Some Dumb Questions :P

I fully agree with you on that. I challenge anyone who disagrees with this type of slavery to offer some compelling arguments.

Well, it's important to remember that questions of law are not like questions of philosophy. There isn't any "right answer." It's more like praxeology... there's just what people do. So, you have to ask yourself whether private prison operators would be able to:

a) Operate slaves at a profit vis-a-vis private employers willing to employ someone who has committed a tort (possibly at dirt-low wages)

b) Maintain this profit margin after settling the innumerable lawsuits that will be filed against them by relatives of the imprisoned

The historical record is clear - without the State, there is no such thing as prison. I doubt very much that any kind of prison system, including a prison labor system, could exist in a private law society. The only realistic outcomes of being sued would be to be exonerated, agree to a settlement or be outlawed (for offenses to which no meaningful fine can be attached). Most of the time, settlement would simply be a monetary payment. Sometimes, people have settled with a formal/written apology, sometimes by agreeing to humiliate themselves or even accepting a corporal punishment, and so on. But I don't think anyone would willingly agree to enslavement or death. It just doesn't make sense.

Clayton -

You are also aware  that Evilsocialist and Clayton stated that petty offences have absolutely no penalty.

Hmm, I don't think I've said anything like that, I don't know whether there will be a penalty attached to petty offenses, but it is for the market to decide whether pure restitution is sufficien (i.e. steal a dollar, pay back a dollar) or additional payment (penury) is required.

Clayton -

<double post>

Drew:

You are also aware  that Evilsocialist and Clayton stated that petty offences have absolutely no penalty.

I would say there should be money retribution for minor offences such as theft and possibly violent assault. But each time someone committs this assault, the price of their insurance rises. Eventually their insurance will refuse to cover someone who is a liability and they will no longer be protected which in my opinion is just. I still maintain that retribution should be proportional to the original offence committed but I have no substantial basis to justify this stance, unfortunately; as Clayton pointed out this stance is a 'subjective tort', so to speak.

Clayton:

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.

I maintain this position as well, I merely believe the victim of a crime (or the victim's family) should have the right to restitution. This is a far more efficient way to deal with crime. Revenge is only 'good' in so far as it acts as a crime deterrent and it creates a 0% reoffence rate. But this is a utilitarian mind set.

EvilSocialistFellow:

I would say there should be money retribution for minor offences such as theft and possibly violent assault. But each time someone committs this assault, the price of their insurance rises. Eventually their insurance will refuse to cover someone who is a liability and they will no longer be protected which in my opinion is just. I still maintain that retribution should be proportional to the original offence committed but I have no substantial philosophical basis to justify this stance, unfortunately; as Clayton pointed out this stance is a 'subjective tort', so to speak.

Do you actually mean retribution or did you mean to say reparations?  Retribution indicates punishment whereas reparations indicates compensation.  A retribution fine may be the same amount as a reparations payment but I feel that the reasoning behind these two things is vastly different.

Micah71381:

Do you actually mean retribution or did you mean to say reparations?  Retribution indicates punishment whereas reparations indicates compensation.  A retribution fine may be the same amount as a reparations payment but I feel that the reasoning behind these two things is vastly different.

My bad, I meant reparation. But I think there could be some form of limited retribution for repeated minor offences.

Drew:

I fully agree with you on that. I challenge anyone who disagrees with this type of slavery to offer some compelling arguments.

Let's see what I can muster here.  :)

Here, you're agreeing with the idea that people who commit "crimes" should be enslaved until their "debt" is paid.  Right?

Could you define "crime" and "debt" for me?  So I know specifically what I'm trying to counter here...  :)

 

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

 

Again, it doesn't follow. No one is forcing any beliefs on anyone. Try again, and don't use the "if you don't see how the accusation in fact did follow". That doesn't work, you have to explain why it follows, if not quit replying.

No one was talking about abortion, and I will probably "force" my masturbation beliefs on them if they threaten to kill me for it. By "force", I mean self-defense.

follows, if you're talking about whether or not giving money to people who didn't earn it causes an incentive problem.

/facepalm

If you say so..

That's it, I'm not debating this crank anymore. If anyone else would like to point out the stupidity in his argument(and mine), be my guest.

Let's see what I can muster here.  :)

 

Here, you're agreeing with the idea that people who commit "crimes" should be enslaved until their "debt" is paid.  Right?

Could you define "crime" and "debt" for me?  So I know specifically what I'm trying to counter here...  :)

Clayton and Micah were talking about murdering psychopaths and "prison for profit".

 

Clayton:

...

To what extent do you agree with the following statement:

'Retributivism is backwards looking since it only considers the wrong previously done to the victim by a criminal and how to seek proportional retribution to make the victim feel more 'complete' and 'whole' once more; utilitarianism is forwards looking since it considers the consequences of the original crime and the impact upon broader society'.

When I talk about the impact upon broader society, I am referring to Bastiat's essay 'That which is seen, and that which is not seen', or the fact that the murderer's crime against a baker is a crime against the utility the engineer receives from the baker when he buys his bread, or the utility his family derive from the baker when he is there for him to share their love with. In this respect, is it not important to consider the chain of events triggered from the original action? Or is this a red herring? The murderer's crime has destroyed physical wealth, namely the service of the bakers to others.

Is individualist retributivism enough, or does one need to consider the impact upon society? (I say society correctly here, since any crime is a crime against everyone when you consider the chain of events).

Drew:

Clayton and Micah were talking about murdering psychopaths and "prison for profit".

So you're not really interested in the argumentation of those who oppose the idea of murdering psychopaths and forcible enslavement of "criminals?"  That challenge was rhetorical?

ladyphoenix:

Drew:

Clayton and Micah were talking about murdering psychopaths and "prison for profit".

So you're not really interested in the argumentation of those who oppose the idea of murdering psychopaths and forcible enslavement of "criminals?"  That challenge was rhetorical?

I should have said "murdering psychopaths", I'm going to edit it now if I still can, I ,myself, am not interested in murdering anyone. 

To answer your question, I am interested in argumentation from those who oppose enslavement of "criminals". The thing is, they haven't offered any. If I am wrong, be sure to point them out to me.

Those who actually oppose the "enslavement of criminals" do so because it's "bad", "slavery is bad", "profit is bad" and "coercion is bad". On the other hand, they didn't offer any alternatives.

 I suspect the reason they don't want to "enslave murderers" is because coercion and violence is "wrong". If one is againts coercion then one must also be againts murderers. Either we let murderers get away with the crime because we are "againts violence" (contradictory statement)or we arrest them because we believe in violence. I doubt any of this makes sense. 

If the question is based on the premise that "coercion is unnacceptable". We will have to ask whether it is acceptable to arrest murderers or let them free? To force murderers or not to force murderers?

If our premise changes, all of a sudden, into "coercion is OK". Then, we have nothing to talk about.

Drew:

To answer your question, I am interested in argumentation from those who oppose enslavement of "criminals". The thing is, they haven't offered any. If I am wrong, be sure to point them out to me.

I can't say any such arguments have or have not occurred in this thread, or any thread for that matter.  I haven't read any.  But the challenge wasn't "bring me some argument that was already made..." it was "present an argument."  If you want someone to present an argument, I've offered to do just that.  But again, I'm going to ask you to please define your terms.

I'd like to know what you mean by "criminal" and "debt" before I even think about formulating an argument.  And based on those definitions, I'll address the rest of your post.  I've noticed some things in there that are certainly worthy of addressing, but I won't address them in continuing ignorance of your meanings here.  Please be as thorough and explicit as possible.  Thanks.

ladyphoenix:

I can't say any such arguments have or have not occurred in this thread, or any thread for that matter.  I haven't read any.  But the challenge wasn't "bring me some argument that was already made..." it was "present an argument."  If you want someone to present an argument, I've offered to do just that.  But again, I'm going to ask you to please define your terms.

True.

ladyphoenix:

I'd like to know what you mean by "criminal" and "debt" before I even think about formulating an argument.  And based on those definitions, I'll address the rest of your post.  I've noticed some things in there that are certainly worthy of addressing, but I won't address them in continuing ignorance of your meanings here.  Please be as thorough and explicit as possible.  Thanks.

Here's my definition:

Criminal= someone who initiates violence and causes damage to another individual life and/or property.

Drew:

Those who actually oppose the "enslavement of criminals" do so because it's "bad", "slavery is bad", "profit is bad" and "coercion is bad". On the other hand, they didn't offer any alternatives.

Clayton and I propose a retributive system in place of imprisonment.

I suspect the reason they don't want to "enslave murderers" is because coercion and violence is "wrong". If one is againts coercion then one must also be againts murderers. Either we let murderers get away with the crime because we are "againts violence" (contradictory statement)or we arrest them because we believe in violence. I doubt any of this makes sense.

This is true. Also murderers have initiated force/coercion. Retribution is the retalliation by force or coercion and is entirely consistent with the non-aggression principle.

I only oppose retribution by vigilante (presupposing outlawry) since this means justice is excessively harsh. But I also oppose excessive lenience.

@Drew: I responded to your "challenge" at the top of this page.

Clayton and Micah

I don't think there's a whole lot of common ground between Micah and me.

Clayton -

Drew:

Here's my definition:  Criminal= someone who initiates violence and causes damage to another individual life and/or property.

While I will operate from this assumption for the remainder of the conversation, I'm going to ask you...  why should I accept this definition?  Why should anyone else?  What guarantee have you that this is the definition anyone imposing "forcible enslavement" upon another person will hold to this same definition?  I think that the fact that over time the definitions of words change, and as such, even if you got everyone to agree today that this punishment was appropriate for what we call criminals... whose to say that at some point the very same punishment wouldn't later be applied to a new "definition" of "criminal...?"  Like... someone who smokes weed, for example.  I think it's very important that we try to minimize the capacity for exploitation, or in this case, what I would call "mission creep."

Drew:

Those who actually oppose the "enslavement of criminals" do so because it's "bad", "slavery is bad", "profit is bad" and "coercion is bad". On the other hand, they didn't offer any alternatives.

First, I don't know anyone who suggests that "coercion is bad" inherently.  I have only ever seen people here argue that "aggression is bad" inherently and that "coercion can be a subset of aggression, though it isn't necessarily so." 

 

Drew:

I suspect the reason they don't want to "enslave murderers" is because coercion and violence is "wrong".

The same with the above, except here we're going to add "violence."  "Violence" is potentially a subset of "aggression" but it isn't necessarily so.  Therefore "violence" isn't inherently "wrong," since what is opposed here is "aggression."

Drew:

If one is againts coercion then one must also be againts murderers.

Indeed, if one is against "coercion."  But I am not against coercion, nor am I aware of anyone here who is against all coercion.  I am only against "aggression."  Coercion may or may not be "aggressive."  Therefore I cannot be blanketly against "coercion." 

However, being against aggression, as I am, I am also against murderers, since "murder" is an inherenly "aggressive act."  :)

Drew:

Either we let murderers get away with the crime because we are "againts violence" (contradictory statement)or we arrest them because we believe in violence.

I don't know anyone here, myself included, who is blanketly "against violence."  So I'm not entirely sure whose position you think you're countering here...

Drew:

If the question is based on the premise that "coercion is unnacceptable". We will have to ask whether it is acceptable to arrest murderers or let them free? To force murderers or not to force murderers?

The question is based on the premise that "coercion is unacceptable," so far as I'm aware.  The question would be more properly based on the premise that "aggression is unacceptable."

Drew:

If our premise changes, all of a sudden, into "coercion is OK". Then, we have nothing to talk about.

Again, I'm not sure whose position you are addressing here but the answer is not "coercion is ok," even if the premise changes.  The premise is actually "aggression is unacceptable."  Therefore "coercion is acceptable if it is not aggressive in nature" is your "improved" premise, and yet there is still PLENTY to discuss.

As I'm writing this, I am giving myself different scenarios and trying to figure out how a strict proprietarian would/should view this situation.

I do not have a problem with forcible incarceration.  Forcible incarceration is no more than all of the neighbors of a specific locality (we'll call it "prison" for now) denying a man that which he has no rightful claim to in the first place: passage through their land.  I also have no problem with him being denied the provision of food for "free."  He has no rightful claim to your food (or mine, or anyone else's).  However, I would have a problem with his being punished for not "laboring" in a "violent" fashion.  You have no right to his labor, just as he has no right to your food.  If not laboring means he starves to death, or never leaves "imprisonment," this is a choice he himself makes. 

This way he is "imprisoned" but not "enslaved."  I do believe that "enslavement" even of "criminals" is a line I'm unwilling to cross... probably because I'm less than convined that my definition of "criminal" will be always be the definition employed by those doing the "enslaving."

Again, it doesn't follow. No one is forcing any beliefs on anyone. Try again, and don't use the "if you don't see how the accusation in fact did follow". That doesn't work, you have to explain why it follows, if not quit replying. 

In fact I did explain it.. twice.  You can't blame me for your inability to comrehend reading. 

No one was talking about abortion, and I will probably "force" my masturbation beliefs on them if they threaten to kill me for it. By "force", I mean self-defense. 

We weren't?!  Because I thought we were talking about murder and whether capital punsihment is a justified legal stance.  Some people, even whole large communities see abortion as murder.

This is the 3rd time I've spelt it out for you.  If you're too stupid to see it, I care not. 

 

To anybody worried about 'the majority' forcing their beliefs on someone (for instance in the case of abortion being seen as murder by the people within certain communities),  this is the beauty of the system; you are always protected by an insurance scheme and you may change insurance scheme if you do not agree with their customs without geographical relocation required unlike in a democratic state where the majority rule is enforced upon you and you must relocate to escape. Furthermore states do not allow for free immigration (and some do not allow for free emigration, even).

ladyphoenix:

I do not have a problem with forcible incarceration.  Forcible incarceration is no more than all of the neighbors of a specific locality (we'll call it "prison" for now) denying a man that which he has no rightful claim to in the first place: passage through their land.  I also have no problem with him being denied the provision of food for "free."  He has no rightful claim to your food (or mine, or anyone else's).  However, I would have a problem with his being punished for not "laboring" in a "violent" fashion.  You have no right to his labor, just as he has no right to your food.  If not laboring means he starves to death, or never leaves "imprisonment," this is a choice he himself makes. 

This way he is "imprisoned" but not "enslaved."  I do believe that "enslavement" even of "criminals" is a line I'm unwilling to cross... probably because I'm less than convined that my definition of "criminal" will be always be the definition employed by those doing the "enslaving."

I believe this to be reasonable.  Confinement by force (only as much as is required to stop them from leaving) and work until his debt is paid or they die of starvation/suicide.

To anybody worried about 'the majority' forcing their beliefs on someone (for instance in the case of abortion being seen as murder by the people within certain communities),  this is the beauty of the system; you are always protected by an insurance scheme and you may change insurance scheme if you do not agree with their customs without geographical relocation required unlike in a democratic state where the majority rule is enforced upon you and you must relocate to escape. Furthermore states do not allow for free immigration (and some do not allow for free emigration, even).

I think a better answer is Hoppe's - a private party will be much willing to spend his own money prosecuting victimless crimes than a publicly subsidized prosecutor who doesn't have to spend his own money.

Clayton -