Justice is nothing but a tool to ensure the prosperity of society: how does killing a man help us reach that end?
And that is still barbaric. Imprisoning someone for twenty years is plenty of a penalty to pay for killing another human, imo. Someone might even call that barbaric, and it may be. But killing someone definitely is.
Justice is to ensure the reparations are paid to the victim of a crime. It declares what befitting punishment can be applied to an aggressor. It is nothing concerning the prosperity of society since society is a non-existent entity without action or thought. It is between two parties and a third which arbitrates the dispute at hand. The end goal of such a system is reparations to the victim or his/her proxies who act in his/her stead. It is not meant to help you or me or anyone besides that individual or individuals.
Well if that is what you want as punishment for someone who murders you then be sure to make it clear in your will. Others have varying opinions on the matter and if they so choose the death penalty then they shall have it [ if the aggressor is found guilty, let us not forget innocent until proven guilty ]
In a free society, what would be the motivation for a “murderer” to go to a court that could possibly tell him he needs to kill himself?
Absolutely nothing. Though if he/she doesn’t go to court then it will be held without them and he/she cannot plead their case. If they are found guilty, then they will be taken to a place of incarceration, [ where one could possibly repeal their case ] if they are found guilty still then the punishment is carried out.
No, justice is about the propserity not reparations, though reparations can be a method of ensuring lasting prosperity.
It is both an inanimate idea, and tool; it need not action, and thought.
This is a very artificial idea of what justice is that ignores much of mankind’s judicial history. Justice is not just about a dispute between two parties; rather, it is about ensuring that the dispute does not hurt the prosperity, and well-being of society.
Prosperity for who?
Then why are you acting as though it can prosper in the first place? Prosperity is animation.
This is the type of inane babble that has influenced our very justice system today. There is only an aggressor and a victim. Not society. When person A kills person B, person X/Y/Z have no say in the matter since they are not affected by it or are you going to start claiming that every murder in the world is somehow slighting every person?
Isn’t this less extreme then Walter Blocks two eyes for an eye theory of punishment where he basically says that a person is liable for double the damages they caused? I can’t find the exact the article but Bob Murphy says this about it in his Free Advice blog:
“What’s ironic is that even some Rothbardians don’t go with me fully on this route. For example, I believe Walter Block has written (and I don’t have the cite handy) that if you murder somebody in cold blood, then under libertarian law you have just forfeited your right to life and anybody else can take you out. (I think the train of thought was coming out of his view that it’s not theft if you steal from a thief.)”
Bob then goes on to say:
“But I think that’s totally wrong, and in fact makes the same collectivistic mistake that State “justice” systems make: If you murder someone, then the victim’s heirs inherit whatever legal powers accrue from such a crime. And if the victim happened to be a pacifist, he could have clearly spelled out in his will that none of his heirs would be allowed to exact retribution, even if that were the default. For example, even if the prevailing legal code says that if a guy cuts your arm off, you get to cut his arm off in return, then a pacifist could still specify in his will that nobody is allowed to touch his murderer. That “right” belongs to the guy who was murdered, and he gets the most satisfaction out of his property by making a public display of mercy.”
So according to Dr. Murphy if the victim of a murder wished for their murder to be killed as punishment then the killing of the murder is then and only then legitimate.
Am I under interpreting this correctly? If not where did I go wrong?
Why would the killer have to go to the victim’s court? Why doesn’t the victims family have to go to the killer’s court?
Have you read up on private courts? Do you understand how they would work?
Society.
Aggression threatens the prosperity of all of society.
Because the case is being brought to the court system of the plaintiff. The ‘murderer’ is certainly free in requesting that the trial be made at his court and if the matter cannot be solved then an arbiter of the dispute will be chosen by the two court systems and that individual will choose.
Ah right the inanimate tool that can somehow prosper.
Oh really. So if Billy murders Bobby then Janey [ a complete stranger ] is somehow threatened!? Le gasp!
That is proportionality. Though I think Block did take Rothbardian theory perhaps a little too far with the theory that anyone can kill a murder. I would need to see his full argument to see the discretion.
Aggression only threatens the prosperity of individuals and individuals are perfectly capable of deciding when they do and when they don’t need protection. They are also capable of deciding through the application of NAP what punishment is just for their aggressor. Individual prosperity and collective prosperity are not at arms with one another.
Did you even comprehend what I’ve hitherto said, I doubt it seeing this. It is justice that is an inanimate tool.
Bobby has shown the willingness to use violence to achieve his ends, he is a threat to a third person
We were discussing society.Society is in fact a non-existent entity without thought or action, therefore it cannot prosper. Only individuals can.
-
Billy is the murderer.
-
The Estoppel argument is rather useless. I could write a book glorifying the Japanese imperialist army and you could hold that up and say ‘look he supports violence! GET HIM!’
Therefore when Bobby shows up at Janey’s doorstep she has every reason to believe his intentions are to kill her and to defend herself accordingly.
Spot on. Though I would quibble that she cannot aggress against him unless she is aggressed upon. She doesn’t need to let him past her doorstep and can throw him off her property claiming that if he shows himself again, he will be properly dealt with.
Society is the sum of all individual action, and what I have hitherto said is not at odds with this concept.
Punishment does not derive from the NAP, but rathe from what man determines as best for future prosperity. Justice is not a tit for tat; rather, it is a social convention created for the ensurment of prosperity.