How to run an Anarchy

[JA37]

Read fully the original post of mine that was quoted.

The one about turning your back? It doesn't answer any of the questions I asked.

[1713262196]

1713262196

[1713262196]

1713262196

[1713262196]

1713262196

[1713262196]

1713262196

[myrkul]

The blood thirst here is scary. How does another murder help anything? It just creates more victims. Even a murderer has family that cares about him/her. It might prevent more murders, although it's not the only way, and who knows if the person would ever kill again? And that's assuming that no mistake has been done finding the killer. What if you managed to find and kill an innocent, then what? Does another murder put that right?

Firstly, I never said that another murder would help anything. In fact, I explicitly said that I would rather a murderer be rehabilitated. Premeditated murderers and mass/serial murderers would most likely do it again, however. So, how would you suggest they be dealt with?

I agree, that killing an innocent person would not benefit anyone, which is why it is important to make sure you get the right guy, the same as it is in today's system.

[JA37]

Firstly, I never said that another murder would help anything. In fact, I explicitly said that I would rather a murderer be rehabilitated. Premeditated murderers and mass/serial murderers would most likely do it again, however. So, how would you suggest they be dealt with?

I agree, that killing an innocent person would not benefit anyone, which is why it is important to make sure you get the right guy, the same as it is in today's system.

Give the perpetrator to the next of kin and turn you back certainly implies that you wouldn't mind, but if that wasn't what you meant I don't know what you really wanted to say by that. I agree with you that rehabilitation is the preferred solution, but peoples sense of justice also demands some kind of punishment, for which jail is an adequate solution. That is coincidentally the same way I'd deal with people who can't be rehabilitated. Lock them up, for life if you have to, although research shows that violent criminals more or less stop being violent at around 60 years of age. Not all obviously.

Today's system is also broken. There are quite a few innocent people who have been murdered by the state. I advocate imprisonment. If you should make a mistake you can just say "Oops, sorry, here's a truckload of money. Enjoy the rest of your life." It's not perfect, but far better than "Oh, I guess that guy we executed was innocent after all".
And you should go after the reasons for crime, which quite often are poverty, drugs and lack of education, among other things. Surprisingly often criminals come from the lowest social class.

[myrkul]

I advocate imprisonment.

OK. Who pays? Who pays for the criminal's meals, medical care, housing, and protection? And if we goofed, who pays for that 'truckload of money'?

[vector76]

I advocate imprisonment.

OK. Who pays? Who pays for the criminal's meals, medical care, housing, and protection? And if we goofed, who pays for that 'truckload of money'?

With slave labor the prison might turn a profit.

[MoonShadow]

I advocate imprisonment.

OK. Who pays? Who pays for the criminal's meals, medical care, housing, and protection? And if we goofed, who pays for that 'truckload of money'?

With slave labor the prison might turn a profit.

No.

[myrkul]

I advocate imprisonment.

OK. Who pays? Who pays for the criminal's meals, medical care, housing, and protection? And if we goofed, who pays for that 'truckload of money'?

With slave labor the prison might turn a profit.

Do you have any idea what you're advocating?

[vector76]

I advocate imprisonment.

OK. Who pays? Who pays for the criminal's meals, medical care, housing, and protection? And if we goofed, who pays for that 'truckload of money'?

With slave labor the prison might turn a profit.

Do you have any idea what you're advocating?

By deliberately violating the rights of others, they forfeit some of their own rights.  By threatening violence against me, you lose your right to have me not shoot you.

I know, I know.  You want criminal behavior to have no involuntary consequence, and you will just "capitalism" them to death.

[JA37]

I advocate imprisonment.

OK. Who pays? Who pays for the criminal's meals, medical care, housing, and protection? And if we goofed, who pays for that 'truckload of money'?

Taxes. I thought that was obvious. Haven't I've been here long enough to let you guess that on your own? 
Prisons are an operating cost of running a society.

[myrkul]

I advocate imprisonment.

OK. Who pays? Who pays for the criminal's meals, medical care, housing, and protection? And if we goofed, who pays for that 'truckload of money'?

Taxes. I thought that was obvious. Haven't I've been here long enough to let you guess that on your own? 
Prisons are an operating cost of running a society.

Just wanted to hear you say it yourself. So, what you're suggesting, is that when someone murders someone, we should take money from not just the friends and family of the victims, but the entire society, people who have no connection to either the victim or the murderer, to pay for the care and feeding of the murderer? Rather than do something to redress the crime, and make those who were most hurt by it feel at least a little better, you would make them a victim a second time, and include the rest of us too, while you're at it? You would threaten, with violence or murder, millions of people, to support the life and needs of one murderer? Don't you see the hypocrisy there?

[em3rgentOrdr]

I advocate imprisonment.

OK. Who pays? Who pays for the criminal's meals, medical care, housing, and protection? And if we goofed, who pays for that 'truckload of money'?

Taxes. I thought that was obvious. Haven't I've been here long enough to let you guess that on your own? 
Prisons are an operating cost of running a society.

Just wanted to hear you say it yourself. So, what you're suggesting, is that when someone murders someone, we should take money from not just the friends and family of the victims, but the entire society, people who have no connection to either the victim or the murderer, to pay for the care and feeding of the murderer? Rather than do something to redress the crime, and make those who were most hurt by it feel at least a little better, you would make them a victim a second time, and include the rest of us too, while you're at it? You would threaten, with violence or murder, millions of people, to support the life and needs of one murderer? Don't you see the hypocrisy there?

+1.  Yeah, it's a double whammy.  And most of the folks in prison haven't done anything that harmed another person orproperty.  Usually it's trivial stuff like drug possesion, etc.  And then for those crimes that do harm another person or property, it would be better if the criminal compensate the victim monetarily or otherwise, instead of forcing the victim to fund the cost of imprisonment.  And for the really bad crimes like murder, etc., I would think it should be up to the victims' next of kin to have what ever from the murder....and this includes capitial punishment, forgiveness, or even long term indentured servitude (but alas, the Constitution forbids indentured servitude and slavery).

[vector76]

...and this includes capitial punishment, forgiveness, or even long term indentured servitude (but alas, the Constitution forbids indentured servitude and slavery).

Not quite:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction

[em3rgentOrdr]

...and this includes capitial punishment, forgiveness, or even long term indentured servitude (but alas, the Constitution forbids indentured servitude and slavery).

Not quite:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction

I stand corrected! 

Why is it we don't see this quite as often?

[myrkul]

By deliberately violating the rights of others, they forfeit some of their own rights.  By threatening violence against me, you lose your right to have me not shoot you.

I know, I know.  You want criminal behavior to have no involuntary consequence, and you will just "capitalism" them to death.

Not specifically. I would rather not institutionalize slavery and create criminal colleges, nor make an industry out of human misery.

And If violating a right forfeits your own, don't you think the punishment should fit the crime?

[JA37]

Just wanted to hear you say it yourself. So, what you're suggesting, is that when someone murders someone, we should take money from not just the friends and family of the victims, but the entire society, people who have no connection to either the victim or the murderer, to pay for the care and feeding of the murderer? Rather than do something to redress the crime, and make those who were most hurt by it feel at least a little better, you would make them a victim a second time, and include the rest of us too, while you're at it? You would threaten, with violence or murder, millions of people, to support the life and needs of one murderer? Don't you see the hypocrisy there?

Oh get over yourself. Do you equal murder with taxes now? "... a victim a second time ..."? Does the gene for being a drama queen come with AnCap/Libertarianism? And "... threaten you with murder ...", dear lord are you really serious?
Yes, I'm sure those who've had a relative murdered feel that had they just not paid taxes things would be better.
That last sentence was irony, in case that didn't get through.

I'll give a proper answer when I don't get timeout's all the time. I had a long answer written down that got lost. ;(

[vector76]

By deliberately violating the rights of others, they forfeit some of their own rights.  By threatening violence against me, you lose your right to have me not shoot you.

I know, I know.  You want criminal behavior to have no involuntary consequence, and you will just "capitalism" them to death.

Not specifically. I would rather not institutionalize slavery and create criminal colleges, nor make an industry out of human misery.

And If violating a right forfeits your own, don't you think the punishment should fit the crime?

Of course the punishment should fit the crime.

For me, the whole question of retributive punishment hinges on one key: due process.  Without due process, the prisons or the heirs of the victim or "society" or whoever has absolutely no right to violate the rights of the accused criminal.  Only if the accused gets a fair and public trial, and a jury of peers unanimously decides against the accused, and the police have not violated any rights in the process of obtaining evidence, and a person knowledgeable about the law has assisted the accused, and the jury finds the punishment to be commensurate with the crime, only then can punishment be meted out with a clear conscience.

The problem I have with AnCap is I am not convinced that due process can exist because the courts will be tangled in questions of jurisdiction and paralyzed by moral relativism.  I would agree that retributive punishment cannot rightfully exist in such a system.

The problem is that some system will emerge nonetheless, where thugs who have no care for due process will deliver violent punishment for transgressions, and so there will still be a system of semi-institutionalized violence.  There will be a thriving industry of human misery.  It will just be outside of any due process or accountability in general.

[myrkul]

Of course the punishment should fit the crime.

For me, the whole question of retributive punishment hinges on one key: due process.  Without due process, the prisons or the heirs of the victim or "society" or whoever has absolutely no right to violate the rights of the accused criminal.  Only if the accused gets a fair and public trial, and a jury of peers unanimously decides against the accused, and the police have not violated any rights in the process of obtaining evidence, and a person knowledgeable about the law has assisted the accused, and the jury finds the punishment to be commensurate with the crime, only then can punishment be meted out with a clear conscience.

The problem I have with AnCap is I am not convinced that due process can exist because the courts will be tangled in questions of jurisdiction and paralyzed by moral relativism.  I would agree that retributive punishment cannot rightfully exist in such a system.

The problem is that some system will emerge nonetheless, where thugs who have no care for due process will deliver violent punishment for transgressions, and so there will still be a system of semi-institutionalized violence.  There will be a thriving industry of human misery.  It will just be outside of any due process or accountability in general.

So many people seem to think that there would be no justice system at all. There would be, But not a monopoly one. More accountability, not less.

[vector76]

Of course the punishment should fit the crime.

For me, the whole question of retributive punishment hinges on one key: due process.  Without due process, the prisons or the heirs of the victim or "society" or whoever has absolutely no right to violate the rights of the accused criminal.  Only if the accused gets a fair and public trial, and a jury of peers unanimously decides against the accused, and the police have not violated any rights in the process of obtaining evidence, and a person knowledgeable about the law has assisted the accused, and the jury finds the punishment to be commensurate with the crime, only then can punishment be meted out with a clear conscience.

The problem I have with AnCap is I am not convinced that due process can exist because the courts will be tangled in questions of jurisdiction and paralyzed by moral relativism.  I would agree that retributive punishment cannot rightfully exist in such a system.

The problem is that some system will emerge nonetheless, where thugs who have no care for due process will deliver violent punishment for transgressions, and so there will still be a system of semi-institutionalized violence.  There will be a thriving industry of human misery.  It will just be outside of any due process or accountability in general.

So many people seem to think that there would be no justice system at all. There would be, But not a monopoly one. More accountability, not less.

You keep paraphrasing me with things I do not say, and you completely ignored the point that due process is impossible in your system.

I said courts as you envision would be tangled in questions of jurisdiction and paralyzed by moral relativism.  Those are the problems you need to address.  I also said that a system will emerge, the opposite of what you paraphrased me as saying.  I am only claiming the system that emerges will not have the qualities you want it to have.

Markets are a wonderful thing.  They embody freedom.  But freedom and force are not logically compatible.  They are antithetical to each other.  A choice as to which thug you want to extort you is not a choice, and as a practical matter, the thugs usually choose you, not the other way around.

I believe markets can work for everything except force.  And to some degree they can also work for force too, to the extent that people are allowed to vote with their feet.

[MoonShadow]

You keep paraphrasing me with things I do not say, and you completely ignored the point that due process is impossible in your system.

You implied that due process was unlikely in an anarchist state, not that it was impossible.  If you are arguing for impossible, then argue it.  Don't just make subjective statements and then later declare it to be impossible because I said so already and nobody (that I listen to, which is no one but myself anyway) contradicted my subjective opinion proof!

I can agree with you on one point here, due process isn't a certainty.  But then again, nothing is.  I know that due process isn't a certainty with the system we have now, even if you would personally trust your freedom to it's judgement.  I, for one, wouldn't trust it.  I would guess that you are white, male and grew up middle class; and thus you have a profound trust that the justice system would treat you fairly.  If you are white & middle class, you're right.  However, that does not describe us all.  And even if you generally give the system as it is your faith, what do you do when you see police lights in your rearview mirror at night?  Do you faithfully pull over to let the cop pass by, certain that he is pursuing someone else?  Or do you tense up, and check your speedometer?

[myrkul]

I said courts as you envision would be tangled in questions of jurisdiction and paralyzed by moral relativism.  Those are the problems you need to address.  I also said that a system will emerge, the opposite of what you paraphrased me as saying.  I am only claiming the system that emerges will not have the qualities you want it to have.

Markets are a wonderful thing.  They embody freedom.  But freedom and force are not logically compatible.  They are antithetical to each other.  A choice as to which thug you want to extort you is not a choice, and as a practical matter, the thugs usually choose you, not the other way around.

I believe markets can work for everything except force.  And to some degree they can also work for force too, to the extent that people are allowed to vote with their feet.

Jurisdiction? No, not so much an issue.
Moral relativism? I doubt it.

You said that one system would emerge, which implies that there was nothing before that. No, there will be multiple, competeing systems, right from the get-go, and in fact, long before. In fact, they already exist. Arbitration and mediation companies are everywhere.

I don't recall ever mentioning thugs...

I don't think you quite understand the concept of private military forces. People don't vote with their feet, they vote with their money, just like anything else in the Market.