General

Re: NAP and Justice

hayekianxyz — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:29:24 GMT

JCFolsom:
People who want restitution from and punishment for those who commit crimes against them will favor a company that seems to have a higher success rate. Such a system would, it seems to me, especially target those without their own agencies (essentially forcing people to have one for fear of being railroaded), and indeed, to gravitate towards larger and more powerful ones.

People may favour a company with a higher success rate, however they may also tend to favour the "fairer" companies in case they become a suspect.

Re: NAP and Justice

Charles Anthony — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:04:51 GMT

JCF,

I am not proposing anything. All I did was answer your question. You asked how the NAP could be respected and I explained how it could be respected by somebody who saw a burglar dressed up lokking like you standing on the sidewalk in front of his recently burglarized house.

Your diversionary objection is just YOUR prediction of whether people would respect the NAP given a specific context or environment -- nothing more and nothing less. We already know that people will violate the freedom of others if they can get away with it -- you and other statists are proof enough of that for me.

I have a prediction of my own. I believe that without the state, thieves would starve to death as they stood around thinking how they can successfully plan a heist.

Re: NAP and Justice

JCFolsom — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:10:44 GMT

Charles Anthony:
I answered your question.

How you choose to predict the hypothetical behavior of other people is a very different question.

For what it is worth, I find the manner in which many current states mete out justice to be highly oppressive.

You propose not anarchy but polyarchy, as we have now, just a lot more poly- than it is now. Such territorial monopolies of force and law would dominate the landscape, and there is no reason to think these petty kingdoms would not reform and congeal into full nation-states evenually, as those of old did. You do not propose anarchy, just more primitive forms of government.

Re: NAP and Justice

Charles Anthony — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:33:40 GMT

JCF,

I answered your question.

How you choose to predict the hypothetical behavior of other people is a very different question.

For what it is worth, I find the manner in which many current states mete out justice to be highly oppressive.

Re: NAP and Justice

JCFolsom — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:15:30 GMT

Charles Anthony:
I had the same dillema about polycentric law a while ago and then it all clicked. You must understand that when YOU are standing on the side-walk with a mask and burglary gear etc. etc. outside of my house, you are still standing on somebody else's property. By stepping on that other person's property, you have consented to their terms and conditions which would most likely include compliance with his legal system.

I see. So what you're saying is, in your anarchist society, I might well be even more oppressed and abused than in one that had at least some modicum of constitutional protections and the like, because anywhere I went, except my own property (if I could acquire any), I would be subject to the whim of the property owner. They are not obligated to abide by NAP. Indeed, it would be basically just like today, except for innumerable little states instead of a few huge ones. As you say elsewhere, if you disagree with what your neighbor does, you can go to war with them and everything. Freedom of movement would be a thing of the past. What a wonderful world you propose!

Re: NAP and Justice

liberty student — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:54:01 GMT

Charles Anthony:
I am just going to stop right there. Other members of the forum can explain further about how easements work and yadda yadda yadda for now, I think I addressed the OP sufficiently. In a nutshell, any crime occurs on private property of which the owner must be held accountable.

That is an awesome post. Thanks a lot. Cleared up a few things for me.

Re: NAP and Justice

histhasthai — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:20:54 GMT

JCFolsom:
I believe this issue may in fact lead to a fatal flaw in the idea of anarchy altogether, or at least the reassurances some put out that we will be able to still have police order, albeit "private", in a truly anarchist society.

The latter, more likely. As you went to great lengths to point out some weeks ago, there is no anarchist "system", there is only what will be, and we don't know what it will look like. We can only make educated guesses and try to anticipate problems and solutions. Anarchy doesn't propose anything other than freedom. If you think there's a flaw in anarchy, you think there is a flaw in freedom. Since we've already identified numerous fatal flaws in every system that abridges freedom, that would mean that there's a flaw in nature itself, that there is no way for human beings to live together in anything other than states of more or less oppression, violence, and conflict. Even if i thought that was true, I'd prefer an anarchist hell over a statist one.

JCFolsom:
With this and with some other things, I have begun to see signs that many in the anarchist community advocate solutions to problems which are free market in name and governmental in fact.

It's common for anarchists to want to reject anything that in any way, shape or form looks like government, while at the same time claiming that the real need for governance would still be met. But any time people have rules by which they live, there will be some ways in which the order that emerges resembles government. That's because government as we know it is not just some completely arbitrary regime imposed on people without any relation to reality - even though many, many of the pieces of it are. It is what it is in part because it serves a need. I believe that many things that arise in anarchy would look a lot like government, but so long as participation is voluntary, it is self-governance, not monopoly aggressive government.

There is no system which could ever prevent all violations of the NAP. The distinguishing factor is whether individual responsibility still attaches to it, or whether the system divorces individual actions from responsibility. Any anarchist institution that becomes the latter becomes government in fact.

Re: NAP and Justice

Charles Anthony — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:23:35 GMT

J and J,

I understand your questions completely. The answer lies in the right to own private property.

I had the same dillema about polycentric law a while ago and then it all clicked. You must understand that when YOU are standing on the side-walk with a mask and burglary gear etc. etc. outside of my house, you are still standing on somebody else's property. By stepping on that other person's property, you have consented to their terms and conditions which would most likely include compliance with his legal system.

Now, compare to statism:

One problem with most states is that "public" property is unsupervised and nobody cares about it. Therefore, when a crime is committed ANYWHERE, there will always be a "public" space in which a criminal can hide or at least facilitate his escape.

In the example of the OP, the property owner of the sidewalk would be accused by me of harboring a criminal. The property owner has every incentive to clear his name and capture you because those are the terms of stepping on his property -- you either agreed to his terms or you tresspassed.

On the other hand, my neighbor could possibly not care about this and tell me to stuff it. He does not have a positive obligation to me. However, he is taking the risk that I go to war against him over this matter. That would be a stupid risk -- why would he take that risk? Well......

I am just going to stop right there. Other members of the forum can explain further about how easements work and yadda yadda yadda for now, I think I addressed the OP sufficiently. In a nutshell, any crime occurs on private property of which the owner must be held accountable.

Re: NAP and Justice

JCFolsom — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 05:33:51 GMT

histhasthai:
You're demanding perfection in the application of the NAP.

No, I am demanding that, if you claim a principle as the core of your social system, that actions you know will frequently violate that principle by their very nature not be build into that system.

histhasthai:
Principles are morally absolute, concrete actions never are. The difference in private enforcement is two-fold. First, anyone who has agreed to insurance/police representation (whatever form it takes) would likely agree to some level of cooperation with investigations as part of the package. You may, for instance, be required to give your fingerprints if a private judge decides there is enough cause (and you can be pretty sure the retention and use of those fingerprints will be severely limited by the terms of your contract).

But I cannot be required to obtain such a contract, and if I intend to be a burgular, I might well not. How then do you compel me?

histhasthai:
The standard is not perfection, it is best effort. Not the lame "best effort" or "due diligence" we have now where a certain pre-determined threshold is enough to assure not being held responsible , but a standard of responsibility for every violation, enforced by everything from the right of defense of the victim to the court of public opinion and market forces, that means it is not economical to risk violating the NAP in the course of investigation or enforcement unless the cost of being wrong is worth the risk. Those who repeatedly underestimate that risk, either through malice, negligence or incompetence, will slowly be weeded out of the market - or out of the gene pool entirely.

Oh, I dunno. I think it quite likely that, given the popularity of such things as three strikes laws, capital punishment (even with an acknowledged level of error in the system), and our rape room style prisons, that people have a taste for the draconian when it comes to thieves and the like. People who want restitution from and punishment for those who commit crimes against them will favor a company that seems to have a higher success rate. Such a system would, it seems to me, especially target those without their own agencies (essentially forcing people to have one for fear of being railroaded), and indeed, to gravitate towards larger and more powerful ones.

I have not quite formulated this fully, but I believe this issue may in fact lead to a fatal flaw in the idea of anarchy altogether, or at least the reassurances some put out that we will be able to still have police order, albeit "private", in a truly anarchist society. With this and with some other things, I have begun to see signs that many in the anarchist community advocate solutions to problems which are free market in name and governmental in fact.

Re: NAP and Justice

histhasthai — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:07:12 GMT

JCFolsom:
So, without violating NAP, how does any justice occur beyond the very personal and immediate justice of a man with a gun defending himself and his stuff?

You're demanding perfection in the application of the NAP. Principles are morally absolute, concrete actions never are. The difference in private enforcement is two-fold. First, anyone who has agreed to insurance/police representation (whatever form it takes) would likely agree to some level of cooperation with investigations as part of the package. You may, for instance, be required to give your fingerprints if a private judge decides there is enough cause (and you can be pretty sure the retention and use of those fingerprints will be severely limited by the terms of your contract).

The second is that responsibility for any violations, either of the NAP, or of contractual rights/obligations, is individual. I mean "individual" loosely, in that the agency may be the responsible entity, but not necessarily. In any case, there's no "blame the system", or "it's what the voters decided" to fall back on in evading responsibility. Since participation is voluntary, agency that abuse it will lose customers.

The standard is not perfection, it is best effort. Not the lame "best effort" or "due diligence" we have now where a certain pre-determined threshold is enough to assure not being held responsible , but a standard of responsibility for every violation, enforced by everything from the right of defense of the victim to the court of public opinion and market forces, that means it is not economical to risk violating the NAP in the course of investigation or enforcement unless the cost of being wrong is worth the risk. Those who repeatedly underestimate that risk, either through malice, negligence or incompetence, will slowly be weeded out of the market - or out of the gene pool entirely.

Re: NAP and Justice

Jonas — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:08:04 GMT

stillbjorn:
Then there is the element of marketing and competition between all these supposed private police forces.

That was my point above. You will have some police forces that will advertise as "99% success rate", simply because they refuse to take any case where there isn't overwhelming evidence of guilt and a non-NAP-violating arrest will be likely. The fee for such a place might be low, but you will not get their services for anything except the most obvious of crimes.

You will have other police forces who advertise "all cases accepted" or "no case to big or small". These will be extremely expensive, because they might cause NAP violations in a large percentage of their arrests after which they are fined or punished significantly and must pass that cost along to their customers. The prices they might have to set would make them too expensive for anything except a major crime.

Re: NAP and Justice

JCFolsom — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:03:58 GMT

stillbjorn:
Then there is the element of marketing and competition between all these supposed private police forces. One reason that our current justice system is so broken is the ambition of DA's, defense lawyers, etc. who want to rack up as many courtroom victories as possible, regardless of whether their victory is justice or injustice. I think all these police agencies will want to say "over 99% success rate in our investigations!" Thats all well and good if 99% of their suspects were guilty

You're saying, in other words, that they could well be worse than what we have today. Do I have that right?

Re: NAP and Justice

stillbjorn — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:31:39 GMT

Then there is the element of marketing and competition between all these supposed private police forces. One reason that our current justice system is so broken is the ambition of DA's, defense lawyers, etc. who want to rack up as many courtroom victories as possible, regardless of whether their victory is justice or injustice. I think all these police agencies will want to say "over 99% success rate in our investigations!" Thats all well and good if 99% of their suspects were guilty

Re: NAP and Justice

Jonas — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:44:16 GMT

JCFolsom:
seems to me as rendering such services prohibitively expensive

Which is why I don't believe private police agencies will ever work.

Not only is there the liability issue, but you would have multiple agencies all using different standards to determine when a NAP violation is allowable. You will have some agencies that have incredibly high standards, in the hope of keeping false NAP violations to an absolute minimum. Those agencies will have very low rates of crime solving, since they will only pursue those cases where the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, but their rates will be lower since they will have fewer liability claims. Other agencies will be just the opposite.

You need a simple, common set of standards that everyone can understand.

Re: NAP and Justice

JCFolsom — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:20:11 GMT

Jonas, this is indeed, in my estimation, the situation we face. Alas, this fact:

Jonas:
If the suspect is proven innocent, the police agency would have committed a crime against the suspect and must be punished as they would for any NAP violation...including restitution. If the suspect is indeed guilty then the agency would NOT have violated the NAP, because they were acting in self-defense against a prior NAP violation.

...seems to me as rendering such services prohibitively expensive, especially for petty thefts and the like. It would be a tremendous risk to the investigating agency to make an arrest. They would face charges, possibly of assault and/or battery, kidnapping, false imprisonment; serious crimes with serious consequences, if they cannot establish guilt. Given that they cannot violate NAP prior to this risk, I would guess that the agencies would be liable in the large majority of cases.