Would we even need PDAs in an ancap society because killing someone already imposes a penalty on the killer (it decreases the potential output of society rendering the killer poorer). I figure the incentive wouldn't be there. But then how does one describe crime in any society? Is there ever a time where peaceful exchange is less preferable to violent appropriation?
Also, a question on property rights: if someone scratches someone else's car is there a need for a libertarian law to give a punishment in this case because by scratching a car the scratching car is itself scratched -the maximum punishment is acheived without law.
And finally, will everyone agree to using PDAs that follow just the natural rights theory of libertarianism or will there be some courts following different laws? I guess that even if the market would prefer natural law -on the margin niche markets for other types could be filled.
fakename:I didn't know law was for restitution. Why is this, I thought that rothbard was a retributionist?
Read this by Long, I find it to be more coherent than Rothbard's approach.
http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l2.html
fakename:What are ways that people have or can internalize this externality?
The way I see it is that government as a monopolist has no incentive nor knowledge of how to reduce crime, as it can merely force the costs onto the tax payer. However, once we abolish this monopoly insurance companies will have an incentive to reduce crime because once a crime occurs they have to pay out, meaning passing the costs on to their customers who can chose to visit another insurance company.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Crack dealers kill rival dealers. Impassioned ex-lovers kill their former partners. Some don't want to get caught. Some don't care. You'll always have crimes like murder, whether economically beneficial or not, no matter the economic arrangement, which can be beneficial to murderers, while not to general society.
Eye for an eye is a poor code of justice. Restoring the victim is what justice is all about. The criminal's debt is not exacting damage unto his own property, but in repairing the damage he caused to somebody else's.
Law, police, investigators, courts, insurers, etc, could be arranged in a multitude of ways. Some courts could hear cases that others wouldn't - they would basically determine whether they felt a law was valid. As far as laws go, anyone could write one. The court, in hearing a case, would have to convince others that the law was just, compatible with the other laws it found just, and that the perpetrator should be punished. In cases where laws conflicted, the court may determine one to be unjust and unenforceable, or create a new law, replacing them both.
Courts, as a business, would be dependent upon market demand for the set and tone of law that it heard cases upon, which would be dependent upon the ability to provide just enforcement of its verdicts, whether it does this itself, or convinces others to do so. Let's say we hire a bum to be a court and hear a case based upon a law we made up that obviously isn't just. Well, who's going to enforce this verdict? Most likely you alone, and you stand to be tried for a crime if you attempt to enforce it, by people who have much more market demand, and much more ability to successfully enforce their law against you.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
fakename:Would we even need PDAs in an ancap society because killing someone already imposes a penalty on the killer (it decreases the potential output of society rendering the killer poorer). I figure the incentive wouldn't be there. But then how does one describe crime in any society? Is there ever a time where peaceful exchange is less preferable to violent appropriation?
Dispersed costs but centralized gains.
If I kill a man all of society is impoverished, but I alone gain his fortune.
fakename:Also, a question on property rights: if someone scratches someone else's car is there a need for a libertarian law to give a punishment in this case because by scratching a car the scratching car is itself scratched -the maximum punishment is acheived without law.
Law exists for restitution not for retribution. The scratcher is obligated to unscratch the other person's car.
fakename:And finally, will everyone agree to using PDAs that follow just the natural rights theory of libertarianism or will there be some courts following different laws? I guess that even if the market would prefer natural law -on the margin niche markets for other types could be filled.
Law would not be homogenious, no. What would be required is that each parallel legal system recognize the natural rights of members of other systems. Any system that did not do this would be a common enemy.
Peace
I didn't know law was for restitution. Why is this, I thought that rothbard was a retributionist?
So how (although it is hard to predict the free market) will the heterogenous law look like? I'm familiar with PDAs but I suppose there will be PDAs that enforce different standards/ideologies? And also, what means could a private group have to keeping themselves private, because if men have inalienable rights then what is the chance of keeping someone you just don't like off your property permanently when you have no right to forcibly remove him (unless he attacks you)?
JonBostwick: Dispersed costs but centralized gains. If I kill a man all of society is impoverished, but I alone gain his fortune.
What are ways that people have or can internalize this externality?
You may use force against any aggressor, including someone trespassing, so long as it's proportional (even this goes away in self-defence.)
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus:(even this goes away in self-defence.)
lol - don't tickle me or I'll be forced to shoot you in the face.
fakename: Would we even need PDAs in an ancap society because killing someone already imposes a penalty on the killer (it decreases the potential output of society rendering the killer poorer). I figure the incentive wouldn't be there. But then how does one describe crime in any society? Is there ever a time where peaceful exchange is less preferable to violent appropriation?
I'm not going to assume uber-rationality on the part of humans, even in an Ancap society. There will always be crime. But with the proper values and incentives in place, it can be decreased, perhaps even drastically so.
fakename: Also, a question on property rights: if someone scratches someone else's car is there a need for a libertarian law to give a punishment in this case because by scratching a car the scratching car is itself scratched -the maximum punishment is acheived without law.
Restitution should be the main purpose of the justice system. Punishment doesn't really make sense, not even as a deterrent. Anything beyond restitution becomes a new act of aggression in itself, and thus unjust and unjustified.
fakename: And finally, will everyone agree to using PDAs that follow just the natural rights theory of libertarianism or will there be some courts following different laws? I guess that even if the market would prefer natural law -on the margin niche markets for other types could be filled.
Personally, I don't think that people will just start following the "natural rights theory of libertarianism", but rather, people will be led towards natural rights by the economic incentives of enforcing law without the coercive power of a government. Bad laws will simply be harder and more expensive to enforce, and thus, less likely to be maintained. Niche marketing would most likely be for different parts of the law, not entirely different laws.