A question I'm confusing myself with...

I was having a thought when I came to a question, but I'm not sure where it leads...

The question is... Criminals operate outside of the law, so what logic leads people to believe that law is an effective means of combating crime?

Obviously, legislation will not, in most cases, effectively deter crime, it only defines crime. However, too often in the process, it suppresses the rights of those who willingly obey the law.

So what is "the answer" to combating crime? I think a big part of it is every person taking the responsibility of protecting themselves from being victims of crime. However, what would be the name for this? It wouldn't be "law" or "legislation"... Law and legislation would be more to define crime, give authority to a government (because I don't believe a government has authority unless it's been given authority by the people it's set up to govern, like with the Constitution) and/or protect the rights of the people.

I guess I drew a blank spot. Like, right now our society pretty much sees it as Law vs. Crime. Well, with a minimum or no government, there wouldn't really be "law", but there would still be an opposite or opposition to crime, so what would it be? Self defense? But what about "crimes" other than physically harmful ones? Or am I just confusing everyone else too?

It's hard to explain the question, because the question involves meanings to which I don't know the words to express them.

Justice?

hmm I think that works. Don't know why it didn't come to mind... I guess my brain isn't fully functioning... I've been kinda sick. I guess that's kind of a no-brainer.

remove legislation that discourages people from defending themselves.  don't allow criminals to pursue people in civil court for injuries sustained during the propagation of a crime.

Law simply defines the rules of what actions are not allowed, and this holds with or without a government. Law per se does not combat crime, it defines it and sets rules regarding how to deal with it. Those who enforce the law combat crime. It is also important to remember that "crime" cannot be combated, it is only individuals who are criminal who can be combated. Thus, the question cannot be "how do we combat crime" any more than we can say "how do we combat terrorism". The question is "how do we stop people from acting in a criminal manner". Although this sounds trivial and obvious, it demonstrates that individuals or organizations must prevent crime by using force justly. It is simply a matter or enforcing natural law, and whatever institution is set up to do that will do that.

I agree and that's one of the things my thought process led to... Not exactly in those words, but basically the same thing.

Anyway, I could ramble on and on about it all, but I'll spare ya'll that. I think justice is probably the best fitting word for what I was trying to think of.

Yea I think that the question does need to be put a little more clearly and concretely, because I'm also having a bit of difficulty understanding exactly what you mean. Sorry.

There're a lot of "crimes" today that would have been non-crimes or wouldn't even exist in the stateless society, including but not limited to:

prostitution

abortion

gambling

tax evasion/smuggling etc.

gun ownership

firearms sales

drugs and other "illegal" substances

doing all kinds of things without mandatory licensing and registration (personal, professional and commercial)