In the paper "Toward a Libertarian Theory of Guilt and Punishment for the Crime of Statism" by Walter Block. The author puts forth a scenario in which a convicted car thief is forced to make restitution to the victim plus an equal amount for the punishment of his crime. Two teeth for one. That theory got me thinking about ways to deal with Law enforcement , the court system,correctional facilities, and the rehabilitation of criminals.
In Libertarian theory if there is no victim there is no crime. Victimless Crimes are just an attempt by one group to force another to adopt their moralities or principals. That is not a matter for the Justice system to decide. Once this theory is adopted it will immediately free law enforcement officers, judges, and jailers of costly time consuming and detrimental functions.
In our present system of justice the police catch a car thief, he is found guilty by a jury of his peers and the judge sends him to prison for say five years. What happens next? The taxpayers including the victim cut a check for the police the courts and the jail. The criminals wife and kids go on Welfare so we pay for them too. The victims car gets wrecked in the police chase but at least he has the satisfaction of knowing that this guy won't be able to steal his new car for five years.
Consider this,the police catch a car thief. He is found guilty. The court then decides on a monetary judgement against the defendant. This will include restitution to the victim for his property, for his pain and suffering et al. A judgment would be placed on the defendant for the cost of his apprehension and trial. He is then remanded to a privately owned Penal Institution. Where he can apply for a job at a competitive wage and work until all parties are made whole. If he chooses not to work in the Widget factory, Farm or whatever for profit business venture this institution offers he will not have enough money in his account to purchase meals or rent a comfortable cell. However if he does decide to work and prosper in his new found profession he may then be awarded performance based wage increases and the opportunity to work overtime, gaining an early release. What happens next? Well maybe the guy gets out and steals back the car he bought you. Or maybe the guy applies for a job at the local widget factory. When asked for his qualifications he can proudly say I did a five year sentence in two and a half and I'm the best damn widget maker you ever saw.
Unfortunately for your whole idea here, the concept of punishment contradicts ideals in libertarian theory because it is an initiation of force. You see, unlike when a person uses force to respond to some aggressive behavior such as theft, in punishment the force that was originally initiated is no longer present.
Keeping a person confined in a prison, public or private, when they are not stealing cars or anything else at the time is clearly an initiation of force. Google the "Non-Aggression Principle" for more information.
Dan Keizer:Unfortunately for your whole idea here, the concept of punishment contradicts ideals in libertarian theory because it is an initiation of force. You see, unlike when a person uses force to respond to some aggressive behavior such as theft, in punishment the force that was originally initiated is no longer present.
Dan Keizer: Unfortunately for your whole idea here, the concept of punishment contradicts ideals in libertarian theory because it is an initiation of force. You see, unlike when a person uses force to respond to some aggressive behavior such as theft, in punishment the force that was originally initiated is no longer present. Keeping a person confined in a prison, public or private, when they are not stealing cars or anything else at the time is clearly an initiation of force. Google the "Non-Aggression Principle" for more information.
Consider the car thief who steals 10 cars and is only caught for one. If you only demand restitution for the one you are awarding him with a 90% profit. Murderers would be given carte Blanche as there are no live victims.
Please help me find a way that a Libertarian society would deter these crimes in step with the Non-Aggression Principle
Fred Furash: Are you sure about that? It sounds like you're saying that if someone were to murder, rape, assault, or steal from someone else, but not get caught in the act, then after the deed has been done, nothing can be done to them. In which case, that's just absurd. I prefer to think of it this way: when a criminal commits crime, they automatically void their own rights to not be aggressed upon, whether the response is immediate or not, and the only time that they regain such rights, is when all proportional force has been exacted for the crime committed, whatever form such punishment could take in your imagined society (e.g. restitution, jail, death penalty, any combination thereof).
Yes. If somebody is not "caught" (stopped with force) during their criminal act, then they are no longer using any force because they have finished. To use force on them when they are not using force would be an initiation of force.
If somebody possesses your property, then they are still stealing from you. It would be appropriate to use force to regain your property. If they don't have your property then they are not stealing from you and it would be against basic libertarian principles to use force upon them.
It sounds like you aren't clear on the origin of rights. Rights of the individual in libertarianism are not based on actions, and they do not come and go as a person lives throughout their life. The rights are based on the nature of life and society. Your rights don't magically go away because you stole something in the past, or whatever the criminal act was.
In The Religion of Nature Delineated he formulated "No man can have a right to begin to interrupt the happiness of another." This formulation emphasized "begin" to distinguish aggressive disturbances from those in self-defense ("...yet every man has a right to defend himself and his against violence, to recover what is taken by force from him, and even to make reprisals, by all the means that truth and prudence permit.") William Wollaston.
"Retaliation".."reprisals". Both authors are accredited with the historical formulations of the non aggression principle.
Sorry about those multiple quotes. Guess I was stuttering.
Dan Keizer: Yes. If somebody is not "caught" (stopped with force) during their criminal act, then they are no longer using any force because they have finished. To use force on them when they are not using force would be an initiation of force. If somebody possesses your property, then they are still stealing from you. It would be appropriate to use force to regain your property. If they don't have your property then they are not stealing from you and it would be against basic libertarian principles to use force upon them. It sounds like you aren't clear on the origin of rights. Rights of the individual in libertarianism are not based on actions, and they do not come and go as a person lives throughout their life. The rights are based on the nature of life and society. Your rights don't magically go away because you stole something in the past, or whatever the criminal act was.
As Bill said, there has to be a way to punish and deter crime.
As for the origins of rights, please do tell. You see, I think rights are not some sort of inherent human characteristic, rights are values, or value judgements. You only have rights as an individual if others around you have decided so, or if you have the power/force to protect them. This is quite obvious, since there are countless examples throughout history where individuals or entire ethnic groups had their "rights" ignored or removed, often by law. Quite obviously rights are a social construct, and so far at least, there has been no evidence of a divine hand intervening and stopping rights violations.
So, since the origin of rights is societal, then a free market of value judgements can decide on whatever it likes as rights. It would probably end up settling on whatever is the most efficient method, which would probably look quite similar to what we have today (minus the double moral standard attributed to all actions by State apparatchiks). That is to say, that people will be punished for crimes, even after the crime has been committed. Your narrow definition of self-defense would let murderers, rapists, and thiefs walk the streets because whoever they aggressed against was not willing or able to stop them during the crime itself. In your conception of justice, if a murderer succeeds but is caught later, there is no recourse. If a rape victim identifies who raped her, they can walk free anyway, and apparently you think that "If they [thiefs] don't have your property then they are not stealing from you". Right, so if a thief steals my computer, then sells it to a fence, and the police (or a P.I.) later identify them but they no longer have my property, then I have no recourse? You've got to be kidding me?
So yes, I think the easiest way to deal with this is that any rights that people are granted disappear to the extent to which they have committed some crime. If you steal, you've foregone your right to property (allowing restitution in excess of value of stolen property). If you murder, your forego your right to life, and also freedom (allowing either a death penalty of incarceration for life). If you rape, you forego your freedom (you took hers, now you can rot in jail). What's wrong with this?
Bill Smith:]I don't think my theory contradicts Libertarian theory because it is not an initiation of force. It is merely a rebuttal to the force initiated on it. No society can function without being able to deter force thrust upon it. Consider the car thief who steals 10 cars and is only caught for one. If you only demand restitution for the one you are awarding him with a 90% profit. Murderers would be given carte Blanche as there are no live victims. Please help me find a way that a Libertarian society would deter these crimes in step with the Non-Aggression Principle
Punishment is a use of force and is applied regardless of whether there is a preexisting use of force. Punishment then amounts to a contradiction of libertarian theory because it initiates force and is a forced interaction between individuals. Libertarian theory allows for the use of force for the purpose of eliminating initiated force, not as a, "rebuttal" to a past initiated force that no longer exists. A libertarian society would require a means of deterring or eliminating force, I agree.
As long as the 10 cars are still stolen, it would be appropriate to use force upon the person possessing the stolen cars. This may or may not be the person who stole the car. A murderer who is no longer murdering is not initiating force and to use force upon him would be contrary to libertarian theory, correct.
Libertarianism nicely deals with crime by allowing the individual to halt any criminal act by shooting the criminal in the face. In libertarian society, a criminal would risk being shot in the face as he or she committed the crime. Crimes such as forced interactions and initiations of force are also not advocated by libertarian theory in the first place.
Fred Furash:[ As Bill said, there has to be a way to punish and deter crime. As for the origins of rights, please do tell. You see, I think rights are not some sort of inherent human characteristic, rights are values, or value judgements. You only have rights as an individual if others around you have decided so, or if you have the power/force to protect them. This is quite obvious, since there are countless examples throughout history where individuals or entire ethnic groups had their "rights" ignored or removed, often by law. Quite obviously rights are a social construct, and so far at least, there has been no evidence of a divine hand intervening and stopping rights violations. So, since the origin of rights is societal, then a free market of value judgements can decide on whatever it likes as rights. It would probably end up settling on whatever is the most efficient method, which would probably look quite similar to what we have today (minus the double moral standard attributed to all actions by State apparatchiks). That is to say, that people will be punished for crimes, even after the crime has been committed. Your narrow definition of self-defense would let murderers, rapists, and thiefs walk the streets because whoever they aggressed against was not willing or able to stop them during the crime itself. In your conception of justice, if a murderer succeeds but is caught later, there is no recourse. If a rape victim identifies who raped her, they can walk free anyway, and apparently you think that "If they [thiefs] don't have your property then they are not stealing from you". Right, so if a thief steals my computer, then sells it to a fence, and the police (or a P.I.) later identify them but they no longer have my property, then I have no recourse? You've got to be kidding me? So yes, I think the easiest way to deal with this is that any rights that people are granted disappear to the extent to which they have committed some crime. If you steal, you've foregone your right to property (allowing restitution in excess of value of stolen property). If you murder, your forego your right to life, and also freedom (allowing either a death penalty of incarceration for life). If you rape, you forego your freedom (you took hers, now you can rot in jail). What's wrong with this?
Libertarianism allows for a way to both prevent and deter crime. Punishment is contradictory to libertarian theory for the reason already stated. I don't know why you would insist that punishment be so valuable to society as a crime deterrent as crime has continued to exist in all known societies that have implimented punishment as a crime deterrent.
I agree that rights are based on values and not actions, or state law. So to say that they come and go based on actions would contradict this. Moreover, obviously a criminal is not a libertarian but this does not mean that libertarian values cannot be applied to the criminal by libertarians.
I agree that a person can pick and choose his values as he pleases. That doesn't mean that a libertarian can pick and choose his values as he pleases and still call himself a libertarian or change the definition of libertarianism to fit himself. With the exception of your stolen property example, you are correct. I am not kidding you.
Your solution to crime may be easy and efficient to you but that does not mean it is acceptible to libertarian theory. You are advocating various initiations of force and forced interactions, I am not.
Bill Smith: Ayn Rand In an essay called "Man's Rights" in the book "The Virtue of Selfishness" she formulated "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. ... In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."[8][9][10] Note that she stipulated the context - civilized society. Ayn Rand In an essay called "Man's Rights" in the book "The Virtue of Selfishness" she formulated "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. ... In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."[8][9][10] Note that she stipulated the context - civilized society. Ayn Rand In an essay called "Man's Rights" in the book "The Virtue of Selfishness" she formulated "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. ... In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."[8][9][10] Note that she stipulated the context - civilized society. Ayn Rand In an essay called "Man's Rights" in the book "The Virtue of Selfishness" she formulated "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. ... In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."[8][9][10] Note that she stipulated the context - civilized society. "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. ... In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use" Ayn Rand. In The Religion of Nature Delineated he formulated "No man can have a right to begin to interrupt the happiness of another." This formulation emphasized "begin" to distinguish aggressive disturbances from those in self-defense ("...yet every man has a right to defend himself and his against violence, to recover what is taken by force from him, and even to make reprisals, by all the means that truth and prudence permit.") William Wollaston. "Retaliation".."reprisals". Both authors are accredited with the historical formulations of the non aggression principle.
First of all, Ayn Rand is not a libertarian, never claimed to be a libertarian and libertarians have traditionally not regarded her as a libertarian. So quoting her as an authority on libertarian theory is not valid.
Neither author is here to argue those points, I suggest you come up with your own.
The Rand quote does nothing to refute anything that I have posted, it would only support my posts. How William Wollaston managed to wiggle around "reprisals" being the aggressive behavior that he is advocating against is not available.
Both authors are saying that force should be used only to respond to a previously existing force. I am as well. This does not address the fact that the concept of punishment means force is being applied to respond to a use of force that does not exist.
Quote
I think we may be debating semantics. Suppose we drop the concept of punishment altogether. We can then focus only on restitution. A man commits murder. He is found guilty. You can then impose a penalty that would include the estimated income the victim would have made for the rest of his life plus pain and suffering paid to friends and family that have a legitimate claim. This would apply also to rape as there are pain and suffering issues for the victim and family. In the case of murder you may want to let the victims immediate family have a voice in the sentencing part of the trial. They may want the guilty person to make restitution with his life rather than money.
You can then impose a penalty that would include the estimated income the victim would have made for the rest of his life plus pain and suffering paid to friends and family that have a legitimate claim. This would apply also to rape as there are pain and suffering issues for the victim and family.
How do you plan to quantify pain and suffering? You can easily qunatify lost wages, I'll give you that... as well as medical bills, or bills for therapy, but that's demonstrable economic hardship caused by an aggressive act. That is not "pain and suffering." That seems highly subjective and almost impossible not to abuse.
Possibly the jury would set a price for pain and suffering as in a civil suit. You may want to have a pre established maximum amount on certain crimes to prevent abuse.
Bill Smith: Both authors are saying that force should be used only to respond to a previously existing force. I am as well. This does not address the fact that the concept of punishment means force is being applied to respond to a use of force that does not exist. I think we may be debating semantics. Suppose we drop the concept of punishment altogether. We can then focus only on restitution. A man commits murder. He is found guilty. You can then impose a penalty that would include the estimated income the victim would have made for the rest of his life plus pain and suffering paid to friends and family that have a legitimate claim. This would apply also to rape as there are pain and suffering issues for the victim and family. In the case of murder you may want to let the victims immediate family have a voice in the sentencing part of the trial. They may want the guilty person to make restitution with his life rather than money.
You are saying that, but you are advocating the use of force when there is no previously existing force as is the case with punishment. You are justifying punishment as a deterrence or whatever and saying it is necessary and ignoring the fact that it is a use of force that does not respond to an existing force. It addresses a force that existed and is now gone. This clear NAP violation does not conform with libertarian theory. I suspect you are trying to fit a long, widely accepted social standard into libertarianism simply because you cannot imagine things being otherwise.
Restitution is the same as punishment. It is a forced interaction and takes property away from an individual who rightfully owns that property without his consent. I don't want the victims of a crime to do anything but be free of forced interaction and retain their property and I feel the same about criminals.
Short of voluntary restitution paid by the unrepentant perpetrator. How do you propose a society can can convince said perpetrator to make restitution to his victim without using force as a catalyst.
Bill Smith: Short of voluntary restitution paid by the unrepentant perpetrator. How do you propose a society can can convince said perpetrator to make restitution to his victim without using force as a catalyst.
How can society convince the perpetrator? Perhaps give the perpetrator a power re-train on basic concepts in property and property ownership.
Me personally, I think that if society removes state from an issue then the individuals that make up society have to take responsibility for that issue himself. If we take the state out of property rights enforcement, the individual now is completely responsible for keeping his property or getting it back if it is stolen. The individual would have to do a more careful job of securing his property and be more aware of its condition.
How can "society" convince the perpetrator to make restitution? How about if when the perpetrator goes to the grocery store or gas station, he finds that "society" is not accepting his debit/credit card, and won't until the perpetrator fulfills the restitution guidelines of the arbitration service that convicted the perpetrator of theft.
Hard core statist and other looters would view a society that adopted a non aggression policy as an easy target. That's not to say that I discard NAP I just interpret it differently. If you cut out a looters bank account he'll just steal more and quit using the bank. If he gets caught again you can just put it on his tab and he'll go on his merry way subverting the system at every turn. The guys a thief, honest people pay their bills and are non aggressive, to him you're just an easy target. NAP states that you are not allowed to initiate force. Self defence is a response to force initiated on you and is acceptable. Retaliation is a response to force initiated on you also. I believe that if you let a force initiated on you go unchecked you are inviting more force.
As i have come to understand what may happen regarding crime and punishment in a an-cap society is,if a thief gets away with some of your goods/property,and you can prove its the person in question, you can use follow up force to get it back,you have not initiated the forced, you can sue this person.But a problem might arise when you confront the this person with or without your local private security force,and try to obtain your goods,because his security force or other witnesses don't know who the original aggressor is,unless the person in question has a bad reputation.You can still sue this person but if you have no real proof they could walk,and that is just the way it is.The person in question might not turn up to court if he so wishes but then hopefully this would be bad economically in some way to this person.But if found guilty they have to pay restitution,compensate you for the stolen goods ,compensate you for your trouble and time,and pick up all court costs.And this does not contravene the NAP.
Dan Keizer: Bill Smith:]I don't think my theory contradicts Libertarian theory because it is not an initiation of force. It is merely a rebuttal to the force initiated on it. No society can function without being able to deter force thrust upon it. Consider the car thief who steals 10 cars and is only caught for one. If you only demand restitution for the one you are awarding him with a 90% profit. Murderers would be given carte Blanche as there are no live victims. Please help me find a way that a Libertarian society would deter these crimes in step with the Non-Aggression Principle Punishment is a use of force and is applied regardless of whether there is a preexisting use of force. Punishment then amounts to a contradiction of libertarian theory because it initiates force and is a forced interaction between individuals. Libertarian theory allows for the use of force for the purpose of eliminating initiated force, not as a, "rebuttal" to a past initiated force that no longer exists. A libertarian society would require a means of deterring or eliminating force, I agree. As long as the 10 cars are still stolen, it would be appropriate to use force upon the person possessing the stolen cars. This may or may not be the person who stole the car. A murderer who is no longer murdering is not initiating force and to use force upon him would be contrary to libertarian theory, correct. Libertarianism nicely deals with crime by allowing the individual to halt any criminal act by shooting the criminal in the face. In libertarian society, a criminal would risk being shot in the face as he or she committed the crime. Crimes such as forced interactions and initiations of force are also not advocated by libertarian theory in the first place.
As i said in my last post,if there is proof of any crime you can sue the person concerned.But you cannot force them to go to court,if they did not turn up to court it would not favour their defence,and hopefully this would have some sort of effect on their lives economically and in society in general.
I would like to touch on proportional punishment.I believe in a libertarian society the punishment should fit the crime,IE capital punishment only in the case of murder.And that is still only the concern of the family of the victim.The murderer could still buy his way out, if the family of the murdered person agrees a fee.
"Shooting the criminal in the face" even if that person is steeling some bread and milk from your store unarmed??Shoot them in the face? A young boy steeling a bar of chocolate or some chewing gum,shoot him in the face?I don't think so,that would make you the aggressor.