Still reading more of "Myth of National Defense" and it made me think of...
Lets start with this premise outlined in the paper above as illustrated in my hypothetical:
Person X breaks into your house while you are away. Your insurance company, assuming you pay insurance, will pay for the losses and damages. Furthermore, the insurance company will hire or have on hand a PDA to seek person X and bring them to a private court where they will be prosecuted by private lawyers and a private judge. If the insurance company DIDN't hire a PDA to bring person X to justice, you could do it yourself, provided you had enough money.
Lets even assume every one of these people/businesses is cheaper and more efficent because they are not government granted monopolies.
The problem I foresee is is that private investigatory abilities were less capable and less efficient than government investigations into crimes. Particularly complicated crimes with multiple accomplices and or heirarchies. (gangs/Mafia).
The government can use coersion at every step of their investigation to gather evidence and compel testimony or cooperation.
The PDA's or whom ever is investigating a crime can never violate the NAP, and thus might run into an endless series of roadblocks. Example: A criminal used a friends house, without the friend knowing, to stash evidence. Governments can coerce the friend by either searching the house without his permission, or by threatening him with charges for failure to aid an investigation. Assuming that this is immoral (I don't) it is effective. Once you factor in hostile witnesses, unknowing accomplices, going on the lamb through a large number of venues and locations, the government is less hindered because they can compel cooperation the whole way. Where a PDA is limited by the NAP and might hit a dead end at any point in an investigation.
If you disagree, and believe that PDA's will be more effective at solving crimes and bringing criminals to justice please explain. (Only thing I can think of is paying people at every step of the process to get information or evidence, which might lead to a very slippery slope. [We paid Mr. Y to testify against you... - opens up all kinds of corrupt practices])
Ixtellor
Example: A criminal used a friends house, without the friend knowing, to stash evidence.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
This point is probably superfluous but i just wanted to mention that I don't think 'austrian style' really applies because the Austrian School is a school of economic thought and you're talking about political philosophy. Sure, there's a close relation in that adherents to the Austrian School tend to be minarchists/ancaps but it's still a distinction that shouldn't be forgotten.
Juan:Example: A criminal used a friends house, without the friend knowing, to stash evidence. Let's call the friend F and the criminal C ? C is taking advantage of his 'friend' and putting him at risk without letting him know ? Doesn't sound like the way friends treat each other.Now a PDA employee knocks on F's door and lets him know what's going on. F gains valuable information on his alleged friend C. It seems C is not to be trusted, no ? At this point, F may be willing to cooperate...Anyway, if you assume that the majority of people won't be interested in security then yes, it will be harder for the PDAs to provide security. However in a libertarian society people will be, by definition, interested in the protection of individual rights, so your assumption is (highly) unlike.
I feel like you assume too much of the behavior of individuals in a libertarian society in this post. There are plenty of reasons one may choose to participate in a libertarian society other than because they are interested in the protection of individual rights. For example, a businessman would likely find such a society much easier to do business in because of the absence of government regulation. There are many people who couldn't care less about the rights of others, but would live in a libertarian society because it makes their lives better.
I believe the OP has a valid point. Unless you have a contract with a PDA or insurance company which demands that you cooperate with an investigation, what would stop people from stonewalling PDA investigators? I personally would cooperate to make my community safer, but there are plenty of reasons why someone wouldn't.
Also, why do we have to assume that F in the example above does not know what C is doing? Would harboring a criminal be a crime in a libertarian society? Has F violated the NAP if he allows C to stash evidence at his house? This is an honest question.
Ixtellor: Still reading more of "Myth of National Defense" and it made me think of... Lets start with this premise outlined in the paper above as illustrated in my hypothetical: Person X breaks into your house while you are away. Your insurance company, assuming you pay insurance, will pay for the losses and damages. Furthermore, the insurance company will hire or have on hand a PDA to seek person X and bring them to a private court where they will be prosecuted by private lawyers and a private judge. If the insurance company DIDN't hire a PDA to bring person X to justice, you could do it yourself, provided you had enough money. Lets even assume every one of these people/businesses is cheaper and more efficent because they are not government granted monopolies. The problem I foresee is is that private investigatory abilities were less capable and less efficient than government investigations into crimes. Particularly complicated crimes with multiple accomplices and or heirarchies. (gangs/Mafia). The government can use coersion at every step of their investigation to gather evidence and compel testimony or cooperation. The PDA's or whom ever is investigating a crime can never violate the NAP, and thus might run into an endless series of roadblocks. Example: A criminal used a friends house, without the friend knowing, to stash evidence. Governments can coerce the friend by either searching the house without his permission, or by threatening him with charges for failure to aid an investigation. Assuming that this is immoral (I don't) it is effective. Once you factor in hostile witnesses, unknowing accomplices, going on the lamb through a large number of venues and locations, the government is less hindered because they can compel cooperation the whole way. Where a PDA is limited by the NAP and might hit a dead end at any point in an investigation. If you disagree, and believe that PDA's will be more effective at solving crimes and bringing criminals to justice please explain. (Only thing I can think of is paying people at every step of the process to get information or evidence, which might lead to a very slippery slope. [We paid Mr. Y to testify against you... - opens up all kinds of corrupt practices]) Ixtellor
I suppose the best way to protect rights is to violate them to begin with.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
jdcoffey:There are many people who couldn't care less about the rights of others, but would live in a libertarian society because it makes their lives better.
There are plenty of reasons one may choose to participate in a libertarian society other than because they are interested in the protection of individual rights.
Also, why do we have to assume that F in the example above does not know what C is doing? Would harboring a criminal be a crime in a libertarian society ?
Has F violated the NAP if he allows C to stash evidence at his house ?
I believe the OP has a valid point. Unless you have a contract with a PDA or insurance company which demands that you cooperate with an investigation, what would stop people from stonewalling PDA investigators?
I'll try to make my questions and statements as simple as possible:
1) Is helping a criminal in a manner not directly related to the crime (allowing the person to stay on your property) a violation of the NAP? If so, how?
2) I believe it is possible for someone to desire to live in a libertarian society and not care about the rights of others. The individual must simply care enough about their own lives to not do anything that would cause them to be prosecuted... they don't need to be active advocates for a free society and willingly participate in criminal investigations. A society full of these people may not last long, but surely some of these people could exist in a libertarian society.
1) Is helping a criminal in a manner not directly related to the crime (allowing the person to stay on your property) a violation of the NAP ?
2) I believe it is possible for someone to desire to live in a libertarian society and not care about the rights of others.
The individual must simply care enough about their own lives to not do anything that would cause them to be prosecuted...
they don't need to be active advocates for a free society
and willingly participate in criminal investigations.
A society full of these people may not last long, but surely some of these people could exist in a libertarian society.
I don't care right now to fully address these objections or reread this article, but we can consider one obvious advantage of free market security and common law vs. a false property rights paradigm created by "constitutional law". This is the proper approach to justice vs. state exclusionary rule enforcement, AKA the 4th amendment. Please read Kinsella's In Defense of Evidence: Against the Exclusionary Rule and Against Libertarian Centralism.
Before you consider the implications of that common law procedure, you probably need to rethink what sort of system will emerge in a future free market justice system. There will be an impetus for anyone to provide security for anyone on whatever property. I can only suggest that the people who refuse to engage in certain aspects of contractual agreements with competing (and cooperating) security firms will be few and far between, be they good and self sufficient, malicious rogue entities, or merely groups of people with disparate views on certain issues. Nonetheless, these scenarios are worth considering.
Someone who aids a murderer can be implicated for that crime. Harboring the murderer after the fact though is an entirely different issue. Let's assume the case where a person is housing a suspect being completely unknowing of any crime. It should be okay to refer to them as 'landlord' for discussion. Maybe this is their friend allowing the suspect to stay over their home, but it is a moot point usually.
A typical objection to the death penalty is the factor of uncertainty in killing a suspect. It is easy to forget that states do not accept responsibility for miscarriages of justice along the lines of common law. Private security and defense firms are limited by accepted legal guidelines and profit motivations (killing people when you are unsure of whether they owe a life is possibly unprofitable, lifewise). One portion of their revenue will be recapturing funds from criminals. An element of this will be 'costs of capture' levied upon its customers (criminals).
So please consider the innocent and unknowing girlfriend, who was convinced by her thug boyfriend that he didn't rob someone for $100 then refused to cooperate with XYZ security firm; barricades her home, won't talk to XYZ, and harbors the thug. Should XYZ move anyhow and establish guilt of the thug for the robbery of $100, an element of restitution for the convicted thug to pay would be any costs of capture. If the 'landlord' or unknowing girlfriend suffered the loss of a $50 broken down door and $200 in damage from smoke bombs on her carpet, this responsibility is that of the criminal. It could be rightly said that exposing the 'landlord' to potential damages (which then came to fruition) is a crime itself.
The "You are only making it worse for yourself." rhetoric of police is more sensible when police are acting with libertarian priciples and respecting property rights. To order a schedule of restitution for a criminal to his unwitting harborers vs. primary victims can be a tricky subject. When you are able to ignore the present reality of injustice and accept voluntary social interaction, you should be able to feel relief that matters will be at least handled better than in the present system.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Under the current system of monopoly justice by an organization that uses force you can see that the monopoly can trample rights at will. Under free market justice, organizations will not have that capability. But under free market justice, individuals will have the right to self defense and the right to hire third parties to defend them. As the power of say a mafia organizations grows, more and more people will be injured. Eventually the insurance companies and security companies will be forced to confront the mafia. In the mean time the individuals they aggress against will have greater rights for self defense. So they can violently defend themselves.
Under our current system the monopoly of force says it is trying to protect us but really does not have to do so. Moreover, being inefficient it can not manage resources rationally to protect anyone. For example there are large amounts of resources devoted to stopping pot growing, selling and usage. These people do not have the capacity to aggress against me(They probably don't want to.) compared to the mafia.
Keep in mind that Hoover did not even admit to the existence of the Cosa Nostra until the 1960s. It started in the US before Prohibition.
Keep in mind that over two thirds of the Federal Law Enforcement in 2001 was devoted to the War on Drugs.
Ixtellor:The PDA's or whom ever is investigating a crime can never violate the NAP, and thus might run into an endless series of roadblocks.
Who say's PDAs can't violate the NAP? Sure they can - anyone can! However, doing so without what people perceive as "just cause" would invite loss of reputation, as well as possible retribution and consequences from other PDAs and individuals. In a maximally free and decentralized market, violations of the NAP will be minimized, that is true, but there is nothing decreeing that the NAP be followed. It's simply a natural consequence of not having a monopoly on force. Or more cleanly, being able to violate the NAP with (relative) impunity is a natural consequence of having a monopoly.
The go-to argument for any objection to anarchy is that consumer needs and values are always better reflected in the absence of an enforced monopoly. It works here, too. If consumers in a particular society value bringing criminals to justice relatively highly, and are willing to relax the NAP a bit, the violations of the NAP that PDAs could get away with (if any actually turn out to be necessary at all) would be relatively more flagrant. In any case, NAP can never be fully upheld. There will always be miscarriages of justice, and aggressors who go unpunished. The advantage of anarchy is not that it eliminates violations of the NAP, but that it minimizes them, or more precisely, it maximizes the accuracy with which the consumers' values and needs are reflected in the market for all services, including coercive ones. Generally, in an educated society without monopolies, libertarians propose that the NAP would be the ideal most closely held to. It is not, however, "decreed."
Why anarchy fails