There are many crimes that are incapable of having justice truly available, such as some act of destruction that is beyond one's means to pay, or mass murder. In another post, we were discussing limitations of liability. What I want to know is people's thoughts on how to deal with the liable who can't deliver justice. Also, I would like to know if this means there should be limitations on freedom, where risks taken are greater than the justice one can deliver under dire circumstances, for example, requirements of car insurance, and prohibitions of certain types of weapons, like nuclear bombs.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Everyone is required to purchase police insurance/protection. If someone was in your neighborhood and they didn't have police protection from a reputable agency, you'd be *VERY* relutcant to deal with them, or outright refuse to allow them in.
If I pay $500/month in police protection *AND* insurance, my police are taking repsonbility for me, if I injure someone else.
Nuclear bombs are an extreme example. It isn't profitable to build a nuclear bomb unless you can force people to pay the cost via taxes.
Someone building a nuclear power plant would be required to purchase enough insurance to cover the cost of a meltdown.
Without a centralized government to threaten, building a nuclear bomb doesn't make sense. If someone built a nuclear bomb and said "Give me $1B or I kill a lot of people!", then they would be treated like any other criminal.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
fsk: Everyone is required to purchase police insurance/protection. If someone was in your neighborhood and they didn't have police protection from a reputable agency, you'd be *VERY* relutcant to deal with them, or outright refuse to allow them in. If I pay $500/month in police protection *AND* insurance, my police are taking repsonbility for me, if I injure someone else. Nuclear bombs are an extreme example. It isn't profitable to build a nuclear bomb unless you can force people to pay the cost via taxes. Someone building a nuclear power plant would be required to purchase enough insurance to cover the cost of a meltdown. Without a centralized government to threaten, building a nuclear bomb doesn't make sense. If someone built a nuclear bomb and said "Give me $1B or I kill a lot of people!", then they would be treated like any other criminal.
It seems to me that forcing anyone to do anything is a violation of the non-aggression principle, unless we define risk as aggression. It seems the only wholly libertarian way to deal with risk is through private contracts. For instance, in a neighborhood, if a home-owners association owns the land for the subdivision, then they can regulate what animals you may keep on your land. If a company owns a road, they can specify how fast you can drive on it.
Forcing your neighbor to buy insurance or professional protection or limit what you consider risky business doesn't seem libertarian to me. You are essentially saying that an individual would not be allowed to provide for his own protection, instead being taxed to have a "professional" provide it. Only if you own the land he wishes to use, would you have a right to do so.
Social ostracism can only go so far. How will we know if someone is purchasing from a reputable company? Does his employer care? Do we know who his employer is? How effectively can we boycott a large employer based upon his hiring someone who doesn't have professional protection/insurance? It seems you might care, but most customers won't. Similarly, do we demand boycotts against employers of illegal immigrants today?
Nuclear bombs are indeed an extreme and unlikely scenario, but I'm just trying to get the point accross. Let's just say he's making nerve gas, for nothing other than his own enjoyment. There is no profit motive, or even a ransom motive. Someone simply feels like using his own property to create a weapon, without infringing anyone else's rights. Does suspicion and risk allow us to enter his property and confiscate the weapon?
In the case of the nuclear power plant, isn't there still a risk that insurance can't cover damages? Do those at risk audit the insurance agency? Who gets to claim they are at risk? Isn't every action involving some risk to others? Is there an objective libertarian code in dealing with this issue?
We are not worried about cases of ransom and assault - I agree about how we should treat such people. I am trying to understand if there is an objective code to dealing with risk, or it is simply a subjective issue undertaken by arbitrators.