In a anarchic system whereby your security and protection is insured to a third party who will investigate if you or your property are damaged, stolen, taken or destroyed, how are the murdered homeless handled?
I believe this is similar to if a homeless man's bag of recyclables is stolen, as he doesn't subscribe to a private security firm, he is then solely responsible for finding and rescuing his property. However, he cannot perform the function of investigating his own murder. This begs the question, what is to prevent a murdering psychopath from targeting those people without private police and without family or friends from later hiring a police firm to perform an investigation.
If the murderer is caught, what happens to him? Who has the right to decide what happens to him? There is no recompensation to be made if the man was not under contract and had not been previously paid for work (otherwise the one who paid him would be owed money by the murderer).
Is the answer that there are no homeless and that private security is inexpensive enough under the free-market system that it could be afforded at very low costs?
When a murder victim does not have immediate family or friends (or neighbors) to take the murderer to court, this right to take the murderer to court can be claimed by someone else. A lot of the rest of your questions are actually quite general to anarchy and not this specific case. For example: "If the murderer is caught, what happens to him?" Well, what happens if the murderer murdered a middle class family man? Is this murder somehow different?
I highly recommend Clayton's posts What Law Is and A Praxeological Account of Law. That should help you on the track of understanding how a system of law might operate in an anarchic system.
Greendogo: In a anarchic system whereby your security and protection is insured to a third party who will investigate if you or your property are damaged, stolen, taken or destroyed, how are the murdered homeless handled?
Your question is actually, 'will communities hire security services on a general basis to handle crime generally, in addition to those whom will hire security specifically for themselves?"
The answer is 'yes'. In all likelihood, because not everyone can afford bodyguards and the like, just as we do now we'd hire security professionals to oversee enclaves of like-minded individuals willing to pay collectively. It's not as if community cooperation would be barred under a libertarian order, it's only forced cooperation that we are against. Voluntary cooperation is a virtue.
Greendogo:I believe this is similar to if a homeless man's bag of recyclables is stolen, as he doesn't subscribe to a private security firm, he is then solely responsible for finding and rescuing his property.
He may choose to live in a region which has general security protection, if they will have him. Most will have such protection. He may also receive charity-provided security protection should he live in a non-generally protected area.
Greendogo:However, he cannot perform the function of investigating his own murder. This begs the question, what is to prevent a murdering psychopath from targeting those people without private police and without family or friends from later hiring a police firm to perform an investigation.
I've always thought a general security force rather necessary because of questions like this, even under an anarchic scenario. If a community hired police to generally uphold rights within that community, there's your answer, it would be little difference from how things work now except that he security firm/police would be privately provided and thereby probably much better.
Greendogo:If the murderer is caught, what happens to him? Who has the right to decide what happens to him?
If caught by a general security firm, such as I'd outlined, he's taken to a general court of justice, also paid by the community to provide general justice even lacking a plaintiff (because he's dead and has no family). It's not hard to imagine that the community in general has an interest in catching and stopping murderers and would have little problem paying for a murderer to be tried and dealt with before he turns into a serial murderer.
Greendogo:There is no recompensation to be made if the man was not under contract and had not been previously paid for work (otherwise the one who paid him would be owed money by the murderer).
Right, I think you're asking who pays the guy who catches the murderer. It would, again, go back to a local community paying for general protection of an area rather than specific individual protection.
Greendogo:Is the answer that there are no homeless and that private security is inexpensive enough under the free-market system that it could be afforded at very low costs?
This is quite likely as well but I'd consider it cheating to assume in answering you.
There will always be homeless, but in a libertarian society they could craft it into an actual lifestyle. They'd be largely unable to mooch by the right everyone has to use the common areas. There'd be very few common areas in an anarchic society, and they'd be subject to actual community ownership, not the fake community ownership called government ownership. Meaning people would actually own common areas corporately and could exercise private law over them, allowing them to set hours of operation and the like.
Also, private protection would be far more available--primarily in the sense of personal protection like cheap guns. When the politicians banned cheap guns, like the saturday night special, it was actually the poor they hurt the most. They basically said only rich people should be able to afford personal protection.
But, assuming some communities did welcome the homeless, and had general rights protection for everyone in their enclave, the homeless there would receive general protection.
Unconnected thoughts I have on this:
I think it's worth saying, though it sounds cruel, that a person who chooses not to protect themselves or hire protection or live in a community that provides general protection, has elected to take their chances this way. If murdered, and if lacking any family or acquaintances to take up for him, no one is left to receive restitution...until someone unconnected decides to get involved.
Assuming this murder gets discovered, someone who didn't know the victim would wind up becoming the victim's advocate, yes? They would have every right to investigate and prosecute, wouldn't they, even though they didn't know the guy and eventually the criminal could be caught regardless.
Although nobody would be required to look into the circumstances of the corpse they found in their dumpster, I suppose, very few people wouldn't, or at least they'd pass it along to someone else who was willing to.
Also anyone who was concerned about this kind of crime would be able to start or donate to a business that provided just this kind of service. Wouldn't that be an acceptable way to handle it?
Why are the homeless protected by the state today? Not because of some magical force, but because the general public generally regards the protection of the homeless as important. Why do you think they'd stop caring? Instead of making the help paid for by expropriation of tax money, it can be handled voluntarily.
Furthermore, the very fact that almost everyone who questions anarchy asks about this show that people in fact do care about the homeless.
Say you murdered someone on your property and you moved them out to the countryside. Then an investigation finds evidence that the crime was committed on your property, say a matchbook with your business' logo was in the pocket of the victim, but you do not want to cooperate.
How does the investigation move forward? The evidence is circumstancial, but in reality it is a crucial piece of evidence to discovering the criminal (you). Does the investigating organization barge into your property to perform the investigation, or is the stigma gained by your unwillingness to cooperate the only punishment you would recieve?
Does the investigating organization barge into your property to perform the investigation, or is the stigma gained by your unwillingness to cooperate the only punishment you would recieve?
They would take the evidence to your legal defense. It would follow the arbitration process from there.
Greendogo:Say you murdered someone on your property and you moved them out to the countryside. Then an investigation finds evidence that the crime was committed on your property, say a matchbook with your business' logo was in the pocket of the victim, but you do not want to cooperate. How does the investigation move forward? The evidence is circumstancial, but in reality it is a crucial piece of evidence to discovering the criminal (you). Does the investigating organization barge into your property to perform the investigation, or is the stigma gained by your unwillingness to cooperate the only punishment you would recieve?
Assuming you cooperate with the court the charge was filed with, you'd be taken into custody, just as now, and warrants issued to search your property and whanot just like now. It would proceed as usual from there. The only question is how you limit the appeals process in a world where there's no supreme court. You could simply create an arbitrary number.
Stigma is certainly not the answer. Once convicted you'd be coerced to accept the judgment handed down for your guilt, w/e that may be.
If you refused to cooperate, a warrant for your arrest would be issued and handed out to neighboring cities, very similar to now, and security forces there would be on lookout for you and return you to that city if you're caught, where you'd be tried and arrested. At this point, essentially anyone can lawfully take you into custody in order to remand you back for justice.
Once caught, the security service hired by the city you committed a crime in would arrange transport and remove you securely back for trial.
It wouldn't be much different at all, only the mechanism of how it's being paid for and who'se providing it has changed in order to allow voluntaryism to rule the day. Mankind has been doling justice for thousands of years and we've come up with a great number of excellent innovations, and I'm sure there are more to be found, but these innovations will not suddenly disappear in an anarch society.
You have to understand that in today's world the government forces everyone to pay for police protection. In an individualist society, each city would contract on a general basis for police protection as well. What individualists object to is not community cooperation such as collectively hiring a security force, what individualists obejct to is compulsory cooperation which the statists believe is absolutely necessary to achieving their (foolish) ideals.
I'd like to point out that many of the things Anenome says are minority views on this forum. Don't have time for the alternative explanation.
Wheylous: I'd like to point out that many of the things Anenome says are minority views on this forum.
I'd like to point out that many of the things Anenome says are minority views on this forum.
Perhaps, but I should also think they are compatible with the typical rebuttal to this question (given above by others), and probably more workable in reality. Most people in our society cannot afford full-time security guards of any sort. The answer is to group together for something like security insurance, to tamp down crime generally for the masses in a set area, paid for by those with an interest in that area, much as we do now.