The fact the Bobby has used violence before makes him a threat to other individuals in society, and their prosperity.
There is no sum of such diverse action to which you can point to and say ‘there, that is what encompasses all individuals action’
You are providing a statement that he has already addressed. Saying it again doesn’t make it any less abolished.
How do you think companies in different nations resolve differences? You think the one bringing it to arbitration gets to solely choose the arbitrator? It is irrelevant who is bringing the case. What is relevant is that both parties agree to the arbitrator.
My point still stands - if someone kills someone else, the fact that he has used violence, and shown his willingness to break the laws of society in doing so makes him a threat to others. It is not an argument of reason as much as it is a blunt fact that any doctrine of justice must take into accout. An individual who murders once is very much likely to murder again.
Through cooperation. It is done now.
Both parties abide by their court system and these court systems agree to choose between a arbiter if they cannot decide which court it is proper to hold such a case at.
For a New Liberty
No it doesn’t. If Bobby kills Billy then Bobby is only a threat to Janey if he shows up at her house with an intent to kill and does not leave when asked.
Really? Must we go through this again? You keep saying you cannot predict the future and yet again here you are doing such. I ask yet again have you changed your mind about the future behavior of individuals and the ability to predict it?
Okay, if you desire to have Bobby to have to walk to your door after he has kiled Billy, then be my guest. But, I will not allow allow a man like Bobby to walk free in the society I am in.
Ah so you will go out of your way and possibly break property rights in order to bring your form of justice to another? No doubt Bobby will return to his property or the property of another. Therefore you commit crime to break crime. You best hope that someone allows you to walk free after committing such an act.
Exactly. So both parties get to agree on the arbitrator. Which brings us back to, why would anyone that is being accused of murder agree to an arbitrator that may impose a death penalty?
…because if they don’t then the plantiff will bring the case against them, they will not show up and the case will happen without them.
And the accused murderer will have his own trial with his own arbitrator and the complainer will not get any compensation if he or she does not show up…
You still do not seem to get it. I am not sure how else to explain it to you, since you explained it yourself in one sentence, and then contradicted yourself in the next. You obviously do not understand how international arbitration works.
The State administers “The Death Penalty”, or at least that how I had taken your question. I do believe I mentioned turning a blind eye to revenge killings. But let’s take the statement from above that everyone has the right to not be murdered. I’d agree. However of what relevence is that? The state certainly hasn’t guaranteed that right. If you count wars and genocides, the state has killed tons more people than any one individual murder and perhaps even more than all ‘private’ murderers combined for any given time period. So the argument that everyone has a right to not be murdered is a mere truism, it doesn’t lend support to any particular system, much less one that in practice doesn’t guarantee the right to live to anyone in particular, but just hands the decision of life or death to a legal monopolist who then decides with who it will and will not share that authority.
In the end the ability to exercise a right, even a right to life, isn’t guaranteed under any system. The question here it seems is which system is best at protecting that right and exacting restitution and/or reparations from violators. Arguing from truisms and/or what would be in a perfect world leaves all possiblities wanting.
So what? People have the right to disassociate themselves from others for whatever reason they want. I understand some people may find themselves in uncomfortable minorities in that case. That’s life.
Property rights are nothing but a social norm accepted in order to facilitate prosperity, and a man who murders others must be brought to justice to ensure that he does not continue his previous behaviors in order to facilitate society’s propserity - if you believe that a man who murders another is not a threat to others, so be it, but I do.
You might want to show evidence for your belief.