has in fact been tried before! But respectfully, I think it is a bad idea...
P.s. I have noticed a tendency of some people to state that there would only be market demand for the most efficient form of prosecution (or other goods/services) in the free market but my problem is that, just like with democracy, people tend to have, lets say, 'ill, uninformed, prejudiced opinions'. I'm not saying people in general are stupid but I fear that there would be market demand for exactly the kind of 'services' a lot of sane people could not even begin to imagine - which the entrepeneur would have to respond to.
If there is irrefutable evidence, then there is no point giving the murder suspect a chance to reappeal, because we already know that he is guilty! If he is innocent, he should be put behind bars for the rest of his life unless new evidence comes to light in which case he has a chance to reappeal.
Would that not be kidnapping and false imprisonment?? By what right do you imprison an innocent man based on your "suspicions" that he may have committed a crime? What if it were the other way around and you were the one behind bars for the rest of your natural life until some other scapegoat could be found?
An example is Al Megrahi whom I believe was innocent; http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/christine-grahame-almegrahi-is-home-and-he-is-innocent-1776188.html . The thing the state controlled media don't tell you about Al Megrahi is that it was not until he released a 300 page document of evidence that he was given a choice; (a) immediate release on grounds of 'compassion' or (b) attempt to reappeal (and try to release the document) and spend the rest of your life rotting in jail. Well, he would never have had the chance to reappeal had he gone through capital punishment. There was only inconclusive evidence, as I believe an EU (maybe UN?) spectator/official who witnessed the court at the time pointed out. I realise that private courts are more efficient but I obtain my stance on this. Also, if the prosecutor is a good guy, just doing his job and trying to bring justice to the world, I believe he should be discredited if it is proved he was wrong (and maybe lose his job) but I think trying him on grounds of murder is going to far. You know that in Roman times, a prosecutor who launched a prosecution (and lost) was branded on his forehead - with a red hot iron - with a 'K' standing for a Latin word (can't remember what it is) meaning 'slanderer'?
The problem is that the prosecutor is a public prosecutor. He does not bear the costs of his own decisions. He is, in fact, explicitly legally immune for any actions he takes in his role as a prosecutor! Now you know why there are so many people in prison in the US.
Not the same at all. Getting branded on the head is nothing compared to losing your life. The difference between a public (immune) prosecutor and private (strictly liable) prosecution is almost impossible to overstate. Even your example above of "put him in prison for the rest of his life" would constitute a legal tort in a just legal system... you can't imprison someone based on suspicion, that itself is a crime.
No, it is the public prosecutor who amplifies the demand for the "ill, uninformed, prejudiced opinions" of society precisely because he does not bear the costs of his own decisions (it's not his children that are on trial and it's not his money he's spending to try people) so there is no reason for him to exercise restraint. His decisions become irrational in the economic sense of the word.
- it was he himself who referred to himself as 'the crossbow killer' rather smugly in court, thinking he would go down in history as some sort of legend) that proves the suspect is guilty.
Holy .......crap!!!!!! I'm having conflicted feelings on whether this is sad or hilarious.
Clayton:Would that not be kidnapping and false imprisonment?? By what right do you imprison an innocent man based on your "suspicions" that he may have committed a crime? What if it were the other way around and you were the one behind bars for the rest of your natural life until some other scapegoat could be found? The problem is that the prosecutor is a public prosecutor. He does not bear the costs of his own decisions. He is, in fact, explicitly legally immune for any actions he takes in his role as a prosecutor! Now you know why there are so many people in prison in the US. Not the same at all. Getting branded on the head is nothing compared to losing your life. The difference between a public (immune) prosecutor and private (strictly liable) prosecution is almost impossible to overstate. Even your example above of "put him in prison for the rest of his life" would constitute a legal tort in a just legal system... you can't imprison someone based on suspicion, that itself is a crime. No, it is the public prosecutor who amplifies the demand for the "ill, uninformed, prejudiced opinions" of society precisely because he does not bear the costs of his own decisions (it's not his children that are on trial and it's not his money he's spending to try people) so there is no reason for him to exercise restraint. His decisions become irrational in the economic sense of the word.
Clayton, firstly I think the prosecutor should be private and accountable for his actions, I just don't think being accountable means he should suffer the death penalty (lose his job, credibility, money, perhaps?). For one thing, a lot of people would be too afraid to take up the role of prosecutor (at least not in cases of capital offences) in the first place, for another thing if he makes a mistake and prosecutes the wrong man, it is not necessarily because he intended to (action can no longer be deemed purposeful I believe). For instance, if I accidentally run over a small child who jumped out in the middle of the road, should I be hung? It often looks like someone is guilty, especially when all the evidence appears to point there, when they are later proved to be innocent. I can't cite any specific cases but I'm not sure the prosecutor should be held accountable by death.
Also, I would prefer to be imprisoned and have the opportunity to reappeal or committ suicide in prison if that is my want than to have to suffer capital punishment for a crime I did not committ. I believe those who have been prosecuted should be presented with this alternative; life in prison or lethal injection/death by hanging/whatever. Their choice. The courts only imprison people who are highly likely to be guilty; it is most certainly immoral but the alternative is (a) they have to suffer death penalty and it later turns out they were innocent or (b) they are allowed to roam the streets. You asked me by what right I, the prosecutor (because I would have to be a prosecutor in this situation), imprison a man based on suspicion (not just my suspicion but the suspicion of those judges, jury members and other prosecution members of an established free market court system) alone and my answer would be to protect the individual rights of would-be victims.
Furthermore, I believe that free market prisons would be more humane because prisons could work to provide goods and services which could be sold by the prison manager on the open market and in turn the prisoner could receive higher quality of living and pay for prison maintainance and security himself (in fact there would be higher levels of security as a result and he would be protected from other prisoners and also he would be less able to escape the prison as a result). Even if he does not deserve this, there will be economic growth in the outside world as a result of selling his goods and services; he would be doing something good for a change.
There are so many inmates in American prisons partly because of the many, many social issues caused by statism, partly because they chuck them in there for stupid things and partly because, as you pointed out, they are public courts.
The situation is not even as black and white or straight forward as I myself put it above; what about crimes of passion? Should the woman who murdered her rapist be put to death? If no, since she was merely seeking retribution what if there is no clear evidence that her rapist in fact raped her? What if the jury believes her and a psychotic killer is let loose?
Prisons generally occur in a society because of the multitude of confusing variables that mean capital punishment as a simple alternative does not always cut it (unfortunately). If we knew for certain all those prosecuted on the charge of being rapists and murderers were guilty I would have no problem implementing capital punishment; we do not. That said, prosecutors will do a better job of gathering evidence and there will be technological growth, higher levels of security and more surveillance in the free market. So hopefully there will be less mistakes made. But people do not always act optimally.
A.G.B:Holy .......crap!!!!!! I'm having conflicted feelings on whether this is sad or hilarious.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sentenced-to-life-the-crossbow-killer-who-ate-his-victims-2166537.html
Dark humour is sometimes the best way to bring humanity to a fundamentally evil situation.
The ideals created out of free market theory sound so magical and lovely, don't they?
In reality free market prisons have been and will be nothing more than legalized slave labor. States do it as well. it's wrong when they do it, and just because it is private doesn't make it any more right!
(Sometimes I think free marketeers would be perfectly ok with everything about the status quo if it made a proit)
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Oh dear, we're at it again... this should be fun.
Laotzu del Zinn: legalized slave labor
legalized slave labor
That's exactly what it would be. In my opinion, this is a whole lot better than the current system of free room and board that is currently given to criminals.
Epicurus prefers socialist prisons over free market ones, lol.
Alternatively we could just let murderers and rapists walk free
Then it would be a legalised prison for everyone!
But you're trapped in the statist mindset - who says that there ought to be specially designated "prosecutors" and that someone has to step up to fill this role?? If someone kills your wife and you think i did it, the dispute is between you and me. That is, you want revenge (to kill me) and I want to prove my innocence. "Prosecution" is a wholly statist idea. It's just a lawsuit and you have your lawyer and I have mine.
"Greater good" is a useless argument in a dispute between two people... anyone can claim to be working "for the greater good".
Furthermore, I believe that free market prisons
Prisons are wholly statist entities. Why would anyone bother imprisoning anyone in a free market??
would be more humane because prisons could work to provide goods and services which could be sold by the prison manager on the open market and in turn the prisoner could receive higher quality of living and pay for prison maintainance and security himself (in fact there would be higher levels of security as a result and he would be protected from other prisoners and also he would be less able to escape the prison as a result). Even if he does not deserve this, there will be economic growth in the outside world as a result of selling his goods and services; he would be doing something good for a change. There are so many inmates in American prisons partly because of the many, many social issues caused by statism, partly because they chuck them in there for stupid things and partly because, as you pointed out, they are public courts.
They are chucked into prison for stupid things precisely because the police, prosecutors and courts are publicly funded. The decision makers do not feel the costs of their stupidity.
The situation is not even as black and white or straight forward as I myself put it above; what about crimes of passion? Should the woman who murdered her rapist be put to death?
How is killing someone who raped you "murder"?? Even if you did it after the act was completed, I don't see how it's murder.
If no, since she was merely seeking retribution what if there is no clear evidence that her rapist in fact raped her? What if the jury believes her and a psychotic killer is let loose?
I think you're getting into details that are not relevant. The point is that when people do not feel the costs of their own decisions, bad decisions get made. If lots of bad decisions are being made, you can surmise that somewhere, people are not feeling the costs of their bad decisions.
Prisons generally occur in a society because of the multitude of confusing variables that mean capital punishment as a simple alternative does not always cut it (unfortunately).
Before the advent of the modern State, most disputes were settled with some form of economic compensation from the aggressor to the victim (not the State). Even gross crimes, such as murder, were settled with monetary payments at times.
If we knew for certain all those prosecuted on the charge of being rapists and murderers were guilty I would have no problem implementing capital punishment; we do not. That said, prosecutors will do a better job of gathering evidence and there will be technological growth, higher levels of security and more surveillance in the free market. So hopefully there will be less mistakes made. But people do not always act optimally.
I look at it differently... by what right does anyone interfere with a victim carrying out lawful retribution against his or her aggressor? In the case of a gross crime (rape, murder, etc.), homicide has long been considered proportionate retaliation until recently (again, with the advent of the modern superstate which has monopolized all forms of punishment). So "death penalty" is a statist misnomer... it's simply retribution... and in the case of gross offenses, that retribution may take the form of homicide.
Micah71381:That's exactly what it would be. In my opinion, this is a whole lot better than the current system of free room and board that is currently given to criminals.
It would also solve the issue of prison overcrowding and lack of prisons. Taxpayers no longer have to fund prisons; prisoners do so themselves.
In my opinion they are both crap. Look into the "prison abolition movement."
But I have to say I find it quite barbaric to see someone think that a somewhat humane prison is worse than legalized slave labor. Of course, Im almost certain this stance won't continue to be held when it is them falsely accused of a crime, or even convicted of a crime they actually did.
There are far more humane ways to deal with crime than either slave labor or prisons.
"Socialist prison" doesn't even make sense. Not even the USSR had prisons as we think of them. They had labor and re-education camps.
Of course, Im almost certain this stance won't continue to be held when it is them falsely accused of a crime, or even convicted of a crime they actually did.
Don't be so certain mi amigo, whether prisons are five star hotels or Jersey flop houses, I'm almost certain that's the last thing arrested individuals care about.
The only reason they have "high class" luxury's is because of tax payers money. In a free market no one in their right mind would be interested in funding a 5star hotel prison, unless it can produce a revenue, that is...
Go on, say it's cruel, I dare you!!!haha
I agree. If a man is not free to produce, he is not free to discharge his obligations (such as, a monetary penalty accepted in order to repay damage done to another). Imprisonment or even forced labor is odious.
However, if the consequences for continued non-payment are not severe (it used to be death in many places if you go back more than a couple hundred years), then people will commit torts and then refuse to pay the agreed monetary penalties. So, I expect that severe penalties (death, expulsion, etc.) would emerge for persistent non-payment of obligations.
Before I respond to your post, I believe it is likely you and I have actually read the same Rothbard article. However I have a number of problems with that article, namely that things aren't quite so black and white.
Clayton:But you're trapped in the statist mindset - who says that there ought to be specially designated "prosecutors" and that someone has to step up to fill this role?? If someone kills your wife and you think i did it, the dispute is between you and me. That is, you want revenge (to kill me) and I want to prove my innocence. "Prosecution" is a wholly statist idea. It's just a lawsuit and you have your lawyer and I have mine.
But then you are saying that a widower who seeks retribution (in the form of capital punishment/justice/whatever term is most preferable) from someone who believes is guilty should 'feel the full consequence of his actions' if it turns out that person is innocent. That is quite possibly even worse because at least the professional arbiter is a neutral body whereas the grief-stricken widower is reaked by emotion. I know what you are probably thinking about it being rational action nonetheless but I find it hard to ignore the fact that some behaviour is highly emotional and bordering on animalistic (if not in actuality an animalistic impulse) in these situations.
Also, I don't think it is a statist mindset to consider the scenario that there could be market demand for prosecution and even prison in a free market.
I never talked about 'greater good' (in fact it was you that brought it up just now) - I talked about the individual rights of would be victims. You cannot ignore when dealing with a situation that there are other potential victims who could suffer. 'Society' does not matter, I agree. My argument is not utilitarian; I have incorporated individualism into my approach.
When dealing with a dispute between two people, it is clearly necessary to consider potential ills done to others as well. A good teacher does not just allow two of her students to simply fight it out. Neither does she allow them to go unpunished because to do so would allow the boys to pick fights on other students.
The situation between two people in a free market dispute is no different; an arbitrator is necessary and the wider consequences must be considered. It affects me personally if everyone is able to settle their quarms by guns at dawn. But that wouldn't happen in a free market since there would be a market demand for private agencies to intervene (I believe).
I know you have made no direct attack on arbitrators but this is the logical continuation of the argument that it is not necessary to consider the individual rights of others beyond the two involved in a dispute.
The decision makers do not feel the costs of their stupidity...The point is that when people do not feel the costs of their own decisions, bad decisions get made. If lots of bad decisions are being made, you can surmise that somewhere, people are not feeling the costs of their bad decisions.
I honestly think this would be a catastrophe. 'An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind'. For me, preventing the criminal doing further harm in an efficient and semi-humane (though considering that he has in fact caused great damage himself) is the most important thing.
In a market sense, the individual should be accountable in terms of losing property to debtors and losing business to competition for poor management of the firm, yes. But in a judicial sense I believe this needs to be toned down.
I think you're getting into details that are not relevant.
The logical continuation of your argument when you think about it is essentially that rapists should spend the exact same time as there victim being raped by an official committee of pain themselves as part of justice. After all, that is the exact same deed that was committed and retribution must be exactly the same as the deed committed.
Furthermore, since the rapist did not imprison his victim, he himself should not be imprisoned since this would be exceeding the initial crime initiated. He should be free to walk the streets and reoffend. Only murderers should be executed.
I know you aren't arguing this but it is the most fullest, logical realisation (when you think about it) of one of Rothbard's very own arguments that is in an article I believe you have probably read as well.
And this by itself is assuming that the 'rapist' is necessarily guilty. After all, many women have been known to lie.
Even gross crimes, such as murder, were settled with monetary payments at times.
Which clearly does not have a 0% reoffense rate. You appear to be most interested in (a) creating incentives not to committ crime and (b) justice. There is no sufficient evidence to prove that such incentives are effective. Furthermore you cannot undo evil. I am only interested in creating a 0% reoffense rate and the possibility of capital punishment there is sufficient evidence. Anything else (morality, justice, blah blah blah) for me is irrelevant.
One interesting question you ask me is, 'what right do I have to imprison someone on suspicion alone' well this can effectively be turned right back around; 'what right do I have to execute someone on suspicion alone?'
In any criminal case, we are acting on suspicion alone. We can never *know* unless there is irrefutable evidence. In which case, capital punishment sounds good.
Laotzu del Zinn:"Socialist prison" doesn't even make sense. Not even the USSR had prisons as we think of them. They had labor and re-education camps.
Labour and re-education camps are effectively imprisonment and forced labour.
Furthermore Stalinistic Gulags were subject to horrific standards.
Don't be so certain mi amigo, whether prisons are five star hotels or Jersey flop houses, I'm almost certain that's the last thing arrested individuals care about. The only reason they have "high class" luxury's is because of tax payers money. In a free market no one in their right mind would be interested in funding a 5star hotel prison, unless it can produce a revenue, that is...
I don't know if I would consider it high class, but I don't know where you would get the implication that I would disagree with it. In lieu of prisons, what is the alternative? Slave labor and indenturede servitude?
You're trying to get me to argue against people not wanting to lose money on dealing with crime? It's clever, but it's irrelevant. Of course they don't... they probably want to make money....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_abolition_movement
This has nothing to do with my argument.
Laotzu del Zinn:This has nothing to do with my argument.
You attacked me for supporting prisons and supported some sort of rehabilitation scheme. You said that even the USSR did not use prisons.
I said that they were effectively prisons in the USSR and much worse than any western prison. I also inferred that your rehabilitation centre (not community sevice) requires the detainment of a physical body (i.e. imprisonment). It doesn't matter how humane it is; its still imprisonment.
The only alternatives are capital punishment (which I support when provided with concrete evidence of a crime that justifies this level of retribution), outlawry (which leaves the criminal open to attacks by vigilantes anyway and furthermore allows him to roam the streets freely), exile (which is a possibility if it is in a geographically excluded territory) and community service (which works fine with petty offenders but I would hardly trust paedophiles with the responsibility).
Some alternatives are reasonable but a lot are quite frankly chaos.
I was only postulating with the scenario of free market prisons. That said it would be a far more 'humane' system (and cheaper for the tax payer) if prisoners could work for the prison's maintainance, security and their own welfare and trade with other prisoners. I don't see why it is completely unreasonable.
That's actually reasonable, anyone who disagrees with that probably thinks it's immoral and that prisoners should be placed in a high class facility.
It sounds like hate speach from my part, but I don't think prisons were designed as five star hotels.
A.G.B:That's actually reasonable, anyone who disagrees with that probably thinks it's immoral and that prisoners should be placed in a high class facility. It sounds like hate speach from my part, but I don't think prisons were designed as five star hotels.
I was personally scared someone would jump on me as a result of the system being too lenient, I mean prisoners could effectively have computers, books and video game consoles if they worked for them.
Yet instead of that, I am attacked because my plan would be too hardcore for these poor rapists and murderers *rolls eyes*.
Interestingly enough, I found this video on youtube recently which was surprisingly almost exactly the same to what I had personally been thinking about how prison services should run:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Ilikemustard
That's not what I attacked you for. And the Stalin part wasn't directed at you at all.
I attacked you for endorsing prisons for profit; which amounts to little more than slavery.
I said that they were effectively prisons in the USSR and much worse than any western prison. I also inferred that your rehabilitation centre (not community sevice) requires the detainment of a physical body (i.e. imprisonment). It doesn't matter how humane it is; its still imprisonment
If you could show me wherein I endorsed any such thing, I would be interested to know.
Alleged rapists and murderers who possibly just made a mistake in a moment of passion, rather than are just clinically anti-social (meaning unable to function in society at all, not the popular outcast usage).
Laotzu del Zinn:That's not what I attacked you for. And the Stalin part wasn't directed at you at all.
I was linking in your points together.
No. It would improve prison conditions for a lot of prisoners who get beaten up, urinated on, bullied, intimidated and raped in the showers. They could sell their goods on the open market, use money, trade with other prisoners and pay for better security, single cells, private shower cubicals, etc. Well behaved prisoners would go to more secure units. So don't play that game. State run prisons are a nightmare.
And again, you have given me no real alternative to prison (possibly because none exist).
Right. You said:
Which is of course nonsense because 'labour and re-education camps' presuppose imprisonment. You are indirectly suggesting they were better than modern day prisons in the western world which of course is utterly nonsensical.
Laotzu del Zinn:Alleged rapists and murderers who possibly just made a mistake in a moment of passion, rather than are just clinically anti-social (meaning unable to function in society at all, not the popular outcast usage).
Some 'murderers' (by definition they are no longer a murderer) commit crimes of passion when they kill someone out of revenge, fueled by emotion, etc. I have stated that earlier in this thread. Rapists do not 'just [make] a mistake in a moment of passion' - that is ridiculous and you cannot rehabilitate someone who is prepared to do that.
In any case, this doesn't matter because my argument is not emotional as you would know if you read my posts but practical; the best solution is that which creates a 0% reoffence rate. End of. There is no such thing as crime deterrence, justice (wrongs cannot be undone - a dead man cannot be unkilled or his wife unwidowed) or rehabilitation in extreme case scenarios. Only practical solutions.
I was personally scared someone would jump on me as a result of the system being too lenient, I mean prisoners could effectively have computers, books and video game consoles if they worked for them. Yet instead of that, I am attacked because my plan would be too hardcore for these poor rapists and murderers *rolls eyes*.
I'm not aware whether Epicurus is trollin' or just plain silly. Apparently he has a obsession with slavery.
EDIT:
No. It would improve prison conditions for a lot of prisoners who get beaten up, urinated on, bullied, intimidated and raped in the showers. They could sell their goods on the open market, use money, trade with other people and pay for better security. Well behaved prisoners would go to more secure units. So don't play that game. State run prisons are a nightmare. And again, you have given me no real alternative to prison (possibly because none exist).
No, you don't get it. It doesn't matter what you tell him. It's just that "profit" is immoral. That's all there is to it. You're not going to get through to him. Just wait and see, the semantics game will start all over again.
Actually, the "Rothbardian" components of my view come from his book Ethics of Liberty. That said, I reject the natural law approach per se because I think it ultimately entails a fallacious appeal to authority (this is most pronounced in Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics which is downright circular).
But then you are saying that a widower who seeks retribution (in the form of capital punishment/justice/whatever term is most preferable) from someone who believes is guilty should 'feel the full consequence of his actions' if it turns out that person is innocent.
Precisely. Otherwise, there will be over-production of retribution, that is, retribution against innocents will be rampant. This is not a value-laden observation, either, it is value-free.
That is quite possibly even worse because at least the professional arbiter is a neutral body whereas the grief-stricken widower is reaked by emotion. I know what you are probably thinking about it being rational action nonetheless but I find it hard to ignore the fact that some behaviour is highly emotional and bordering on animalistic (if not in actuality an animalistic impulse) in these situations.
Of course, I am assuming that people would ordinarily subcontract out such specialized work as retaliatory killing.
I think when you rightly understand the true nature of prosecution and imprisonment, you will realize that these are inherently statist. The literal prison is the granite foundation on which the "prison for your mind" is built. Without the ever-present threat of being caged for failing to pay your taxes, you would never willingly comply.
"Greater good" is a useless argument in a dispute between two people... anyone can claim to be working "for the greater good". I never talked about 'greater good' (in fact it was you that brought it up just now) - I talked about the individual rights of would be victims.
... who are not a party to the case at hand. If John is in a dispute with Paul, the rights of Tom, Dick and Harry are irrelevant and any appeal by either party the rights of Tom, Dick and Harry is just sophistry, red herring.
You cannot ignore when dealing with a situation that there are other potential victims who could suffer. 'Society' does not matter, I agree. My argument is not utilitarian; I have incorporated individualism into my approach.
But not thoroughly enough.
When dealing with a dispute between two people, it is clearly necessary to consider potential ills done to others as well.
That is precisely what I"m doing here. However, in a specific court case, I do not agree. If you dent my car, it's a bullshit argument for me to say, "You must pay me $1,000,000 because people who dent cars are running rampant and nothing less will warn others to stop denting cars." It's not your job to be a sacrificial lamb for the "good of society". In fact, it is not all the future denters that are in view, here, it is all the future dentees... they are the ones who will lobby for me to have you "severely punished" for your "crime" since they are the ones who reap the benefits in the form of reduced insurance premiums and the like. In reality, what is going on is wealth redistribution from denters to future dentees. This evidences itself in the high costs of driving a car which make it difficult for the poorest to have private transportion when automobiles and gasoline are both very inexpensive in absolute terms.
A good teacher does not just allow two of her students to simply fight it out.
A court is not to its clients as a teacher is to its students.
The situation between two people in a free market dispute is no different; an arbitrator is necessary and the wider consequences must be considered.
Nope. Any consideration of the wider consequences is necessarily unjust.
It affects me personally if everyone is able to settle their quarms by guns at dawn. But that wouldn't happen in a free market since there would be a market demand for private agencies to intervene (I believe). I know you have made no direct attack on arbitrators but this is the logical continuation of the argument that it is not necessary to consider the individual rights of others beyond the two involved in a dispute.
Not only is it not necessary, it is necessary not to.
I honestly think this would be a catastrophe. 'An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind'.
Well, you're empirically and analytically incorrect. Retribution has long been a part of human social systems and feuds have always been the exception, not the norm, even in societies where direct retribution was relatively common compared to today (e.g. the Hatfields and McCoys).
For me, preventing the criminal doing further harm in an efficient and semi-humane (though considering that he has in fact caused great damage himself) is the most important thing.
The prevention of further harm nowhere enters the picture. The damages are about the victim - making the victim whole and satisfying the victim's demands for retribution. Any other system of adjudication is redistributive (socialist).
The logical continuation of your argument when you think about it is essentially that rapists should spend the exact same time as there victim being raped by an official committee of pain themselves as part of justice.
Nope. I think that "justifiable violence" should be defined in terms of the violence that the victim would have been justified in committing against the attacker at the time of the attack. If you break into my house in the middle of the night, I am not reasonably entitled to chain you to the floor and begin whipping you to death but I am reasonably entitled to shoot you dead. Hence, breaking and entering should probably be a crime liable to lethal retribution (and historically has been). If you try to rape me, I am not reasonably entitled to "rape you back", but I am reasonably entitled to kill you or do whatever it takes to fend you off. Yes, defining "reasonably entitled" is complex and dependent on social norms but that's precisely what the law industry should be all about... fleshing out the reasons for why X but not Y are appropriate responses to offense Z. This allows the law to regulate what sorts of retribution are justifiable in response to what torts.
After all, that is the exact same deed that was committed and retribution must be exactly the same as the deed committed.
As I said, I'm not straight Rothbardian. I don't believe that if you rape me I get to rape you twice. This is one area where Rothbard fell embarrassingly short of his usual intellectual rigor.
No, I think social norms should decide what sorts of retaliation are appropriate to what sorts of crimes. If you look back at history, retribution has rarely been strictly retribution in kind - "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" - but usually took the form of some ritualized retribution - flogging, stoning, and so on.
Well, I've read a lot more since I read Ethics of Liberty and I think Rothbard was pretty weak on this. I recommend you read up on Somali Xeer, there's an excellent book on the subject by Michael van Notten I've been wanting to buy for some time.
Even gross crimes, such as murder, were settled with monetary payments at times. Which clearly does not have a 0% reoffense rate. You appear to be most interested in (a) creating incentives not to committ crime and (b) justice.
Which clearly does not have a 0% reoffense rate. You appear to be most interested in (a) creating incentives not to committ crime and (b) justice.
No, I'm most interested in morally consistent enforcement of property rights. By "morally consistent" I mean that the system of property rights enforcement must be fully universalizable, that is, every party in the system must stand on a moral plane with all others. In the Statist system, the police, judges, prosecutors, politicians, government bureaucrats and so on are in a special moral category that is exempt from the same moral considerations that are applied to the parties in legal disputes. This is the ultimate, deepest root cause of the many problems in our legal system.
I look at it differently... by what right does anyone interfere with a victim carrying out lawful retribution against his or her aggressor? In the case of a gross crime (rape, murder, etc.), homicide has long been considered proportionate retaliation until recently (again, with the advent of the modern superstate which has monopolized all forms of punishment). So "death penalty" is a statist misnomer... it's simply retribution... and in the case of gross offenses, that retribution may take the form of homicide. One interesting question you ask me is, 'what right do I have to imprison someone on suspicion alone' well this can effectively be turned right back around; 'what right do I have to execute someone on suspicion alone?'
That's the point - you had better be right. If you're not, you will fall under outlawry (essentially, death sentence). You will want to be able to prove your case not to "convict" the criminal (a very Inquisition-esque concept, when you think about it) but so you can defend yourself if the relatives of the criminal later come back and attempt to sue you for committing murder.
You better have good enough proof to defend yourself against the criminal's relatives.
@ESF:
This is an excellent lecture by Ben Powell on Somali social order, including some discussion of their legal system, Xeer. Listen to the lecture and try to clear your preconceptions of the Somalis as "backwards" and try to see just how nuanced and sophisticated their legal system is. It has the potential to reform your thinking on this whole subject.
http://fee.org/media/video/stateless-in-somalia/
Clayton:This is an excellent lecture by Ben Powell on Somali social order, including some discussion of their legal system, Xeer. Listen to the lecture and try to clear your preconceptions of the Somalis as "backwards" and try to see just how nuanced and sophisticated their legal system is. It has the potential to reform your thinking on this whole subject. http://fee.org/media/video/stateless-in-somalia/ Clayton -
I am just about to listen to that video (thanks) *update I am 30 minutes in - didn't make this post immediately* but I just wanted to say that I did not mean to imply they were 'backwards' (in fact, I don't believe I ever referred to them). In fact I have read 'Somalia: Better Off Stateless' by Peter Leeson, so I know they have done quite well. My grip is over the specific legal system you seem to propose. In particular, retribution for the person who wrongly accuses. Also, I believe there would be market demand for different solutions, thereby the real dispute is which system is most likely to be accepted in the market; your's or mine?
I am not going to reply to your (rather lengthy, haha) post at the moment but I think that to get you to fully understand where I am coming from I am going to have to take your stance to an absurd logical extreme that could never happen; Lets say Person A is killed by our mystery murderer Person ? in New York square at 8 pm. Person B thinks it is Person C who did it; after all Person C has no alibi, and often takes strolls around New York square in the evening. He is also a highly suspect person. He launches a 'prosecution' (I don't know how you want me to term it) with the aid, presumably (?) of a private arbitrator. Person B is outlawed and killed by vigilantes (presumably, this is what is meant to happen). So Person D comes along and says, 'no, no, no' it wasn't Person B who was the original killer! And produces a whole heap of evidence proving his case? Then? Person C is prosecuted (to outlawry) for his failure to launch a succesful appeal and the chain continues. After all, someone else can come along now and launch an attack against Person D! If that happened in every murder scenario, there would presumably be a multiplication of deaths to follow up as a result. It wouldn't take long for the population to rapidly diminish! What's more is, people would be too scared to prosecute in the first place (so no retribution, anyhow - murderer walks free)... Also, outlawry essentially means that the murderer is free to walk the streets (not protected by the law) which can either mean (a) brutal (non-proportional to the original offence committed, even) death by vengeful vigilante or, (b) murderer is free to strike again. Can you see how such a situation would result in every man for himself?
From what I have taken from the video, so far, I have not heard anything about the 'prosecutor' being liable through death...
Also, I am opposed to outlawry because (a) the punishment caused by vigilantes could be non-proportional (I don't know... acid is poured over outlaw who got into a drunken barfight and shot someone, say) and (b) outlaw is free to reoffend.
I am not going to reply to your (rather lengthy, haha) post at the moment but I think that to get you to fully understand where I am coming from I am going to have to take your stance to an absurd logical extreme that could never happen;
It's perfect! This is precisely how to do good thought experiments. Read any Block, Rothbard, Hoppe, (David) Friedman... you will see they do these "absurd extremes" all the time because the limit cases are precisely what tests the validity of your ideas.
Lets say Person A is killed by our mystery murderer Person ? in New York square at 8 pm. Person B thinks it is Person C who did it; after all Person C has no alibi, and often takes strolls around New York square in the evening. He is also a highly suspect person. He launches a 'prosecution' (I don't know how you want me to term it) with the aid, presumably (?) of a private arbitrator. Person C is outlawed and killed by vigilantes (presumably, this is what is meant to happen).
Right, so the consequences of accusing someone of murder are very grave (death). In fact, in a system with outlawry, accusing someone of murder is a good way to kill them without having to do it with your own hands.
So Person D comes along and says, 'no, no, no' it wasn't Person C who was the original killer! And produces a whole heap of evidence proving his case? Then?
Then that proves that Person B really didn't do their homework and they got someone killed who had done no wrong. That is called "murder." Killing someone who has done no wrong (nothing to deserve being killed) is the definition of murder. In legalese: "unjustifiable homicide."
Person B is prosecuted (to outlawry) for his failure to launch a succesful appeal and the chain continues. After all, someone else can come along now and launch an attack against Person D! If that happened in every murder scenario, there would presumably be a multiplication of deaths to follow up as a result. It wouldn't take long for the population to rapidly diminish!
You seem to be implying that you could have a long series of "oops"s where Person E comes along and now shows that Person B was really right all along and now Person D is to be accused of murder, and so on. However, I disagree with this somewhat because the issue during a case against Person B is not whether they were right but, rather, whether they can prove their case. I imagine that "standards of evidence" would emerge (e.g. your "CCTV footage" which, by the way, is not nearly as conclusive as you seem to take it to be) that would set the criteria for when someone has sufficiently proved their case. So long as Person B holds evidence of that quality then he will be able to discharge any suit for wrongful death of Person C.
What's more is, people would be too scared to prosecute in the first place (so no retribution, anyhow - murderer walks free)...
I think it would be a balance between the desire for retribution on the one hand (to catch and punish the killer) and fear of making a mistake on the other hand (accusing the wrong person and killing yet another innocent). There would actually be some negative feedback that would discourage the aggressive prosecution of innocents that has become characteristic of our current system.
Also, outlawry essentially means that the murderer is free to walk the streets (not protected by the law) which can either mean (a) brutal (non-proportional to the original offence committed, even) death by vengeful vigilante or, (b) murderer is free to strike again. Can you see how such a situation would result in every man for himself?
No, not really. An outlaw who has committed a grave crime such as rape or murder will likely have many people (victim's relatives) who are highly motivated to see his life ended. How could such a person just roam the streets to strike again when there is a bounty on his life? He would have to hide and he would probably be found and killed sooner or later.
From what I have taken from the video, so far, I have not heard anything about the 'prosecutor' being liable through death... Also, I am opposed to outlawry because (a) the punishment caused by vigilantes could be non-proportional (I don't know... acid is poured over outlaw who got into a drunken barfight and shot someone, say) and (b) outlaw is free to reoffend.
There is no death penalty in Xeer, though there is outlawry. I'm not discussing a legal order equivalent to Xeer... rather, the essence of the difference between the legal order I'm discussing and the modern Statist legal order is that all legal action is initiated by private parties against other private parties. There is no concept of "society" or "the public" or any such thing, which is exactly how it is in Xeer. As soon as you abolish these fictitious entities from law, the character of law is changed dramatically. A "trial" is no longer a trial, it's simply a mediated discussion. You are not "prosecuted" for your "crimes" you argue your case that you are not liable for the tort. And so on.
Clayton: 1) the fed is privately owned, so it will do whatever it likes, so it is more powerful than the government. The answer to this fallacy is as follows: it does not matter who owns the FED what matters is that its decisions are backed up by the State's force. so no matter what is the content of each particular decision the key here is that it is enforced thanks to the support of the central apparatus of coercion. So this makes them actually State's decisions after all , since the State is the one which controls the force and say whether or not it should back up what the FED wants to implement. It's all run by the same incestuous group of elites. The Saudi king has much more say in US government policy than the US Secretary of State, all appearances aside. The State Secretary is just a bureaucrat... the Saudi king has friends in high places who can help him get what he wants, whether that takes 4, 8, 12 or 16 years. Presidents and State Secretaries come and go. The power elites are forever (kind of). You can read my blog post on this subject here: http://incompressible.blogspot.com/2010/07/kingpin-theory-of-power-elites.html Sorry to go off-topic a bit... Clayton -
1) the fed is privately owned, so it will do whatever it likes, so it is more powerful than the government. The answer to this fallacy is as follows: it does not matter who owns the FED what matters is that its decisions are backed up by the State's force. so no matter what is the content of each particular decision the key here is that it is enforced thanks to the support of the central apparatus of coercion. So this makes them actually State's decisions after all , since the State is the one which controls the force and say whether or not it should back up what the FED wants to implement.
The answer to this fallacy is as follows: it does not matter who owns the FED what matters is that its decisions are backed up by the State's force. so no matter what is the content of each particular decision the key here is that it is enforced thanks to the support of the central apparatus of coercion. So this makes them actually State's decisions after all , since the State is the one which controls the force and say whether or not it should back up what the FED wants to implement.
It's all run by the same incestuous group of elites. The Saudi king has much more say in US government policy than the US Secretary of State, all appearances aside. The State Secretary is just a bureaucrat... the Saudi king has friends in high places who can help him get what he wants, whether that takes 4, 8, 12 or 16 years. Presidents and State Secretaries come and go. The power elites are forever (kind of). You can read my blog post on this subject here:
http://incompressible.blogspot.com/2010/07/kingpin-theory-of-power-elites.html
Sorry to go off-topic a bit...
How does it matter whether an American or a Saudi Arabian is in control of the USA's State force? Or whether the guy who actually is in charge is white or black or yellow or is also in charge of a centralised force on other geographically differentiated area? The thing is that there is such a central apparatus of coercion and it wishes such an institution like the FED exist.
Clayton:You seem to be implying that you could have a long series of "oops"s where Person E comes along and now shows that Person B was really right all along and now Person D is to be accused of murder, and so on. However, I disagree with this somewhat because the issue during a case against Person B is not whether they were right but, rather, whether they can prove their case. I imagine that "standards of evidence" would emerge (e.g. your "CCTV footage" which, by the way, is not nearly as conclusive as you seem to take it to be) that would set the criteria for when someone has sufficiently proved their case. So long as Person B holds evidence of that quality then he will be able to discharge any suit for wrongful death of Person C.
Yes this is what I meant all along. So we don't really have an issue anymore.
But then it only logically follows on from there that the Person B can only press charges against Person A in the first place if he has the correct standard of evidence, surely? In which case, the whole 'hold the prosecutor liable by death' is irrelevant, unless perhaps he deliberately deceives the private legal court.
In which case, what if there is deep, deep suspicion but no standard of evidence? Then we have a situation where we are not allowed to imprison Person A because that would be slavery but we cannot outlaw (i.e. kill) him either because that would be unjust.
Or are you saying that he doesn't have to go through a court, he can just murder Person A himself or employ a private protection agency to do it for him?
So that perhaps (perhaps) solves the problem of the murderer reoffending (though there is still a chance he can reoffend whilst in hiding) but it doesn't solve the vigilante problem where the punishment is disproportional to the original offence committed.
Sorry if I'm nitpicking on small details here, perhaps its the 'statist mentality' - I'm too used to there being prisons damn it!
But doesn't a private party need to go through an established legal system? Would it not be violent and chaotic if every dispute was solved by 'guns at dawn', so to speak? What if two parties decide there going to skip all the legal rubbish and have a sword fight in the street?
I'm kind of citing Hobbes' theory that an arbitrator is required to mediate the dispute between two parties. But the issue here is when one (or both) of those two parties decides they would prefer not to go through the arbitrator to solve their dispute.