Stranger:Justice belongs to the victim. It is not the business of anyone else what kind of punishment to enact.
Justice belongs to the victim. It is not the business of anyone else what kind of punishment to enact.
If you think the victim should have authority over what punishment is selected, that is fine, but it is society's business to determine the defendent's guilt or innocence. Every person, if accused, has a right <i>habeas corpus</i>, a fair hearing, a public trial, trial by jury, right to have witnesses allowed to testify to his innocence, confront his accusers face to face, no secret evidence, etc. To say that any person can be punished by another person under presumption of guilt is dangerous to liberty and justice, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of the State.
"We have thus stepped back from the position our ancestors occupied; for we allow under the flag of justice, and consecrate in the name of the law, what was imposed on them by violence alone."
javier: I guess I am not understanding the argument. Without a government, should I kill my neighbor for whatever reason and refuse retribution, I would no longer enjoy the protections of any security org. right?? Who cares though?? I have tons of able bodied twenty-five yr old friends that will protect me and we own lots of guns. What did I lose? Or say we get really bold and start a gang/mob sort of thing, it seems to have no down side in forming a MS-13 sort of thing. I guess i'm asking, without a government, won't the most well-connected, well-known, well-armed people be impervious from recourse??? Or am I completely missing something???
I guess I am not understanding the argument. Without a government, should I kill my neighbor for whatever reason and refuse retribution, I would no longer enjoy the protections of any security org. right?? Who cares though?? I have tons of able bodied twenty-five yr old friends that will protect me and we own lots of guns. What did I lose? Or say we get really bold and start a gang/mob sort of thing, it seems to have no down side in forming a MS-13 sort of thing.
I guess i'm asking, without a government, won't the most well-connected, well-known, well-armed people be impervious from recourse??? Or am I completely missing something???
As paul said, this is already the case. The difference however, which makes the solution to this problem easier in the free market, is that a) everyone is armed, and b) your gang will hardly be the only organised armed force. You'll have to confront PDAs whose profits depend on them successfully defending their clients. While they may initially adopt a fairly passive means of protecting their client, if your gang starts getting overly bold, since you are all criminals and are unprotected by any other agency, they may simply choose to take you out. It's likely, that to make sure they don't taint their reputation, they'd ask for an arbiter's and their clients approval first.
Also, I wouldn't be so certain about the support of lots of friends. Whenever a friend supports an outlaw, he immediately renounces his own claim to any protection both by agencies and by society itself. While in the current climate of bribery and corruption its not tremendously hard to get out of jail through connections (and your example includes a well connected gang), in a society without a government monopoly on justice, this will not be the case.
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity."
Fred Furash: The difference however, which makes the solution to this problem easier in the free market, is that a) everyone is armed, and b) your gang will hardly be the only organised armed force. You'll have to confront PDAs whose profits depend on them successfully defending their clients.
The difference however, which makes the solution to this problem easier in the free market, is that a) everyone is armed, and b) your gang will hardly be the only organised armed force. You'll have to confront PDAs whose profits depend on them successfully defending their clients.
Also it's much easier for a government to act this way than a private gang, because the government has at least tacit support from much of the population. When a government hold you up for tribute (taxes, etc.), most people don't care; many even think it's a good thing. When the local gang does the same, most people are outraged. But most people also think it's the government's job to stop the gangs (anyone else attempting to do it is frowned upon, at the very least). Government, however, doesn't have any real reason to care (and is probably even in league with the gang to some extent)
Get rid of the government and (a) every attempt to exercise power will be an outrage, and (b) people will necessarily see it as their concern, and the rather silly argument that private citizens can't "take the law into their own hands" (as if it could ever be in anyone else's!) will be unavailable - so a useful and legitimate response is more likely. Or, rather, gangs are less likely.
μὴ παραχώρει τοῖς κακοῖς ἀλλ' εὐτολμώτερον ἀντιβάδιζε.
If you think the victim should have authority over what punishment is selected, that is fine, but it is society's business to determine the defendent's guilt or innocence.
Technically, that's not true. If someone robs or assaults me, I have the moral authority to defend myself and recover my property, and I don't need anyone else's permission, let alone "society's."
Due process is a voluntary procedure that I adopt out of my own self-interest. If someone assaults me, and a third party happens by just as I defend myself with deadly force, the newcomer is liable to mistake me for the aggressor, and defend my assailant using deadly force against me. "Due process" is how I protect myself from such misunderstandings. If I convince people that my assailant is guilty of aggression, they won't defend him from me when I recover my property, exact damages, etc.
That doesn't translate into a "right of due process." For example, if an attacker kills someone in front of a crowd of witnesses, there's no reason a libertarian can't take him out on the spot. Non-aggression is consistent with summary justice. The only objection is practical: when the heirs come along demanding justice in their turn, we'd rather convince them that justice has already been done, rather than start a feud.
--Len.
Len Budney:The penalty for murder should be the same as it is for civil wrongful death: the full value of the life of the victim measured in money and, again as in civil wrongful death, the victim's conscious pain and suffering.I favor the death penalty for murder. It seems to me that taking a life, one forfeits his own. Your view might be more common historically, though. Even bedouin will waive vengeance in exchange for blood money.--Len.
The penalty for murder should be the same as it is for civil wrongful death: the full value of the life of the victim measured in money and, again as in civil wrongful death, the victim's conscious pain and suffering.
I favor the death penalty for murder. It seems to me that taking a life, one forfeits his own. Your view might be more common historically, though. Even bedouin will waive vengeance in exchange for blood money.
Any person who commits murder deserves execution. It seems to me that the wergild system is nothing but subversion of justice and bribery.
Think about it; other than the ethical problems of assigning monetary value to human life based on social rank (which is fascism), there is also the problem of what gives the relatives the right to receive compensation on behalf of the murder victim? Nothing; to claim otherwise would be collectivism in it's ugliest, most primitive form.
To use an analogy, if I sue somebody and he offers me money to drop the case, that's compensation for wrongs done. If he offers the judge money to drop the case, that is bribery, because the judge does not have the right to receive compensation on my behalf.
ami gi:Any person who commits murder deserves execution.
Any person who commits murder deserves execution.
Of course they don't. People who kill in self defense surely don't, and people who accidentally kill another don't either. Lets avoid grandiose blanket statements.
ami gi: It seems to me that the wergild system is nothing but subversion of justice and bribery.
What you are describing isn't justice, which is defined as restitution, its naked retaliation. Its the justice that exists between street gangs.
ami gi:other than the ethical problems of assigning monetary value to human life based on social rank (which is fascism),
It definitely is not fascism, which is a corporatist totalitarian state. Hierarchical social structures are commonly associated with feudalism. But no value is "assigned." It would occur on a case to case basis, and would be mutually accepted.
ami gi: there is also the problem of what gives the relatives the right to receive compensation on behalf of the murder victim?
Relatives have a right to compensation because they have been robbed of a family member. Surely an orphan is just as much wronged as is the corpse. And while a corpse can not be resurrected, an orphan can have justice.
ami gi:Nothing; to claim otherwise would be collectivism in it's ugliest, most primitive form.
No, collectivism would be a person trying to prescribe a universal sentence for murder.
ami gi:To use an analogy, if I sue somebody and he offers me money to drop the case, that's compensation for wrongs done. If he offers the judge money to drop the case, that is bribery, because the judge does not have the right to receive compensation on my behalf.
And what would you call a judge issuing a verdict that is arguable to neither party?
ami gi:Think about it; other than the ethical problems of assigning monetary value to human life based on social rank (which is fascism), there is also the problem of what gives the relatives the right to receive compensation on behalf of the murder victim? Nothing; to claim otherwise would be collectivism in it's ugliest, most primitive form.
They inherited the rights of the victim upon death, unless the victim willed it otherwise.
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
I like what Doug Casey said in one of his talks: [paraphrasing] 'Look I'm not a complete pacificst. I think there are plenty of people in the world who deserve to be shot. But if you want them shot then you should do it yourself.'
The closer decisions are to the person of impact or influence, the better. If you kill or rape my wife and I know this, best believe I will not petition a jury or some bureaucrat for restitution.
Claims against criminals can be inherited or passed (or sold) on to other individuals. In the case of the death of the victim, close friends and family are naturally suited to be the heirs. See Nozick on the justification of this based on Locke.
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