a criminal (or suspect) who doesn't join any security agency

I have tried to find something about this in the literature section but couldn't do it.

In a Libertarian society:

What happens if somebody (Mr. A) is denounced by another one (Mr. B) as a criminal, but Mr A isn't affiliated to any security or justice agency and he won't comply to go to trial? Maybe he is nuts or extremely poor and proud, but he won't even accept pro-bono services.

How is he guaranteed a due process? Would he be taken by force to the trial and then judged without any defense? Doesn't it violate the presumption of innocence?

gussosa:

 

How is he guaranteed a due process? Would he be taken by force to the trial and then judged without any defense? Doesn't it violate the presumption of innocence?

You can't protect people from themselves.

True. I missed the point.

And now that you changed my focus I realize that the Chamber of Law (a possible industry association of justice suppliers) could designate one among its members to act as the defender of the accused.

That could cover (for example) the cases of mental insanity where a seriously retarded boy could be charged with the rape committed by someone else.

gussosa:

How is he guaranteed a due process? Would he be taken by force to the trial and then judged without any defense? Doesn't it violate the presumption of innocence?

You are right.  It would be contrary to any presumption of innocence. 

 

How people arbitrate disputes is anybody's guess.  There are many possibilities around the "problem" you mention. 

1) everybody else may disassociate themselves with such a renegade and deny him service -- that forces him to leave the territory    

2) nobody would do business with him to begin with knowing that he is incapable or unwilling to arbitrate disputes   

I think it helps to look at things in a practical sense.  Ask yourself this: Would you hire an electrician that did not have insurance?  Would your insurance company allow you to do business with renegades? 

 

In Libertania, I think insurance companies would include arbitration services as part of their packages.  So, if you wanted to get auto, house, security, etc. insurance, you would have to agree to their arbitration methods.  That could include clauses which say: "If you do business with renegades, we do not cover any losses and we do not care to settle your disputes." 

Of course, that has nothing to do with a free society based on individual rights. That's a 'new' variation on might makes right.

Byzantine:

In anarchy, if you want due process you will have to pay for it.

Or someone could choose to pay for it.  In anarchy, charity will be an equalizer for the downtrodden, although the charity might come with strings attached, like, "I pay for your representation, and you promise to work two weeks for me" and so on.  Is it taking advantage of a situation?  Perhaps.  I don't believe in charity with no strings attached.

I'm afraid your understanding of what a free society means is flawed. You usually assert that individuals only have rights (in practice) if they can pay to have those rights 'enforced'. Even 'liberals' and other commies don't go as far when they want to ridicule the free-market. Your position is worse than a caricature.

The assumption that it requires a complicated structure is a wild one. Maybe we could just say that if the accused doesn't defend himself in any way, but neither declares himself guilty, then anyone might apply to act as defender... even a highschool student. It would be up to the judge to choose the one who seems the best.

To take a practical case, the real homeless people (the ones living in the streets, not in abandoned houses or in shelters)  are generally people who went insane and lost contact with reality. Given their insanity and their lack of resources, it would be way to easy to put blame of any crime on one of them. An uncle who abuses his niece could make the girl say that, if anyone asks, it is the old man around the corner who has been "touching" her. With the testimonies of the girl and her uncle, and being himself incapable of understanding the situation, if he hasn't got someone to take care of the defense, he would end in a labor camp, castrated, dead, deported or whatever is the restitution/punishment there. Let's assume he ends as a slave or deported (more fit to Libertarian theory), he still is removed from the place where he likes to be, forced to do something he doesn't want to do, in punishment for something he didn't do, while the real criminal is still free.

Even for the benefit of the victims, it is better if the accused is guaranteed at least some kind of defense.

It comes to my mind the common place of a retarded boy being sentenced to death in Texas for something he didn't do. I don't know if it is real.

 

gussosa:

Even for the benefit of the victims, it is better if the accused is guaranteed at least some kind of defense.

It comes to my mind the common place of a retarded boy being sentenced to death in Texas for something he didn't do. I don't know if it is real.

Hold on a minute.  Guaranteed some kind of defense by whom? 

I certainly have a lot of sympathy for a retarded or mentally ill person who gets hauled through a state justice system -- I just do not think that is in the least likely to occur in a libertarian environment. Why would that happen? 

 

 

 

 

gussosa:

To take a practical case, the real homeless people (the ones living in the streets, not in abandoned houses or in shelters)  are generally people who went insane and lost contact with reality. Given their insanity and their lack of resources, it would be way to easy to put blame of any crime on one of them. An uncle who abuses his niece could make the girl say that, if anyone asks, it is the old man around the corner who has been "touching" her. With the testimonies of the girl and her uncle, and being himself incapable of understanding the situation, if he hasn't got someone to take care of the defense, he would end in a labor camp, castrated, dead, deported or whatever is the restitution/punishment there. Let's assume he ends as a slave or deported (more fit to Libertarian theory), he still is removed from the place where he likes to be, forced to do something he doesn't want to do, in punishment for something he didn't do, while the real criminal is still free.

That does not sound like a practical case at all.  There are so many extravagant assumptions. 

First of all, why would homeless people be living on the streets in any libertarian environment?  I doubt that would occur. 

Even if there are homeless people who can not afford legal representation, why would anybody believe anybody who blames them?  Personally, I would think: "Oh, typical!  The perverted uncle blames the homeless guy -- again!"  It would not take more than one generation for adult victims of perverts to spill the beans.  Also, I think most people would also wonder why the perverted uncle let his daughter come in contact with homeless men -- that is just me. 

Next, if it really was the homeless guy who perpetrated the crime, why would anybody bother to take him to court?  Vigilanteism would seem a lot more likely.  Now, I realize that sort of perspective is not very liberal but that is the world in which we live. I am not going to make apologies for human nature. 

 

gussosa:

The assumption that it requires a complicated structure is a wild one. Maybe we could just say that if the accused doesn't defend himself in any way, but neither declares himself guilty, then anyone might apply to act as defender... even a highschool student. It would be up to the judge to choose the one who seems the best.

I agree with you.  I think all of these complicated poly-centric models are highly unlikely to occur although, conceptually they make sense.  However, mastering a quick draw of a pistol may in fact be cheaper than arbitration.  I mean that quite seriously.  Personally, I think a libertarian world would have more people carrying fire-arms and generally acting so bloody polite that they would not even use cuss-words for fear of being misinterpreted. I also do not think people would be travelling very far from home or outside of town.

 

 

Juan:

I'm afraid your understanding of what a free society means is flawed. You usually assert that individuals only have rights (in practice) if they can pay to have those rights 'enforced'.

You know, I've thought about this problem. Obviously, you can define a free society as one where the negative rights of everyone are enforced regardless of their ability to pay, but then again, this would mean much more than just abolishing the state. I also wonder, just like Byzantine, if that is not a pretext for some kind of "libertarian coercion".

In a state of anarchy, people who are unable to afford investigation of and enforcement of restitution for a crime may be helped by claim hunter agencies, as I prefer to call them. Most likely, these will be sub-companies of existing enforcement agencies which "buy" the restitution claim of a poor person for a certain percentage of their net compensation and bring the criminals to justice in exchange - this, of course, incentivizes them to do especially good work because payment depends on arrest and successful prosecution of the criminal. Profit motive and justice combined.

Sphairon:

You know, I've thought about this problem. Obviously, you can define a free society as one where the negative rights of everyone are enforced

A free society IS a society where individual rights ARE respected. Obviously you can redefine any word in any way you like...

I also wonder, just like Byzantine, if that is not a pretext for some kind of "libertarian coercion".

I won't bother answering Byzantine's attempt at misrepresenting what I'm saying, and if you share his 'clever' view of things I won't bother answering you either. So, feel free to think that anarchy = free society = individual rights IF you can pay.

Also, the loser in a case should be required to compensate the winner for their legal fees, because the loser is the one who caused the winner to have to hire lawyers in the first place. (You should not be forced to spend your own money on lawyers just to defend what is rightfully yours.) This may also help level the playing field in legal battles.

Juan:

So, feel free to think that anarchy = free society = individual rights IF you can pay.

What is the alternative? 

See, I think you are just struggling with the practical fact that human beings tend to be selfish and commonly do not take lightly to being forced to pay for things. 

gussosa:

The assumption that it requires a complicated structure is a wild one. Maybe we could just say that if the accused doesn't defend himself in any way, but neither declares himself guilty, then anyone might apply to act as defender... even a highschool student. It would be up to the judge to choose the one who seems the best.

Why would the judge choose?  What gives the judge the right to dictate who's a better defender?

     In a libertarian society, people forget that the education system wouldn't be the dumbed down public school system that is current.  People would actually be learning how to live with each other in a non-coercive way.  It is compassion to the core.  When people learn about their freedom, they learn what is inherent in their life anyways.  So knowing property rights is knowing free self and the relationship you peacefully have with others.  Right now mstream education is about how to stand in the way of others.  Libertarian society is all about freeing up people to enact what is inherently self-motiving aka free-will.  If you are against free-will, then you perpetuate an aggressive attitude that is not good-hearted.

     The whole point is the free market is here, but the State has corrupted it and one factor in its corruption is it stands in the way of free-will.  The Soviet Union had a free market.  Prison has a free market.  The free market is always here, but State predatory patterns come and go feeding off the labor and reasoning of others who are actually trying to be productive and helpful.  Now being educated in a way that rids this aggression to free-will is inherently self-propelling.  You do it cause you want to, not cause of compulsory motives placed on the individual.  You are learning how free you are, not how much you can steal and murder to get the job done.  People need to just get out of others people's lives and leave them alone.  Stealing and murdering an innocent individual for their money to pay for somebody heart surgery is not good-hearted.  I don't see how that ever could cross somebody's mind to mean otherwise.

      If people really cared about a retarded boy, then they would go and defend him instead of making somebody else do it for them.  If not, then it's all talk and no action.  It's just a show.

Charles Anthony:

See, I think you are just struggling with the practical fact that human beings tend to be selfish and commonly do not take lightly to being forced to pay for things.

No, the problem is that some (or most) people here have confused the means (anarchy and competition) with the end (a free society, which means individual rights)

Also, a reason why this confusion is popular (again, among some people) is because it lets them fantasize that they can set up their own little totalitarian but 'voluntary' tribal governments.

Anyway, the kinda obvious answer to the problem at hand is that any individual should be able to defend himself if he so wishes. Also, the 'infrastructure' for 'just' rulings should be in place because all providers of security are supposed to CONFORM to natural law.

Of course, 'anarchy' might mean that Byzantine's tribe is able to lynch people who they don't like and who can't afford to pay protection, but of course that is not how a free society operates.

Juan:

Of course, 'anarchy' might mean that Byzantine's tribe is able to lynch people who they don't like and who can't afford to pay protection, but of course that is not how a free society operates.

any 'tribe' as you say that would be recognised as decidedly unlibertarian, would face the consequences of those people who are libertarian and belong to libertarian tribes who would shun it from division of labour and make it difficult for its rogue members to 'get their way' when the way is an act of aggression.

I advocate individual rights. I realize that competition in the provision of security is superior to monopoly so in that sense I'm an anarchist. Unlike people who want to set up their own theocracies...

Byzantine:

Your "free society" is just your fantasy of being able to act without consequence.

This isn't quite right.  Juan plays devil's advocate, and instead of promoting a society where people act without consequence, he promotes a society where no one makes an act of consequence, if you get the subtle distinction.

Court fees for a vagrant (accused) aggressor don't exist, because there are no vagrant aggressors, not because they can act with impunity.

These days, I just choose not to take the bait, although I will admit you can bait a pretty good trap yourself.

Charles Anthony:

I also do not think people would be travelling very far from home or outside of town.

Byzantine:

Finally, someone who understands anarchy.

See Nir ? What do you think ? Are my references to tribalism that outlandish ... ?

Juan plays devil's advocate, and instead of promoting a society where people act without consequence, he promotes a society where no one makes an act of consequence, if you get the subtle distinction.

Court fees for a vagrant (accused) aggressor don't exist, because there are no vagrant aggressors, not because they can act with impunity.

As you are so fond of regularly exclaiming : misrepresentation !

I really meant that people have confused 'anarchy' and 'free society' -- yet they are not the same thing and the difference is not so subtle.

To put it in different terms. If an evil 'rich' guy is able to get innocent people convicted in a stateless society, then that system is as broken as the monopolistic system we enjoy today.

On the other hand, assuming a competitive system is in a place because its users are interested in freedom and justice then it should be pretty hard to get innocent people convicted.

Byzantine:

Maybe we could just say that if the accused doesn't defend himself in any way, but neither declares himself guilty, then anyone might apply to act as defender... even a highschool student. It would be up to the judge to choose the one who seems the best.

If you wanted to defend accused persons gratis, you would be free to do so.  If no volunteers could be found, then the accused would just be SOL.

I find it revealing that in these hypotheticals, people wring themselves into pretzels over what to do about people who can't pay for a service.  I guess net producers who can pay just need to be taxed.  Or maybe we should just shoot them for being so heartless.  But then who's going to pay everybody else's freight?

What to do, what to do.

Once again the left shows discomfort with capitalism and the free markets and tries to use of their view of justice to hide it.

Juan:

To put it in different terms. If an evil 'rich' guy is able to get innocent people convicted in a stateless society, then that system is as broken as the monopolistic system we enjoy today.

I agree with that however, I can not change human nature.  I can not tell somebody to put down a pitch fork. 

I have no problem with that because I really do not believe anybody will be "rich" in a truly anarchist world.  You might. 

The only instance where I believe any "rich" person in an anarchist world could survive is if he is EXTREMELY benevolent because I believe that the pitch-forks would otherwise turn towards him.  So, I think your hypothetical scenario of "an evil "rich" guy is able to get innocent people convicted" is absurd.  It is no more intelligent than saying an evil guy with magical powers that can transform his victims into sand with the wave of his wand. 

 

So, Juan, you have to offer a compelling argument for why a "rich" person would actually exist in a libertarian world.  Until then, you really have not thought through your objections hard enough. 

 

Juan:

On the other hand, assuming a competitive system is in a place because its users are interested in freedom and justice then it should be pretty hard to get innocent people convicted.

Well, that is an even more absurd hypothetical because it is internally inconsistent.  Basically, if everybody was interested in freedom and justice, tell me, from where did the evil "rich" guy who wants to convict innocent people arise?  You can not have it both ways.  I suggest that you learn to accept human nature. 

what does 'rich' mean? rich is in my dictionary but 'rich' i havent come across before reading this thread.....

Charles Anthony:

That does not sound like a practical case at all.  There are so many extravagant assumptions. 

First of all, why would homeless people be living on the streets in any libertarian environment?  I doubt that would occur. 

 

In my post I explained why does that happen. They are mentally insane. I met this guy years ago (sorry, I can't remember his name), who is a psychologist and he was studying and doing charity work with homeless people. He even did the experiment of living as a homeless joining their groups. What he found out is that they tend to suffer various degrees of schizophrenia. Mentally healthy people don't end in the streets, they find some ugly work or go to the country to live as Indians, they do whatever it takes but they don't fall to the level of a homeless sleeping in cardboard boxes. Maybe you argue that they would be coerced to enter a mental institution, but that's very unlibertarian. You just can't force someone "for his own good".

Given the mental condition, he wouldn't even understand the charges. As he is alone in the world  and absolutely poor, even if he understood the situation he wouldn't be able to hire a lawyer.

The case of an abuser blaming someone else is not a wild story at all. There was this case years ago in the United States where a whole family who owned a kindergarten was accused of molesting the children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

There is even a good movie starred by James Woods about this case. And here is another case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kern_county_child_abuse_cases

What happens in child abuse situations is that the public declares the suspect guilty before any evidence is presented, and they are very eager to punish him. People like you try to find the guy and kill him before any case is presented. Again, very unlibertarian.

Want to destroy somebody? Just say this:

"I don't really know, but I heard that Larry might have abused a friend of his daughter"

That's all it needs.

Even if the kids grow up and clear the situation (very unlikely as they tend to repress and keep silent), two crimes were committed without any restitution or punishment ever made.  The girl and the homeless guy spent years of suffering, while the uncle was running wild.

The argument of "human nature" is pretty damned weak. If you consider yourself so helpless, why would you even care to have a justice system and/or to defend yourself?

Why caring about political change in the first place? Isn't human nature to want to live for free? Then let the government enslave some people so you can live for free. And if you are one of the slaves, well, it's just human nature to want to be masters, you can't blame them.

gussosa:

Charles Anthony:

That does not sound like a practical case at all.  There are so many extravagant assumptions. 

First of all, why would homeless people be living on the streets in any libertarian environment?  I doubt that would occur. 

 

In my post I explained why does that happen. They are mentally insane. I met this guy years ago (sorry, I can't remember his name), who is a psychologist and he was studying and doing charity work with homeless people. He even did the experiment of living as a homeless joining their groups. What he found out is that they tend to suffer various degrees of schizophrenia. Mentally healthy people don't end in the streets, they find some ugly work or go to the country to live as Indians, they do whatever it takes but they don't fall to the level of a homeless sleeping in cardboard boxes. Maybe you argue that they would be coerced to enter a mental institution, but that's very unlibertarian. You just can't force someone "for his own good".

Given the mental condition, he wouldn't even understand the charges. As he is alone in the world  and absolutely poor, even if he understood the situation he wouldn't be able to hire a lawyer.

The case of an abuser blaming someone else is not a wild story at all. There was this case years ago in the United States where a whole family who owned a kindergarten was accused of molesting the children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

There is even a good movie starred by James Woods about this case. And here is another case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kern_county_child_abuse_cases

What happens in child abuse situations is that the public declares the suspect guilty before any evidence is presented, and they are very eager to punish him. People like you try to find the guy and kill him before any case is presented. Again, very unlibertarian.

Want to destroy somebody? Just say this:

"I don't really know, but I heard that Larry might have abused a friend of his daughter"

That's all it needs.

Even if the kids grow up and clear the situation (very unlikely as they tend to repress and keep silent), two crimes were committed without any restitution or punishment ever made.  The girl and the homeless guy spent years of suffering, while the uncle was running wild.

I think it's obvious there are mentally ill people and abused sons and daughters.  Was there a point to this or maybe you thought people didn't know this?

 

nirgrahamUK:

what does 'rich' mean? rich is in my dictionary but 'rich' i havent come across before reading this thread.....

I just started to read a book on the evolution of poverty through history.

In ancient times being poor meant that you couldn't feed nor dress yourself properly. Being rich meant you were fat and had all the clothes you needed.

With the Industrial Revolution hunger and cold practically disappeared in industrialized countries. The was that poverty became defined in terms of consumption. Now, being poor means that you can't reach the average consumption pattern of your society.

Don't blame, the sociologists came up with that thing. Yes, the very definition of poverty makes it an unsolvable problem.

Anyway, by contrast we can define being rich as being able to afford for yourself a consumption pattern of better quality and in bigger quantities than the average person in your town.

Let's suppose everybody earns the same, but then one man discovers a method to turn wood into gold. He sets his own electrical conductors business and starts making much more money than his neighbors. Then he is rich.

wilderness:

I think it's obvious there are mentally ill people and abused sons and daughters.  Was there a point to this or maybe you thought people didn't know this?

You are missing the point.

I am just giving an example of how a Libertarian justice system could fail, so we can think of a solution.

In the current democratic system there are two clear examples of unjust justice: child abuse trials (not the law) and labour cases (both in law and in trials). I am sure the problem with labour cases would disappear in a Libertarian society, but the other will not. That's why it makes a good example to find the flaws.

This is not a wild ad-hoc assumption. To prove that a theory is wrong you just need a counterexample. I am giving the counterexample. So let's go back to the drawing table and correct the blueprints.

Don't start screaming at me.

The flaw is the idea that you have to pay for the justice you get, as Byzantine and Charles Anthony believe. The very same paying customers of the system would be hurt that way. Of course, charity could take care of the situation. Or maybe not charity, as law students could use these cases as practice.

gussosa:

wilderness:

I think it's obvious there are mentally ill people and abused sons and daughters.  Was there a point to this or maybe you thought people didn't know this?

You are missing the point.

I am just giving an example of how a Libertarian justice system could fail, so we can think of a solution.

In the current democratic system there are two clear examples of unjust justice: child abuse trials (not the law) and labour cases (both in law and in trials). I am sure the problem with labour cases would disappear in a Libertarian society, but the other will not. That's why it makes a good example to find the flaws.

This is not a wild ad-hoc assumption. To prove that a theory is wrong you just need a counterexample. I am giving the counterexample. So let's go back to the drawing table and correct the blueprints.

Don't start screaming at me.

The flaw is the idea that you have to pay for the justice you get, as Byzantine and Charles Anthony believe. The very same paying customers of the system would be hurt that way. Of course, charity could take care of the situation. Or maybe not charity, as law students could use these cases as practice.

Sorry if my straight-forwardness seemed like screaming, but I gave a plain-spoken question and wanted a plain-spoken answer.  I got one.  Thanks.  That's all I was asking for.

And you came up with two solutions.  Charity and law students (which would still be charity, posted on a bulletin board, maybe mentioned by the professor if anybody wanted to sign up for a month or more)

gussosa:

The argument of "human nature" is pretty damned weak. If you consider yourself so helpless, why would you even care to have a justice system and/or to defend yourself?

I do not consider myself so helpless and I do not care how weak you think my judgement of human nature happens to be. 

I observe some people to take up pitch-forks and to act on impulse. 

 

gussosa:

Why caring about political change in the first place? Isn't human nature to want to live for free? Then let the government enslave some people so you can live for free. And if you are one of the slaves, well, it's just human nature to want to be masters, you can't blame them.

My motives are irrelevent. 

 

 

 

 

gussosa:

In my post I explained why does that happen. They are mentally insane.

That is fine.  However, there is nothing in your explanation that convinces me that your hypothetical conditions would all exist in anarchy as they do now.  For example, I believe statism ultimately is the cause of mentally ill people living homeless on the streets. 

 

gussosa:

What happens in child abuse situations is that the public declares the suspect guilty before any evidence is presented, and they are very eager to punish him. People like you try to find the guy and kill him before any case is presented. Again, very unlibertarian.

Hold on a minute.  I am not advocating vigilanteism.  I am just recognizing that other people act like vigilantes and there is nothing you nor I can do as libertarians to stop them from wanting to do so. 

 

gussosa:

Want to destroy somebody? Just say this:

"I don't really know, but I heard that Larry might have abused a friend of his daughter"

That's all it needs.

-- and who believes everything they hear?  I certainly do not. 

Like I said, I think people who blame mentally ill people will be doubted.  You seem to disagree. 

 

Forgive me but I do not know how to put this lightly.  This is the best I can do: I believe that in Libertania, people who believe everthing they hear will be weeded out of the population.  So, I really do not consider your hypothetical scenario to be much of an objection. 

 

 

gussosa:

Even if the kids grow up and clear the situation (very unlikely as they tend to repress and keep silent), two crimes were committed without any restitution or punishment ever made.  The girl and the homeless guy spent years of suffering, while the uncle was running wild.

Look.  Everybody has a different conception of how real-life anarchy will come about and manifest itself.  Personally, I tend to believe that true anarchy will not be like modern life at all.  I think anarchist communities will partly be communistic or tribal if you want to call them that way.  In general, the best I can describe my belief is that people will be required move backwards technologically to a more agrarian lifestyle out of sheer necessity because shipping food across the globe will be unaffordable.  In our current state of affairs, I see the modern transportation industry as highly dependent on the state for its survival.  So, in a nutshell, I believe that people will live very close to each other in anarchy -- close enough to treat their neighbors as family.  Your hypothetical scenario is hardly likely to ever occur except for a population which is doomed to extinction in my opinion. 

Anyway, even if I am wrong and you want to use an elaborate poly-centric model of free market justice, I would still say that people who tend to believe everything they hear would have a hard time getting a private defense agency to take them on as clients or to hear their every complaint.  That is just my opinion. 

Stranger:

gussosa:

 

How is he guaranteed a due process? Would he be taken by force to the trial and then judged without any defense? Doesn't it violate the presumption of innocence?

You can't protect people from themselves.

I still like this answer.