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.
Well, Person B is free to waste his money on trivial lawsuits if he likes (though he may be liable for Person A's defense costs if the lawsuit turns out to have been trivial). My only point is that if Person B takes summary justice, there is nothing inherently bad or wrong or criminal about that and should not be "prohibited" or otherwise sanctioned... but Person B had better be able to justify his actions in court when Person A's family or friends take him to court for murder. In the modern legal order, summary justice is only justifiable "in the heat of the moment" that is, while actively defending oneself from an ongoing threat. However, I think this leads to clearly absurd consequences.
Let's say John Crook (lets use names instead of "Person X/Person Z... too confusing) breaks into my house when I'm not home. I walk through the door just as he's about to plunge a knife into my wife. Fortunately, I'm armed, so I draw and shoot, killing John Crook. Now, let's say I pulled into my driveway 10 seconds later and walk through the door to find John Crook pulling the knife out of my wife's dead, stabbed body. The very same action (shooting him) is now illegal because it would be "revenge." But how is revenge any more wrong than defense?? John Crook certainly deserves to die irrespective of whether my wife has been stabbed or not. The evidence I need to defend my actions is right there... the knife with John Crook's fingerprints, John Crook's presence in my house, my dead, stabbed wife, and so on. If John Crook's mother than sues me for murdering her son, she doesn't have a leg to stand on. Sure, there's not CCTV footage of the incident but the evidence that I committed justifiable homicide meets any reasonable standard of evidence. I think the modern idea that any sort of retaliation or revenge is inherently criminal is a by-product of the State's monopolization of retaliation and punishment.
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.
It's no different today and this is as it ought to be. If you can't prove your case, then retaliation cannot be justifiable. You can know with certainty that someone committed a crime (perhaps they left a clue to taunt you with something only you could know but could never present as evidence to others) yet not be able to justify retaliating against them. In this situation, you may not lawfully retaliate.
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!
Sorry if I'm nitpicking on small details here, perhaps its the 'statist mentality' - I'm too used to there being prisons damn it!
Well, outlawry is reserved for only those crimes or offenses that are so extreme that no lawful form of restitution/punishment can be identified. If you dent someone's car, you can pay a certain dollar amount to have it fixed and maybe something else on top for the trouble. But if you kill someone, what restitution can be made, you can't bring the person back to life... what form of lawful punishment will satisfy the victim's relatives demand for retaliation?? I don't think there is any appropriate punishment so the only just answer is outlawry. After this, the victim's relatives are no longer shackled by the legal consequences of anything that happens to you since there aren't any.
But doesn't a private party need to go through an established legal system?
Most disputes are resolved by the parties themselves, even in a Statist order. Every time you bump into someone walking down the sidewalk and say "excuse me" you've just smoothed over a potential dispute without any recourse to an "established legal system". People work out almost all their disputes without going to court. So why should a dispute that is so thorny as to require a third-party be any different? It's still just a dispute between two people and the purpose of the third-party is to help them resolve their dispute between themselves, not to impose a decision on them. State courts make "judgments" and "decrees" after putting people through "trials." This is very religious terminology when you think about it. Have you ever read the Revelation of St. John? Most of the imagery of modern Western court systems comes straight from that book.
Rev. 20:11-15
And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
This is very much the feeling that modern courts try to evoke in those who are forced to appear before them.
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?
Duels were once an accepted and ordinary part of the system of dispute resolution. Let's say I bump into you on the sidewalk. We're both tough, young testosteronal jocks. I refuse to say "excuse me" and you get all up in my face about it. Next thing you know, we decide to settle it through a boxing match. So be it. Whoever loses the match was in the wrong and has to pay up. It's up to the parties to the dispute to decide how they want to resolve their dispute. So long as both parties freely assent to a particular method of dispute-resolution, what business is it of anyone else's?
Clayton -
Clayton:...
I am *almost* bought; I just have two issues and one question, one being the issue of non-proportional retribution by vigilantes against outlaws (who are no longer protected by the law). For instance, what happens if say I get into a drunken row with a friend, kill him (acting on the spur of the moment), then I am outlawed by my insurance company but the punishment of my victim is non-proportional to the offence committed, lets say his family get hold of me and torture me? Would not lethal injection/death by hanging be more proportional to the offence originally committed? Should not retribution then be sought against this family for punishing me in a non-proportional manner?
The other issue is the case of the murdered homeless guy who has no relatives or friends and no insurance scheme to protect him.
And my question is; do you believe in diminished responsibility - for instance the man that is drunk, high on drugs, severely autistic, etc. (this is no trick question; I do not mind which way you answer).
EDIT: I just thought of one more thing. In duels, do the two parties have to have a witness or sign a contract to consent that they are, in fact, engaging in a duel and it is not just one party attacking (and killing) the other party?
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).
There are plenty of alternatives to prison. I have offered some. If you missed it, that's not my business.
But my point about the terrible prisons in the USSR was entirely unrelated to anything you had to say.
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
Yeah, this is a pretty tough issue. There's two ways I can think of to go about dealing with this. First, an outlaw decision is only a recommendation from an adjudicator so that recommendation itself is always open to subsequent legal challenge. Unconscionable acts toward an outlaw might make it more likely that the family attempts to claim the outlawed should not have been outlawed at all (making his treatment a legal matter). Second, a broader "human decency" argument might be made to the effect that even though the outlaw was not protected by law per se, the manner of his treatment was so odious as to constitute its own tort against his family/friends/whoever.
I know Rothbard would reel in horror at this sort of argument since it entails an appeal to the subjective (grief) and he, I believe correctly, rejects the idea of "subjective torts." Nevertheless, we consider a threat against someone to be a genuine tort even though no property has been damaged or violated. I believe this because threats put property at risk. Risks are themselves a kind of cost and people pay to get rid of risks (for example, by purchasing insurance). If someone imposes a risk onto you, they are imposing a cost onto you without your consent. Perhaps the outlaw's family could argue that the torture of the outlaw can be reasonably be interpreted as a kind of threat against them. His treatment was so odious as to constitute a kind of indirect threat... "Watch out, we're coming for you next."
I think the poor and homeless would be better protected under private law for the same reason private transport or private restrooms are so much more pleasant than the public versions. If you look at the facts, the poor and homeless really get the shaft in our public law system. How is having a public prosecutor go after an innocent homeless guy because he's vulnerable and can't afford anything other than a court-appointed attorney any better than a homeless man being unable to afford a lawyer of any kind in a private law system where no one will go to the bother of suing him unless he harms them if for no other reason than that there is nothing to be gained from suing a pauper?
No. In private law, all that matters are the facts of what happened. Mental states are irrelevant (this follows from Rothbard's rejection of subjective torts). If you crashed into my car because you were drunk, stupid, insane, distracted... makes no difference. All that matters is that you are the one who crashed into my car so you are the one who is responsible for making it right.
I think this was common practice when duels were legal... I don't know if there had to be a contract but I know there had to be a witness and certain rules had to be observed for the duel to count as a duel and not homicide.
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.
It doesn't matter - my only point is that both the Fed and the US government are symptoms of the same underlying problem - the Power Elite. So, it's a false dichotomy to get into this "private" versus "public" debate since it's the same power on behalf of which they are acting, whether in a nominally private or nominally public capacity. It's like the CIA/DoD contractors... what difference does it make that they're "private"? It's just a word game. Same with the Fed. And the Fed's disinfo agents agitate on the issue of whether the Fed is private or public in order to distract from the Power Elites behind both the Fed and the US government. They'd much rather the sheeple debate whether the Fed is public or private than support a measure to audit the Fed's transactions with foreign institutions.
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). There are plenty of alternatives to prison. I have offered some. If you missed it, that's not my business. But my point about the terrible prisons in the USSR was entirely unrelated to anything you had to say.
Here's the reality of government prisons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4_uvvcaDqw
Laotzu del Zinn:There are plenty of alternatives to prison. I have offered some. If you missed it, that's not my business. But my point about the terrible prisons in the USSR was entirely unrelated to anything you had to say.
Right.
These are the posts you directed at me (or rather, attacked me with):
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 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)
Hmm. No alternative here.
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. ... If you could show me wherein I endorsed any such thing, I would be interested to know.
I attacked you for endorsing prisons for profit; which amounts to little more than slavery.
...
If you could show me wherein I endorsed any such thing, I would be interested to know.
Ah. Nothing here either.
You vaguely pointed someone else in the direction of ‘the prison abolition movement’ (so not me). Well I need something with a tiny bit more substance to it than just a reference elsewhere. I will read into it by all means. But I require you to at least give me some points which I can actually respond to. ‘Here is a book, I want you to critique it’ is not a fair argument (or an argument at all). This is fairly basic debating technique. You have to talk about the citations you have referenced instead of just pointing me to a wikipedia article. Otherwise you have given me no points to which I can respond to. In fact I get the feeling you are doing this on purpose to 'trap' me whilst simultaneously making arguments from morality like 'profits are greedy and evil'. Well I don't appreciate it. It is a very poor standard of debate, in fact.
Also, for me to respond to your post, I require you to drop the ad homs. Otherwise, if you don’t do this, this is the last post I am making in response to you. I have noticed the way you debate with others on this forum, eg, A.G.B./Drewie Brando and Filc and quite frankly I am not impressed. I believe it was Benjamin Tucker who stated that socialism was like Christianity in that the worst detractors from Christianity are the Christians themselves.
And I’ll just point everyone back to what you said here:
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).
No, of course rapists and murderers are lovely people who are just misunderstood and merely need a bit of help (i.e. a bullet in the back of the head).
These are the posts you directed at me...
You vaguely pointed someone else in the direction of ‘the prison abolition movement’ (so not me
So you knew I referenced alternatives?
... argh...
I have to do no such thing. I will gladly "subsidize your intelligence" (as it was put to me, once) but I didn't really want to detract the thread too far, other than to say for-profit prisons are no better than state subsidized prisons... they're still prisons.
Is this facetious, or...?
Either way, this doesn't detract from the fact that there are far better alternatives to deviant behavior than prisons, debtor's prisons, indentured servitude or bullets in the head.
@ Clayton
I know. It's disgusting, right?
Are you suggesting that if the same thing was happening, but it was for a profit on the open market, it would be any better?
Laotzu del Zinn:So you knew I referenced alternatives?
You didn't do what I asked which was to provide a point I could reply to but ah well.
I have reconsidered my opinion and I advocate something virtually identical to what Clayton has proposed.
From the wikipedia article you referenced;
I agree with this.
And this.
Agree with this since petty offenses do not warrant imprisonment.
All of this is thoroughly utilitarian and does not hold the individual accountable for his actions. There is no retribution for the victim and no moral consistancy. Furthermore, when the individual is not accountable for his actions he considers the risks far too lightly.
Why so you can indoctrinate us into agreeing with your beliefs?
I thought you were opposed to prisons?
I have since changed my mind. But all you did was to offer red herrings, irritate me and offer no coherent alternatives. I've noticed a tendency in your posts to use red herrings quite frequently. If it is some sort of game, I do not appreciate it, not with me anyway.
Either way, this doesn't detract from the fact that there are far better alternatives to deviant behavior than prisons, debtor's prisons, indentured servitude
Agreed.
bullets in the head.
If someone killed, raped or tortured me or a family member that is what I would want for them. I would not deny similar rights to other individuals.
Killing a violent offender also means a zero percent reoffence rate. If you read Clayton's posts you will see that this form of retribution is highly consistent. I also recommend you read this: http://mises.org/daily/4468 and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer
Laotzu del Zinn:I know. It's disgusting, right? Are you suggesting that if the same thing was happening, but it was for a profit on the open market, it would be any better?
He is not suggesting that at all. And I still obtain that, whilst it is unethical to detain a body against their will, a free market prison would be superior over a state prison though I endorse neither.
EvilSocialistFellow: bullets in the head. If someone killed, raped or tortured me or a family member that is what I would want for them. I would not deny similar rights to other individuals.
Interesting. I would rather get money from them than kill them personally. Killing them doesn't bring back my family, nor does the money. However, the money increases my quality of life while killing them has no effect on the quality of my life.
Of course not! But if a private individual were operating some sort of detention facility*, there would be the possibility of legal liability for such horrific torture occuring in his facility. Try suing the state of Alabama on the basis of Mr. Mendenhall's story.... good luck. I read about a man who was raped by a prison guard and he managed to alert the staff and get them to do a "sting" and catch the guard attempting it a second time and he brought a successful lawsuit against the state in which this occurred (FL, I think). But this was an exceptional case and these things are rarely, if ever, handled through the legal system. And, as the movie says, 1 in 5 out of 2 million prisoners (that's 400,000 people) are sexually assaulted in prison and most victims are the "softcore" offenders who were guilty of simple dug possession or other minor offenses. These individuals are subjected to this sort of sexual torture precisely because the State is virtually immune from any legal liability for what happens in its prisons.
*I doubt very much there would be "prisons" as we understand them in a private law society though there might be a limited market for lockups for individuals who are being lawfully detained.
Micah71381:Interesting. I would rather get money from them than kill them personally. Killing them doesn't bring back my family, nor does the money. However, the money increases my quality of life while killing them has no effect on the quality of my life.
You get to take a monetary compensation and to kill them. It is a good thing to seek proper retribution (effectively death penalisation) against a violent offender since there is a zero reoffense rate and no new loss of life.
Clearly, you do not have children.
Oh lol, that sounds amazingly funny. Considering all this talk about murder which all of a sudden leads to `` Just give me the money!!! ``
Clayton:*I doubt very much there would be "prisons" as we understand them in a private law society though there might be a limited market for lockups for individuals who are being lawfully detained.
Presumably you only think these individuals should be detained whilst going through trial? Or else you do propose imprisonment in which case this is starting to get confusing, lol.
Drew:...
Argh!! You keep changing your name! *So confusing* phew.
I have my doubts that this sentiment will be the same when the shoe is on the other foot... I know, "no compassion for criminals" and all that.
But either way, is this the same for crimes of passion as it is for calculated intent? What about the chance of wrongful accusation you were worried about not but 3 pages ago?
I don't know why you would think I have to agree with everything in an article cited? Are you that much of an ideologue? Why would you think I am?
Yes, I want to use voodoo and mind control to convince you that rape and murder are bad
Yawn... you have any empirical verification for that... or do you just "feel it, in your heart."
Well, I think something can be for profit and just as bad, if not worse than a state run anything. The real issue is the actors involved and the rules governing it.
Perhaps it is not me, but you who should read Clayton's posts; specifically the one about the intent of power and the insidious nature of tyranny.
EvilSocialistFellow: Micah71381:Interesting. I would rather get money from them than kill them personally. Killing them doesn't bring back my family, nor does the money. However, the money increases my quality of life while killing them has no effect on the quality of my life. You get to take a monetary compensation and to kill them. It is a good thing to seek proper retribution (effectively death penalisation) against a violent offender since there is a zero reoffense rate and no new loss of life.
A dead person can't make money. A living person forced to work to pay off their debt results in more money to me than if they were dead and I only got what they had at the time of their execution.
Clayton: Interesting. I would rather get money from them than kill them personally. Killing them doesn't bring back my family, nor does the money. However, the money increases my quality of life while killing them has no effect on the quality of my life. Clearly, you do not have children.
This has no bearing on the topic of discussion. Besides, there are plenty of people who have children and believe that vengence/revenge is pointless. As I said, killing them doesn't bring back your dead child and neither does money. However, one increase the quality of your life while the other does not. What is there to gain from killing them (for you, not society)?
Micah71381: A dead person can't make money. A living person forced to work to pay off their debt results in more money to me than if they were dead and I only got what they had at the time of their execution.
Execution costs money too, depending on how you are planning it. The electric chair certainly consumes alot of electricity and thatès $$$$. Money is a better solution.
But then again, if the individual is a psycho, you choose to let him free so that he can work to pay off his debt.Mind you, this feloow already killed your family. Do you really think he is not going to come after you ?He is probably more pissed off now since he got caught and forced to pay.
Who knows what is in his mind '' This bastard, he catches me killing his wife and now he wants me to pay him?".
Forget the potential for abuse
Forget the strange moral proposition that revenge is good
Forget the draconic justifications for the taking of life by the legal institutions that I'm sure Stalin, Hitler, and Ceaser shared...
The fact that you would celebrate it is just disgusting.
Hey, why don't we extend this to people who get abortions... capital punsihment for them. No repeat offenses and no new loss of life... hey! Let's get those masturbators too!
How did you ever call yourself a leftist?
Laotzu del Zinn:But either way, is this the same for crimes of passion as it is for calculated intent? What about the chance of wrongful accusation you were worried about not but 3 pages ago?
A crime for passion is not murder. I understand more fully about wrongful accusation and it is no longer a concern.
YOU would not state YOUR beliefs like I requested so I guess I just had to make some assumptions.
It is deduced from the actor's ranking of means and ends. It is in Rothbard's Man, Economy and State.
And this is my last post I am going to address to you.
Micah71381:A dead person can't make money. A living person forced to work to pay off their debt results in more money to me than if they were dead and I only got what they had at the time of their execution.
Well, you have a claim on the assets they made whilst they were alive.
non sequitur
Are you comparing murderers to people who get abortions and masturbators? If so, then you probably have problems.
Do we have to play with semantics again, because it gets annoying.
So what are alternatives to imprisonment,capital punishment, and blood money? No one's mentioned it at all I'm pretty curious. Rehabilitation?(which would require imprisonment of course)
Laotzu your arguments don't seem to go anywhere because it doesn't seem like you're trying to make a point other than that maybe the other posters are jerks with no morals. Not that you're the only one, the personal bickering seems like a waste of time, does anyone agree? Its just "omg cant believe you said that you have problems" "oh yea well you said THAT so you have problems" What's the point of all this?
auctionguy10:So what are alternatives to imprisonment,capital punishment and blood money? No one's mentioned it at all I'm pretty curious. Laotzu your arguments don't seem to go anywhere because it doesn't seem like you're trying to make a point other than that maybe the other posters are jerks with no morals. Not that you're the only one, the personal bickering seems like a waste of time, does anyone agree? Its just "omg cant believe you said that you have problems" "oh yea well you said THAT so you have problems" What's the point of all this?
He has not made it at all clear what his stance is (and he actively engages in an 'elaborate' game of red herrings I'd advise you to keep out of) but my guess is it would essentially be tightly regulated rehabilitation and community service because imprisonment and death penalty is unjust.
Drew: But then again, if the individual is a psycho, you choose to let him free so that he can work to pay off his debt.Mind you, this feloow already killed your family. Do you really think he is not going to come after you ?He is probably more pissed off now since he got caught and forced to pay.
I am not suggesting that an individual has to be free in order to make money. Once a person commits a crime I believe it is reasonable to enslave them until their debt is paid. For a white collar criminal (i.e.: fraud) this may mean nothing more than a tracking anklet and a desk job. For a serial killer this may be full restraints and usage as a human test subject for medical research. Prison factories are a reasonable middle ground in my opinion for people who commit crimes of passion (rape, murder, etc.) in that they are confined and controlled but are still able to be productive.
I agree, it would be wise to show alternatives rather then counter-productive arguments.
The whole idea that prisons are immoral or worse "prison for profit"
Then the idea that I wouldn't act the same way if I was the one on trial is silly. You have no idea how I would act on trial. Epicurus or Lao, whatever he fancies himself, should ask himsefl, how on earth he is againts violence if he is willing to restrict punishment for murderers?
auctionguy10: Not that you're the only one, the personal bickering seems like a waste of time, does anyone agree? Its just "omg cant believe you said that you have problems" "oh yea well you said THAT so you have problems" What's the point of all this?
Not that you're the only one, the personal bickering seems like a waste of time, does anyone agree? Its just "omg cant believe you said that you have problems" "oh yea well you said THAT so you have problems" What's the point of all this?
I agree. I try to avoid responding to posts that contain bickering in them, or at least only respond to the argument side of the post and not the bickering side. Sometimes I fail and get sucked in though.
I fully agree with you on that. I challenge anyone who disagrees with this type of slavery to offer some compelling arguments.
Ok, so what to do with these killers who didn't plan it beforehand? We throw them in private slave labor camps (that's basically what a free market prison would be).
And what, because there is more incentive for personal accountablity there is NO potential for abuse AT ALL now? That's quite a jump.
It is deduced from the actor's ranking of means and ends. It is in Rothbard's Man, Economy and State .
Not what I asked for, and an appeal to authority. Do you have any EMPIRICAL evidence for that? Or do you just feel it, in your heart/intellect? If you know anything about me, it is that I strongly differ than anything can be known, or to put it more precisely "verified" (becuase you can know plenty, but you can't know that it's true. Nor can you empirically, but at least you know that way it holds true for us inter-subjectively) logically. Without evidence, the best you can hope for is a guess. Evidence > Math > Logic (imho)
That's ok, your choice. Just to let you know, it's not an ad hominem to call your views barbaric. Only if I attempt to say that the barbaric nature of your disgusting views make your argument any less valid, which I did not.
Well, you have a claim on the assets they made whilst they were alive
Gross. Gross
Laotzu del Zinn:Not what I asked for, and an appeal to authority. Do you have any EMPIRICAL evidence for that? Or do you just feel it, in your heart/intellect? If you know anything about me, it is that I strongly differ than anything can be known, or to put it more precisely "verified" (becuase you can know plenty, but you can't know that it's true. Nor can you empirically, but at least you know that way it holds true for us inter-subjectively) logically. Without evidence, the best you can hope for is a guess. Evidence > Math > Logic (imho)
I am an epistemocrat. That is all I have to say.
I cannot prove it empirically but I believe it holds true logically.
EvilSocialistFellow: Micah71381:A dead person can't make money. A living person forced to work to pay off their debt results in more money to me than if they were dead and I only got what they had at the time of their execution. Well, you have a claim on the assets they made whilst they were alive.
Yes, but by definition that is less than a claim on the assets made in the past plus the profits of production in the future. You can get all of their assets and kill them, or you can get all of their assets plus have them work to pay more over time. I would rather have more than less.
non sequitur Are you comparing murderers to people who get abortions and masturbators? If so, then you probably have problems. Do we have to play with semantics again, because it gets annoying.
It does logically follow from the argument, so your attempt to just throw out fallacies, frankly, is incorrect.
In some communities (certainly not one I would want to live in) aborters and/or masturbators would be criminals.. more specifically, murderers. It's capital punishment for them, according to the argument.
I'm not quite arguing that. I am saying they have morals... disgusting morals where it's good to stand around like a vulture waiting to take from the dead whatever they can.
Would my having a stance make your stance/argument any more/less valid/invalid, and/or righteous/barbaric?
It would perhaps give a new perspective on the discussion don't you think? Your opinions on other people's stances please you just fine I'm sure, but without the input of the alternatives to imprisonment I don't understand where this discussion is going.
I'm sure everyone here would love a world where no one is imprisoned. But everyone's running on limited ideas on how to deal with criminals so could you help out, and tell us what you think should be done? Otherwise this all just feels like self-glorification of some sort.
auctionguy10:It would perhaps give a new perspective on the discussion don't you think? Your opinions on other people's stances please you just fine I'm sure, but without the input of the alternatives to imprisonment I don't understand where this discussion is going. I'm sure everyone here would love a world where no one is imprisoned. But everyone's running on limited ideas on how to deal with criminals so could you help out, and tell us what you think should be done? Otherwise this all just feels like self-glorification of some sort.
I am also opposed to prison but not blood money/legalised contractual killing. A harsh restitution system and outlawry was effectively in place long before the evolution of the state. This meant that murder, rape, etc. were the exception not the norm. I made the mistake of saying that crimes of passion were not murder above; generally these crimes would constitute murder (and thereby initiation of aggression which can be effectively met, in the market, by retalliation, i.e. contractual killing) but in the exception of certain cases where, say, John who kills another Fred because he killed his wife. But John must have evidence to prove Fred killed his wife when Fred's insurance schemes or family members come his way otherwise he too will be accountable for by contractual killing. John can kill Fred himself or employ another body to do so. But I really don't care if someone got high on drink or drugs, or got really emotional and killed someone else in a rage for no justifiable reason; their action is still purposeful behaviour and they will be subject to contractual killing. I don't suport Micaah's belief though, where John gets to 'enslave' Fred and force him to work off the debt. No party can lawfully detain another party, this is slavery.
Laotzu's objections are mainly to do with fairness but life is not fair. I am 99% sure he supports a scheme where murderers and psychopaths are 'looked after' by the community, where they see a therapist on a regular basis and do community service, etc. But you can't really be sure. I would oppose this anyway on the grounds that it is a highly utilitarian scheme which does not make the murderer liable for their actions.
It does logically follow from the argument, so your attempt to just throw out fallacies, frankly, is incorrect. In some communities (certainly not one I would want to live in) aborters and/or masturbators would be criminals.. more specifically, murderers. It's capital punishment for them, according to the argument.
WRONG!!! Try again plox!
It does NOT "logically follow" from that argument. And don't you dare ask me to prove why your argument is incorrect. The burden of proof lays on you. Simply, stating the ethos of a community has nothing to do with the main question. Abortion and masturbation has nothing to do with initiation of violence or how we have to deal with criminals who cause damage to other individuals. Someone who aborts or masturbates isn't causing any damage to others except himself, if any.
You are also aware that Evilsocialist and Clayton stated that petty offences have absolutely no penalty.
Pulling things out of your ### and sugar coating them with your feelings is not going to make them true.If you plan on arguing try proving your point without giving us your subjective opinion.
See here:
This is like that time when you said that wealth redistribution and charity is the same thing. Somehow, I can't forget that.
1. Fed is more powerful than the govnmt. The fed controls the capital by sanction of govnmt force. life is measured in time, time is money. Therefore money is life, or rather a representation of life expended. Control the money, control the lives of those who use it.
2. If the market does not bare a toll price, the road and subsequent buisnesses on that road suffer. Rates will normilize.
3. As stated by others, private banks will offer a variey of products and services. The market will weed out the malinvestment.
4. In the abcense of regulation by force a monopoly, will eventually fail.
5. 3rd party arbitration.
6. Friends, family or ins. companies could.
Good questions, but not the end. Questions are the birth of rational thought. Dont stop. Deliver.
WRONG!!! Try again plox! It does NOT "logically follow" from that argument. And don't you dare ask me to prove why your argument is incorrect. The burden of proof lays on you. Simply, stating the ethos of a community has nothing to do with the main question. Abortion and masturbation has nothing to do with initiation of violence or how we have to deal with criminals who cause damage to other individuals. Someone who aborts or masturbates isn't causing any damage to others except himself, if any. You are also aware that Evilsocialist and Clayton stated that petty offences have absolutely no penalty.
I'll do whatever I dare, tyvm.
The question; is murder a significant justification for legally sanctioned killing? Answer yes (according to some other than myself).
So I point out that in some communities abortion and/or mastiurbation are considered murder... are you going to force your pro-choice beliefs on them?
If you don't see how the accusation in fact did follow, I have nothing to say. It does. Just like
wealth redistribution and charity is the same thing
follows, if you're talking about whether or not giving money to people who didn't earn it causes an incentive problem.
If I catch you stealing bubble gum in my candy store, I have every right to physically hold you until I can get your name, number, contact information and other relevant information that I will need to potentially file suit against you and/or collect restitution. If you try to run away without giving this information, I would be within my rights to forcibly restrain you (say, tie you to a chair or put handcuffs on you). Of course, this can only be for a very short duration and only for the express purpose of gathering the pertinent information (i.e. not for slapping you around) without it becoming kidnapping, assault or imprisonment. The concept of lawful detainment is the legal basis of the English gaol (jail) which was only ever supposed to be a very temporary holding place. The jurisdictions that I'm aware of prohibit holding a person in a jail for more than 14 days without a hearing regarding their physical custody (habeus corpus). In cases of gross crimes, such as murder or rape - espeically if committed by a poor person who is unlikely to be able to pay any fines levied against him and therefore has every reason to run - some form of detainment may be lawful. What will decide when detainment is lawful and when it is not is lawsuits by relatives of those who are unreasonably detained against the party who so detained them, arguing that the detention was, in fact, kidnapping or imprisonment. The spectre of being sued for kidnapping or imprisonment would be a pretty high bar on how sure you are that someone is, in fact, guilty before detaining them in some kind of lockup.
I hope this is not a reference to my position. I don't know whether revenge is "good" or "evil", it is what it is and it's part of human nature. So, we have to deal with it.