Justice Under Anarchy

[NghtRppr]

Does anarchy mean that you can rape or kill whoever you like and get away with it? No, there will still be justice under anarchy. However, since it will not be supported by tax dollars, it will need to be paid for somehow. Who picks up the bill for justice? That's simple. It will be paid for by those receiving protection and also those that necessitate spending money in the first place i.e. the criminals. If you steal something, you will have to pay restitution, returning or replacing the item you stole, paying the costs of enforcing justice on you and also paying a fine to make it so that the incentive for stealing and risk of not getting caught vs. the risk of cost plus the fine, make it unprofitable, on average, to steal.

That's fine so far but it sounds like the rich will get more justice than the poor under such a system. It's a good thing nothing like that happens under our current system! (sarcasm) However, let's say that Bill Gates kills you and then writes a check to your family. Murder is just something else that rich people can buy now, right? Not quite. There's nothing stopping your family from killing Bill Gates and then handing the check back to his family. By killing people and paying for it, you are giving others the financial means to do the same to you!

Alright, what about the homeless? Many of them don't have families to pay so it seems like murder is free in that case. If you kill someone, there's still a claim against you and it becomes a sort of abandoned property. Anyone willing to enforce justice on you will be able to receive the payment that the family of the homeless person would have received. Also, if it's clear that you do this kind of thing for fun, there's a case to be made for locking you up so that you won't do it again. Self-defense is justified and imprisoning you would be a form of ongoing self-defense. You don't let up an attacker while he's still armed. The same goes for rich psychopaths.

Some might say "But, but, how can we put a price on human life?! I would never do that." Well, it would seem that millions of dollars is better than nothing. Anyways, there are already wrongful death suits. This would just be an extension of that. For the very dangerous, there will be prisons and many people would pay to keep them off the streets.

Is it perfect? No. No system is perfect. It's better than the current system, where we inflict evil on each other in the hopes of stopping other evil. Even though there will be problems, we can take comfort in knowing that we are living in a more just society.

[1714010658]

1714010658

[1714010658]

1714010658

[1714010658]

1714010658

[kiba]

What is justice and what does it means to have a just society?

[NghtRppr]

What is justice and what does it means to have a just society?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

[MoonShadow]

This still doesn't address the problem that I presented in the other thread.  If the parents harm their own child, who then is responsible for bringing justice?  What would define harm in this case under a state in anarchy?  After all, Islam openly permits a father to marry off his daughter at eight years old.

[NghtRppr]

If the parents harm their own child, who then is responsible for bringing justice?

The parents owe restitution to the child for the abuse. Anyone that wants to take part of that restitution for assisting the child would be able to do so.

What would define harm in this case under a state in anarchy?  After all, Islam openly permits a father to marry off his daughter at eight years old.

Children aren't the property of their parents. If you live on someone's property, you either follow their rules or you are free to leave. If you have diminished rational capacities, either from age, disease or defect then others can intervene on your behalf. If you are unable to consent then you should be treated the way you would like to be treated, if you were able to consent. Obviously, we can't perfectly predict what people would want if we were them but we can assume they don't want to be tortured or starved, which more than adequately covers your examples.

[JohnDoe]

This still doesn't address the problem that I presented in the other thread.  If the parents harm their own child, who then is responsible for bringing justice? 

Nobody is responsible for "bringing justice". To say that we have a duty to protect the children is to say that we don't own ourselves, that we are slaves to a higher cause/purpose.

[NghtRppr]

This still doesn't address the problem that I presented in the other thread.  If the parents harm their own child, who then is responsible for bringing justice?

Nobody is responsible for "bringing justice". To say that we have a duty to protect the children is to say that we don't own ourselves, that we are slaves to a higher cause/purpose.

That's true but also irrelevant. Nobody needs to be responsible, inspired by some moral obligation or even charitable. They just have to be interested in making a profit for themselves. If there are people like that, and I think there are, then those people would be lining up to collect restitution on behalf of the victims of abuse. It's similar to how lawyers take cases on contingency.

[AntiVigilante]

[Tycho] paid out 150 BTC out of his own pocket due to a breach of security.

QED.

Anarchy just pwned every bloated government in existence.

[NghtRppr]

[Tycho] paid out 150 BTC out of his own pocket due to a breach of security.

QED.

Anarchy just pwned every bloated government in existence.

Rightly so. That 150 BTC was a small price to pay compared to the goodwill he gained for his enterprise.

[Chris Acheson]

Relevant:

Q. Without government cops, and government courts, and government prisons, who will stop unscrupulous criminals from robbing honest people blind?

A. We will.

[MoonShadow]

If the parents harm their own child, who then is responsible for bringing justice?

The parents owe restitution to the child for the abuse. Anyone that wants to take part of that restitution for assisting the child would be able to do so.

Who gets to define abuse?  Again I must bring up the example of Islam and the 8 year old daughter being married.  Certainly we would agree that if the father were forcing his daughter into marriage then she would have a claim against him, but what if she is convinced that marriage is what 8 year olds are supposed to do?  She's eight.  Can an 8 year old even consent?  If not, then who can on her behalf?  By any legal standard, the normal person who can consent for anything on behalf of a child is the parent.  The only exception are statutes defined by government decree.

What would define harm in this case under a state in anarchy?  After all, Islam openly permits a father to marry off his daughter at eight years old.

Children aren't the property of their parents. If you live on someone's property, you either follow their rules or you are free to leave. If you have diminished rational capacities, either from age, disease or defect then others can intervene on your behalf. If you are unable to consent then you should be treated the way you would like to be treated, if you were able to consent. Obviously, we can't perfectly predict what people would want if we were them but we can assume they don't want to be tortured or starved, which more than adequately covers your examples.

Saying that children are the property of their parents doesn't solve the issue, I admit, but that is the functional default in every body of law in the world in any case beyond the scope of some legal statute established by a government.  A better way to say it is that the rights of the child are vested in the parents until the child has achieved the age of reason and is able to claim them.  But when does that happen?  In most modern states, that event is an abrupt transition from ward to citizen somewhere around the age of 19.  In nearly every case this is years behind the reality, as the age of reason is actually somewhere around the age of 13 for normal people, but can be as early as 8 for some and as late as never.  Nonetheless, there is no body of law that would say that this 5 year old child who was caged for months in her own crib is old enough to reason.  So who says that being caged is a violation of her rights?  We can both look at this and know that this is abuse, but what makes it criminal under an anarchy?  What profit motive would a private security firm have for taking this case, the parents didn't have anything to pay restitution with; and what they did have was already under due claim because of the theft that led to this discovery.

[NghtRppr]

Who gets to define abuse?

It's the initiation of violence. Are you now going to ask me who gets to define violence?

Can an 8 year old even consent?

A few can, most cannot.

If not, then who can on her behalf?

The only people that can consent on your behalf are people that you have given that authority to, a lawyer or financial adviser for example. However, we can and should treat people how they would want to be treated if they were fully rational. Upon reaching full rationality would she be upset that she hadn't been allowed to get married to that person? If so, she should be allowed to do so. If not, then not. There's nothing special in the case of a child. They are just another person with diminished rationality. It would be no different from stumbling upon a person that's lost a lot of blood lying unconscious in the street. Do they want you to give them a blood transfusion? Probably, unless they are a Jehovah's Witness. In which case, you should stop the bleeding but otherwise let them die if only a blood transfusion can save them. In the former case it would be immoral not to give them blood transfusion. In the latter case it would be immoral to give them one. You treat nonrational people how they would want to be treated if they were rational. Is it a custom for women to get married at the age of 8 and the ones that aren't allowed to, live a life of misery and regret? In that case, let her marry. We need to focus less on forcing our personal opinions on others and more on trying to help them achieve what they would want to achieve.

A better way to say it is that the rights of the child are vested in the parents until the child has achieved the age of reason and is able to claim them.  But when does that happen?

There's no fixed age. Different people mature at different rates. All age based limits are going to be arbitrary.

Nonetheless, there is no body of law that would say that this 5 year old child who was caged for months in her own crib is old enough to reason.  So who says that being caged is a violation of her rights?

Upon reaching full rationality would the child be thankful for being caged in a crib for months at a time? Probably not. Even if so, that would be the rare case and it's better to err on the side of caution and assume that she won't grow up to and realize she's been a masochist since birth.

We can both look at this and know that this is abuse, but what makes it criminal under an anarchy?

Without consent and having to assume that she's not a masochist, torturing a child is aggression, just as if you were torturing an adult.

What profit motive would a private security firm have for taking this case, the parents didn't have anything to pay restitution with; and what they did have was already under due claim because of the theft that led to this discovery.

They would be forced to pay restitution out of whatever they earned in the future and they would be kept track of until they paid it off. Anyways, this is getting more into implementation which is really an entrepreneurial decision. Imagine if shoes had always been made by the government and I suggested we privatize it. You could fire off a bunch of questions such as:

Would everyone make their own shoes?
If not who would make the shoes?
How many would be made?
What colors would they be?
What would they be made out of?
How much would they cost?
...
..
.

The answers that I could give wouldn't be exact. I could just tell you that like most things, such as computers, tennis rackets and pizza, they could be made better by people that were motivated by profit and loss rather than motivated by special interests and swaying votes. If I were forced to answer all your questions down to every last detail, nothing could be done privately and everything would be the domain of government.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Bill Gates is probably a bad example since most of his wealth is (indirectly) a result of intellectual property.

[NghtRppr]

Bill Gates is probably a bad example since most of his wealth is (indirectly) a result of intellectual property.

That's completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Bill Gates is probably a bad example since most of his wealth is (indirectly) a result of intellectual property.

That's completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

ok, fine.  But maybe someone who got filthy rich from engaging in entirely voluntary exchange would have been better for your argument, no?

[kiba]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Why should humans follow this concept of non-aggression principle? Why should we follow a rule of ethic that prohibit murder, rape, and so on?

[AntiVigilante]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Why should humans follow this concept of non-aggression principle? Why should we follow a rule of ethic that prohibit murder, rape, and so on?

Maintaining a contradictory behavior (defined by the universe) puts pressure on the functioning ability of the person, his immediate environment, his near environment, his extended environment.

Best is no illness in any of them. Worst is illness in all of them. Let Eris sort it out. LOL.

[JA37]

If you live on someone's property, you either follow their rules or you are free to leave.

Funny, I seem to have made this argument in another thread regarding taxes, but then you weren’t so keen on following the rules or leaving. But since this isn’t about this I’ll just rejoice in the fact that we agree on something, again. 

Does anarchy mean that you can rape or kill whoever you like and get away with it? No, there will still be justice under anarchy.

Who sets these rules under anarchy? Is there a common law book that all follows? Who updates it, and under which conditions can and should it be updated?

It will be paid for by those receiving protection and also those that necessitate spending money in the first place i.e. the criminals.

Since we all benefit from protection from criminals we should all pay the fee then? Let’s say, through a common fee?

There's nothing stopping your family from killing Bill Gates and then handing the check back to his family. By killing people and paying for it, you are giving others the financial means to do the same to you!

So, you’re somehow idolizing the clan justice that is in effect in lawless areas in the world?

[Tycho] paid out 150 BTC out of his own pocket due to a breach of security.
QED.
Anarchy just pwned every bloated government in existence.

What? You’re saying that this has anything to do with justice? An operating expense? And are you implying that governments don’t compensate those who are wronged? Mine does. Perhaps your government just sucks.

However, we can and should treat people how they would want to be treated if they were fully rational.

Except if they signed a contract. I think I can get a child to sign just about any contract. You’re a firm believer that any and all contract should be followed, right?  Or are some contract void because the person wasn’t fully rational?

[NghtRppr]

Funny, I seem to have made this argument in another thread regarding taxes, but then you weren’t so keen on following the rules or leaving. But since this isn’t about this I’ll just rejoice in the fact that we agree on something, again. 

Following the rules or leaving applies only to homesteaded property.

Who sets these rules under anarchy? Is there a common law book that all follows? Who updates it, and under which conditions can and should it be updated?

You agree to the rules beyond anything that isn't entailed by non-aggression. If you don't agree, you don't have to follow them. Rape and murder would be prevented under self-defense.

Since we all benefit from protection from criminals we should all pay the fee then? Let’s say, through a common fee?

It's not a matter of who benefits. It's a matter of who is protected. You can refuse to hire any private police protection and run the risk associated with it.

So, you’re somehow idolizing the clan justice that is in effect in lawless areas in the world?

Do you have something against paying restitution to victim's families?

Except if they signed a contract. I think I can get a child to sign just about any contract. You’re a firm believer that any and all contract should be followed, right?  Or are some contract void because the person wasn’t fully rational?

If you aren't fully rational, you can't consent therefore you can't enter into any contract.

[JA37]

Following the rules or leaving applies only to homesteaded property.

I don't understand why this is so other than the fact that you said so. But as it is off-topic we'll just leave that unexplored.

You agree to the rules beyond anything that isn't entailed by non-aggression. If you don't agree, you don't have to follow them. Rape and murder would be prevented under self-defense.

I get to pick which rules to obey? So if I don't agree with the rules not to empty my toilet into your your drinking water supply I can do it without any consequences? Interesting.

It's not a matter of who benefits. It's a matter of who is protected. You can refuse to hire any private police protection and run the risk associated with it.

I'll just have to find somewhere to live where everyone else around me pays to have guards patrolling and I'll be fine.

Do you have something against paying restitution to victim's families?

Not at all. I have something against "they kill someone from our gang, we kill some from theirs" mentality.

If you aren't fully rational, you can't consent therefore you can't enter into any contract.

So would someone who doesn't want medical attention because their imaginary friend told them not to be qualified as "fully rational"? How about someone who is watching their kid starve, would they be concidered to be fully rational? How about under the influence of drugs? Temporary mental illness?