Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only time taxation is not theft is when it is not in fact taxation but donation.
It is rare for serial killers or rapists to get very far before being killed by a potential victim or bystander. Moreso in a community where people have not had their right to defend themselves stripped by an oppressive state. When they do they are eventually taken down by the police force of the jurisdiction in which the criminal committed his acts, or they get away. The same would apply for private protection and investigative services. There is little difference between the level of protection the State can offer and the level of protection the market can offer besides how that protection is funded.
There are anarcho-capitalist systems where forced restitution or involuntary servitude are seen as appropriate alternatives to ostracism. In cases of murder the murderer would be required to compensate the victim's family for the lost wages, the victim's employer for the lost productivity, etc.
There are also systems where imprisonment is justified for the most violent acts where agreement is reached between all arbitration courts. A Common Law system. Funding can come from a number of sources but my understanding is it would most likely come from the protection service that apprehended the criminal as they are who contracted for the task in the first place.
However there are in my opinion a number of problems with these systems as there are with any system that uses captivity or force as a method of punishment. One of which is the punishing of the innocent. In a voluntary society those who think an accused is innocent are free to continue interaction and business with them. Problems like this are why I question these system's practicality but there are others that have given it more thought that would better serve the problem than I. Ruwart may talk about it in A Market for Liberty but I'm not certain.
It is rare for serial killers or rapists to get very far before being killed by a potential victim or bystander.
Really? I'd like to see some stats on this one. I did a quick check and didn't find a single instance of this in the list of the top 100 serial killers.
Quote:
There are anarcho-capitalist systems where forced restitution or involuntary servitude are seen as appropriate alternatives to ostracism. In cases of murder the murderer would be required to compensate the victim's family for the lost wages, the victim's employer for the lost productivity, etc.
What would the consequence be for not compensating the victim's family? What would the system do if the criminal was penniless and had no skills? What about if the criminal was considered insane?
Quote:
However there are in my opinion a number of problems with these systems as there are with any system that uses captivity or force as a method of punishment. One of which is the punishing of the innocent. In a voluntary society those who think an accused is innocent are free to continue interaction and business with them. Problems like this are why I question these system's practicality but there are others that have given it more thought that would better serve the problem than I. Ruwart may talk about it in A Market for Liberty but I'm not certain.
Not only are those who think the accused is innocent, but those that are unaware of the individual. I live in a community of 6 million people.... and there's simply no way I could keep track of everyone I run into on a daily basis. I agree that it doesn't seem very practical.
Really? I'd like to see some stats on this one. I did a quick check and didn't find a single instance of this in the list of the top 100 serial killers.
That's because they get killed before earning serial killer status.
Quote:
What would the consequence be for not compensating the victim's family? What would the system do if the criminal was penniless and had no skills? What about if the criminal was considered insane?
Everybody has some skill even if it's just flipping burgers. A forced restitution system would not depend on direct restitution. There could be restitution brokerages and whatnot much like there are settlement payout firms today.
Quote:
Not only are those who think the accused is innocent, but those that are unaware of the individual. I live in a community of 6 million people.... and there's simply no way I could keep track of everyone I run into on a daily basis. I agree that it doesn't seem very practical.
What is proposed by some is a type of reputation-reporting system similar to the credit-reporting system. Protection services are fully capable of networking with other protection services to monitor and exchange information on those who have refused arbitration which could then be disseminated to their respective clients. There are other market-based solutions suggested. Where there is no public property it comes down to how the property owners want to manage discovery if they even want to.
While I do think these are real problems with these particular proposed systems they pale in comparison to the problems with the current system. You also must remember the focus is on retribution - making the victim whole not punishing the offender. Any action beyond this usually only serves revenge which does nothing to maintain justice and is in fact a hindrance to it.
Everybody has some skill even if it's just flipping burgers. A forced restitution system would not depend on direct restitution. There could be restitution brokerages and whatnot much like there are settlement payout firms today.
I should clarify, forced restitution is just one of the anarcho-capitalist possibilities. The pure voluntaryist perspective does not have forced restitution. Refusal to pursue every effort to make the victim whole generally results in loss of reputation and ostracism.
I should clarify, forced restitution is just one of the anarcho-capitalist possibilities. The pure voluntaryist perspective does not have forced restitution. Refusal to pursue every effort to make the victim whole generally results in loss of reputation and ostracism.
Both seem practical only in a small town environment with limited mobility, as we would have seen 200 years ago. But today where we have millions of people living in close quarters and the ability to travel overseas in the matter of hours, it just doesn't seem as practical.
When I walk into JC Penney to buy a shirt, it would be impractical for them to have to look up my status to see if I were on their list of individuals they didn't wish to trade with. Just as I wouldn't know that some guy visiting my neighbor could have murdered someone last week, but 1000 miles away.
That would likewise be true 200 years ago without modern communications. I again can compare to the credit reporting system. However ultimately if the new guy in town has been ostracized from the next city over and for whatever reason you don't know about it, so what? Unless he proves he's a threat to you you wouldn't and shouldn't know the difference. He could have already realized the error of his ways and just wants to start over. If he turns to crime in your city and again faces ostracization he's back where he was. Eventually he either runs out of places to go and relegates himself to hermit status or rejoins society as a productive member to regain his reputation.
Again, I emphasize, the focus is on making the victim whole not punishing the offender. It's a moralist and therefore tough mindset to break, I know. If the accused refuses to comply with arbitration and faces ostracism what is the difference to the victim vs. imprisonment? There isn't one which is why punishing the criminal beyond what is necessary to make the victim whole does not serve justice but sadism.
However, in a private community where all parties have agreed to a set of laws as a condition of residency and this private community practices a form of imprisonment, the funding of such a system would still be voluntarily collected by the protection service(s). The prisoners themselves would be voluntary captives as they entered into a contractual agreement.
There's a lot of avenues of thought on this and I am in no way versed in all of them. I believe many are covered in much more depth in Healing Our World by Ruwart (sorry Market for Liberty is Tannehill).
I mean, what do you expect to happen if suppose that someone breaks into your house and steals your property? What would be your recourse without a government to protect the property rights of its citizens?
On protection, which protects a home better? A cop or an armed homeowner? Who is better contracted with to protect a neighborhood, the police or a private security firm?
On recovery, people already employ private investigative and loss recovery services, bounty hunters, etc. If someone violates your property you have every right to pursue them to take back what is yours.
In this matter there isn't much difference over how things operate today with the exception of people's ability to voluntarily select which protection organization they contract with. These days you call the cops and they're just as likely to take you to jail as the criminal. Police are not trusted in black neighborhoods for a reason: they can't be trusted. They are agents of the State first, Law Enforcement Officers who swear an oath to protect and serve the State. If you don't like how they're behaving, too bad you still have to pay them. Some cop repeatedly sexually assaults women during traffic stops and IA says the assaults were justified... too bad you still have to pay him. But in a voluntary society if you don't like how your protection service is behaving you fire them and hire someone else. You don't fill out a complaint form or beg the politician that supposedly represents you to do something. You just stop doing business with them. The system is therefore self regulating as it reflects the will of the market.
Again, I emphasize, the focus is on making the victim whole not punishing the offender. It's a moralist and therefore tough mindset to break, I know. If the accused refuses to comply with arbitration and faces ostracism what is the difference to the victim vs. imprisonment? There isn't one which is why punishing the criminal beyond what is necessary to make the victim whole does not serve justice but sadism.
The reason punishment is important moreso than making the victim whole is that it becomes a numbers game. If I can steal from 1000 people and only have to repay 100, there's no incentive for me not to steal. I'm still way ahead.
Assuming someone's reputation were the only thing they could lose, do you really think that's a deterrent? I could create a small town of thieves who don't care about each others' reputation, going out to other towns to prey on their residents and only have to fork over a small portion when I get caught.
I feel there are cases where keeping the criminal locked up does indeed keep the community safer.
I mean, what do you expect to happen if suppose that someone breaks into your house and steals your property? What would be your recourse without a government to protect the property rights of its citizens?
Oh, I see what you're asking now.
I don't oppose services like security and courts. I oppose the idea that they need to be involuntarily funded.
I expect you'll have more questions; I'll be back later tonight to do my best to answer them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
