My apologies, but I’m not combing the thread to figure out what your question is. Can you summarize it?
–Len
:pops some popcorn:
I’m talking about the bolded part of the quote above.
In another thread, I suggested that we keep our government, but remove any ability it has to interfere with voluntary transactions, in other words, it can’t tax, it can’t set up a minimum wage, it can’t regulate alchohol, etc.
It would serve as a “fallback” or default court.
In the (possibly rare) situations in which the accuser and the accused (remember: the accused isn’t always guilty and isn’t always innocent) can’t argee upon a court or legal system to use, the voluntarily funded government would step in and prevent any other organization/court/individual from forcibly enacting its own brand of justice.
In that thread, I was attacked by the resident vocal anarchists; my point is that my proposal is really no different from yours, but infinitely more palatable for the average person than the idea of anarchy.
You can even tell that every transaction is a monopoly of its kind. It would be so relevant.
You seemed to have missed the point of Len Budney, which is that what distinguish statism and anarchism is not the use of force but the initiation of violence. A criminal may have not agree to be punish by a particular company, he is the agressor and then force can be used against him as a defense a posteriori, a reparation.
OK, then I definitely answered that question. That’s exactly what my previous post was all about.
The answer is that it’s meaningless to say that “sentence was imposed on him against his will,” as if this is an act of aggression. The aggressor, by choosing to aggress, has waived any right not to be aggressed against in response. Not only can the victim resist a murderer with deadly force: ANYONE ON EARTH can do so. Not only can the victim recover property from a thief: ANYONE ON EARTH can do so. It’s moral when the victim does it. It’s moral when a bystander does it. It’s moral when Batman does it. It’s moral when government-employed police do it. It’s moral when space aliens do it.
When the criminal complains that he didn’t consent to have his crime opposed by Batman, and attempts to charge Batman with assault, he’s simply revealing his ignorance of how non-aggression works.
If that seems unresponsive to your question, perhaps it’s because I didn’t use the word “setence” yet. I did that purposely: under libertarian law, there’s no such thing as “sentencing” as we know it. Nobody has the authority to decide that a person may be kidnapped for five years, or ten years, in response to such-and-such a crime. Restitution is the only “sentence” under libertarian law. So if you steal, you will be compelled to give the property back, as well as paying any associated costs. If you assault a man, you will be compelled to pay any resulting expenses, including things like lost wages, plus any enforcement costs. This applies directly to every crime short of murder. In the case of murder, there’s some debate; I favor the death penalty.
So there’s no such thing as arbitrary “sentencing” in an anarchist society. There is only restitution. Any anyone on earth has the moral right to extract restitution out of you. Even government has that right–but it does not have the right to expropriate money from the unwilling, which is how it pays its expenses today.
Finally, most “crimes” go off the books anyway. Only aggression is a crime. Cutting hair without a license is not. Any consensual activity is not. So there won’t be any defense agency operatives arresting you for jaywalking, or solicitation, or gambling, or smoking weed, or flying an unregistered helicopter without a license, or smoking, or…
–Len
Len, I’m not sure if you read the rest of my post, but I agree with you.
Do you disagree with the rest of my post?
Edit: I think part of the problem is that you’re assuming that everyone accused of a crime is guilty.
If they’re not guilty, then whoever used force against them is a criminal. A free society will implement a voluntary version of “due process” to minimize this, partly through a desire to do justly, but mostly through a desire to be protected from false accusations, and to prevent the criminals’ angry heirs from feuding.
–Len
“Infinitely”? Having a single monopolist impose his will on everyone is “infinitely” preferable to having a choice of justice systems? The same monopolist will judge cases in which he is the defendant–is that an infinite plus, or only a finite minus?
People prefer what they know. They’d rather be whipped daily in the customary way than face an unknown paradise. So yes, some people probably do prefer the injustice they know to the justice they don’t. But that’s because they’re stupid, basically–not because the injustice really IS preferable.
–Len
Len, my proposal doesn’t prevent any two people from using a court system of their choice. My proposal doesn’t infringe upon any voluntary transactions, and it doesn’t ingringe upon any free decisions.
Yes, it does. It distorts the information on which the choices are based.
For example, you and I have a dispute. My favorite court in all the land is the “default” court. You can’t stand it, probably for the same reason it’s my favorite. Well, that is the court you will be forced to use, and no other.
That’s true even if your favorite one is my second favorite, and I would be otherwise very happy to use it. But so long as I don’t agree to any other, I get my pick. Instead of disagreeing being a cost to both of us (we have to fight it out if we don’t agree), it’s now a cost to you and a benefit to me.
Now, what if the reason it’s my favorite court is that I’ve rigged it, or, more likely, it’s biased in a way that favors my case, even if it is not just?
Yes, and how is that any worse than your alternative? Instead of the accused (guilty or innocent) being guaranteed a trial in the default court, the accuser can force the accused (guilty or innocent) into using a court of his choice? Let’s be honest, here!
Or, if you want a more “anarchist” way of looking at it: I want a court to prevent other courts from forcing the accused (guilty or innocent) into use them; you want other courts to prevent my court from forcing the accused (guilty or innocent) into using it.
What’s really the difference? [:)]
The solution obviously is a random selection of alternate courts.
Like, “Wheel of Court”. A game show and a selection process. Proceeds can go towards paying the court fees.
Liar.
It’s been pointed out to you repeatedly that that statement is false.
As has been pointed out in pungent terms, you’ve got that wrong. That isn’t how it works. There is quite a bit of literature out there on the functioning of a free-market justice system; if you won’t believe our telling you things, perhaps you might read some of that?
–Len.
Len, I’m not wrong. If the accused (guilty or innocent) refuses to agree with the accuser about which court to use, there’s no other way to bring him/her to justice.
This has already been addressed in another thread. And I must say that the fact that you still haven’t read any libertarian texts (aside from Economics in One Lesson, which is more economics than political theory) despite making over 750 posts on these forums, and that you don’t show any inclination to read any of them, much less carefully, gives me the impression that you’re not really interested in learning or in the philosophical and scientific search for truth. It’s even been difficult getting you to actually address our arguments in these forums. Please do make a better effort to engage with us in a two-way discourse in these forums and to actually learn what all has been said in print with respect to anarchy and the law.
Geoffrey, you had the same self-important attitude in the other thread; instead of explaining the unexplainable, you became fixated on the fact that I don’t care to read libertarian texts. You never even responded to my later replies.
You did give one response in your previous thread to that question-that-must-not-be-asked: you said that if the accused (guilty or innocent) refuses to agree with the accuser about which court to use, the only solution is vigilante justice. You then tried to say that vigilante justice is “outside of your legal system” so you shouldn’t have to defend it, but doesn’t that leave a huge, gaping hole in your system? Why shouldn’t you have to defend it? It’s a hole that my proposal plugs up without infringing upon any voluntary agreements.
Now, could you could read my last few replies in this thread and actually respond to them, instead of saying, “read some more books, you just aren’t smart enough yet”? I’ll even quote them for you if you’d like.
Let me guess: “leftists” are the only ones capable of being self-important?
Also, does your system abolish vigilantism? If it doesn’t, then maybe you should address such a huge, gaping hole in your system.
Unless you want to agrue that no one has free-will, vigilantism will potentially always remain an option; albiet illegal as it goes outside the legal system, but an option that would be impossible to persuade every single individual out there to not consider at all, under any circumstances.
No, my proposal doesn’t abolish vigilantism; it IS vigilantism on behalf of the government!
I keep trying to explain; my proposal is in no way incompatibly with anarchy; in fact, none of the arguments against Len I set forth on these last two pages can be refuted because they are such common-sense truths.
Ego, you might think you’re gifted, or whatever, but please don’t be so arrogant (and don’t deny that you are) as to presume that you can reinvent the whole of the wheel by yourself. Actually make the effort to read For a New Liberty, so you don’t waste our time. You think we’re here to tutor you. We’re not. If you were genuinely interested in clearing up misconceptions, fine, but make sure you first do the basic groundwork.
-Jon