Wow, I'm a little disappointed there seems to be no answer for this, and I figured it would be a pretty basic question in terms of libertarian theory.
Obviously the car theft analogy doesn't work completely because the previous owner of the car has to have the sole ownership of the right to get compensation. I disagree with Spidey that you cannot transfer a right though, and this car example is a perfect analogy. However, if the person abandons his right to compensation for theft, why would this be able to be homesteaded? At that point the car is abandoned property, and the thief has first use of it from there. Some random Joe who comes along has no stronger claim to the right than the thief does.
In terms of murder, I agree that the family should have first crack in the absence of a will, but as LS said, how do you logically arrive at this? For that matter, how do you transfer any property at all from a person who has died without a will? Is it all up for grabs to whoever gets there first? I kinda figured someone much smarter than me had already thought these not-so-minor details through.
It's kind of disconcerting to me that nobody has addressed the fundamental issue of whether retaliatory killing can ever be justified. I absolutely agree ethically with the death penalty (or similar anarchistic concepts), but how is it ever possible to know with 100% certainty whether someone is guilty? There is always, always, always the possibility of human error. I think men are too fallible to be allowed to kill anyone in the name of justice.
Ostracism has been mentioned quite often, and I don't think it came up in this thread yet. I really think the proper "solution" to a murderer is to ostracize them and keep security tight. Either they wander away, or they aggress against someone/some group that can actually defend themselves, and thus self-defense kicks in and resolves the issue.
If there are people with a vested interest in compensation (family, beneficiaries of a will, etc.), why couldn't it be done through fines or property assessed by private court, just like anything else? I don't mean to suggest that a person's life can be worth a certain, determinable price, but I absolutely don't believe that a murder gives any man the right to pursue justice at a later date.
I realize this solution is imperfect and incomplete, so I'd be very interested in hearing comments/criticism. I do think that we need to find alternatives to revenge killings (although I would be open to convincing otherwise on this as well).
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
To be honest, I think when people here talk about a stateless society they not only tend to assume that we can know in advance what sort of arrangements are likely to arise but they make far too big a deal of how we're to deal with murderers, theives etc. The point isn't how we can deal thieves once they've commited the crime but what sorts of institutions are likely to arise to allow social cooperation between heterogeous groups.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: but they make far too big a deal of how we're to deal with murderers, theives etc.
Expecting to have a way to deal with thieves and murderers is not a ridiculous request. In fact, you guys seem to have the thieves, trespassers, assault, etc covered pretty well with the exception of murder. I doubt very much murders are going to suddenly stop in the absence of government (though they would be drastically reduced) so there should be a way to get restitution for the victim.
Stolz, you missed my point, I think. The message I was trying to get across was that the emphasis of the topic is all wrong. If you want to examine how a stateless society would function in a position (in the "as opposed to normative" sense of the word) way then you should be pointing out how social cooperation will be facilitated. If, social cooperation thrives once the state has been removed then I'm sure murderers will be dealth with in one way or another.
What you hear on the news not withstanding, murderers aren't all that common.
Spideynw: JackCuyler:And as I explained, while one cannot homestead rights, compensation is property, not a right. As property, it is homesteadable. Semantics games. You are just replacing "right" with "compensation". As you said, one cannot homestead a right.
JackCuyler:And as I explained, while one cannot homestead rights, compensation is property, not a right. As property, it is homesteadable.
Semantics games. You are just replacing "right" with "compensation". As you said, one cannot homestead a right.
How is this in any way a semantics game? compensation is property, not a right. When you commit a crime, you assume a debt to compensate the victim. Debts are not rights; they are property. They can be bought, sold and traded. If you steal from me, you owe me compensation. You don't owe me a right; you owe me property. All property is homesteadable, including debts.
Spideynw:If I steal your car, does anyone else have the right to sue me for compensation besides you?
I have the right to forgive the debt. If I die before bringing a case, we can possibly assume that I've forgiven the debt. Even so, if I had not explicitly forgiven the debt, and left the car to an heir in my will, my heir would certainly have a case against you. It is, after all, now his car. However, no such assumption is possible in the case of my murder. I had no opportunity to forgive the theft of my life.
Great topic!
Spideynw:So I am wondering what everyone's opinion is on how murderer's would be dealt with in a stateless society? What is the legal justification for punishing them? What I mean is, who has the authority to stand in place of the victim to claim a wrong has been committed and demand justice?
It seems to me as if there are 3 possibilities: 1 No one(including the victim) has a claim to restitution/punisment (justice). 2 Everyone has a claim to justice. 3 Someone(s) have a claim to justice.
1 If no one had any claim it seems at first glance that anybody could murder anybody with no consequences. I wouldn't be a stretch to imagine a world of blood feuds and gang style retaliation. However, this would seem to be the perfect setup for a PDA to develop and profit by offering its customers saftey, and possibly even some form of justice. Of course there is always the possibility that there would be so few murders that this configuration wouldn't affect the average person too much anyway.
2 If everyone could claim justice murderers should be scared indeed. Not only will the victims associates have motive to harm or capture the criminal, but now any idiot with a gun has a motive as well. It would seem as if a division of labor could support an entire industry dedicated to collecting these claims of justice, possibly even selling their services to those who were affected by the crime.
3 If someone(s) has a claim to justice the question would be Who? To me the only way to answer that question would be through a combination of common law, consumer demand, cultural influence, arbitration, etc... I would be willing to bet that most people wouldn't hire a PDA that didn't offer restitution to their family upon their murder. I also think most people wouldn't pay a PDA to go around policing hobo murders. I think the market would find some profitable compromise.
liberty student: Truth and Liberty:If there is no family at all, the right has been abandoned, so it becomes homesteadable, meaning anyone in theory can take on the right to persue justice and eventually receive the compensation. You can't homestead rights. Rights are not property. Don't confuse them.
Truth and Liberty:If there is no family at all, the right has been abandoned, so it becomes homesteadable, meaning anyone in theory can take on the right to persue justice and eventually receive the compensation.
You can't homestead rights. Rights are not property. Don't confuse them.
Rights can be bought and sold. This is what happens when property titles are bought and sold. If I buy an apple from you, you are selling me the ownership rights of that apple. The physical property may or may not be transferred in the exchange, but the point of the exchange is to transfer the ownership rights.
If a thief steals my car, he has stolen the physical item, but I retain the ownership rights to the car, so I have the right to use restitutive force against the thief to get back my car (or equivalent sum of money).
I could sell you the debt. Then the thief would owe you the car, and you have the right to use the same restitutive force against the thief to get it back.
If I die the day after my car is stolen, I can no longer exercise the right, so the debt (my property) along with my right to use restitutive force to settle the debt (my property right), has been abandoned and forms part of my estate.
In the case of murder, the victim, at the moment his body dies, acquires the right to use restitutive force against the murderer. Since the victim can no longer exercise this property right, he has abandoned it, and it forms part of his estate.
liberty student: Truth and Liberty:Exact rules about which next of kin gets the right will have to be determined. You would think that a spouse would get the right over a cousin, for example. Who will establish rules? By what authority? It's my property, and if I specified no inheritor, then how can anyone else specify that for me? My point is, there must be a burden of proof for why kin are next. What is it?
Truth and Liberty:Exact rules about which next of kin gets the right will have to be determined. You would think that a spouse would get the right over a cousin, for example.
Who will establish rules? By what authority? It's my property, and if I specified no inheritor, then how can anyone else specify that for me? My point is, there must be a burden of proof for why kin are next. What is it?
The victim may have specified who receives his property in case of death in a will. This will include his property right to use restitutive force in case of murder. If not, then someone can homestead his property. The problem of who receives the right to use restitutive force reduces down to the usual problems of conflicting claims over homesteading. If a farmer and a miner both claim to have homesteaded the same land, who decides who has the strongest claim? The arbitrator that the disputants agree to. Same for a conflict over who homesteaded a victim's right to use restitutive force: the arbitrator that the disputants agree to.
That kin may have a good claim is conjecture on my part. I imagine that if a court is trying to decide who has the stronger claim out of the victim's relative or some unrelated person, they would usually side with the relative. Obviously, if the relative or someone else in the family was the murderer, the court would probably make a different decision.
Truth and Liberty
"No army can stop an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
If someone tries to murder a homeless person with no family, that person can legally use up to lethal force to protect themselves. A bystander can legally use up to lethal force to protect the homeless person from the murderer if they so choose. Now according to a sane legal system murder is far worse than attempted murder. I think that if force is justified (even from a bystander) before a person is murdered, then lethal force by a court is justified after a person has been murdered. This of course is assuming that there is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. If it were found out later that the court was wrong about the murder then the court would have also committed murder. The only way to get around this conundrum would be too imprison the murderer for life. At least that way if the court was wrong only monetary damages would be in order.
I also think that many libertarians view humans and property as one and the same when they are not. Without humans property loses all meaning. The NAP really only covers humans and by extension their property. Any libertarian court would rule that all may stand in place of the deceased to claim a wrong has been committed and demand justice. In order for the NAP to work it must be enforceable by those who cannot be aggressed any further.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap