I was wondering what the general opinion here on this issue is. I am of the opinion that libertarianism implies consent at each and every level, however, I am not totally solidified in this view. For example, I have some sympathy for the idea that if a private court/judge is decided on by both “customers” (i.e. the accuser and the accused), a judgement arrived upon could be aggressively enforced, however I would prefer that the judgement was “enforced” purely by non-aggressive means (e.g. shunning). It goes without saying (for me) that a court that is not accepted by both of those involved in the legal action would not have any legitimacy to enforce its judgements violently (although I’d be interested to hear any arguments against this position).
My questions is specifically this: to what extent is it acceptable for private courts to aggressively enforce judgements where the court has been accepted by both the accused and the accuser?
Chances are likely that customers will pick and choose what coverage they want from their security/law provider. For instance, I could just say: “I want the court to make a ruling. After the ruling, I will take care of the punishment myself if I want. All I really want right now is a credible judgement to save my reputation.”
In many cases, punishment is not necessary. Publicly advertizing the ruling may be sufficient.
Defense is a type of insurance, when you buy defense services you are insuring yourself against the aggression of other individuals, and if they do so happen to aggress against you in some manner your provider will have to pay you. Aggressively enforcing their judgements is the only way an insurance agency is going to be able to cover their costs, its also the reason that firstly, insurers will aim to limit crime to the greatest possible extent, secondly they’re not going to cover certain types of behaviour (e.g. if I decide to march through a black neighbourhood in a white gown and a pointy hat) and thirdly it will be aimed towards restitution, and nothing else, since otherwise they’re going to have to foot the bill.
It’d help if you first mentioned reasons for it not being acceptable. I merely see it as the delegation by the victim of their right to restitution, which certainly can be enforced proportionally.
Suppose that person A stole from person B. To resolve the dispute, they hire an arbitrition agency, which finds out the truth, and requires that A pay back what he stole. If A repeatedly refuses to do this, how far can the arbitrition agency acceptively enforce the ruling? Can they kill to enforce it?
There is no requirement or even a superior arguement for while it work like insurance instead of as the poster described. We should expect a variety of solutions from insurance based models as you described to strictly enforcement of judgements.
Yes, but only if A escalates it to that point. If A stole from B, then B or B’s agents can go retrieve the item from A. If A resists violently, then B or B’s agents are justified in using whatever force is necessary to overcome this resistance and get the stolen property back. If A uses deadly force, then the others may kill A in self-defense. If, however, A surrenders before this point, then there is no justification for using deadly force against A.
Would you say that for this reason it is immoral to march through a black neighborhood in a white gown and a pointy hat? Saying that an activity is unprofitable is one thing, and saying that it is immoral is another.
I’m not going to get into whether or not it’s moral, it’s stupid and no insurance agency is going to defend your “right” to do so, that’s all that matters.
How could the agents possibly find out that A had stolen it? And seeing as they could never treat the accusation against A as certain, how could they justify violence against A in return?
Of course, I’m basing this on the implicit/explicit circumstances of the example: A has certainly not agreed to the specific “ruling”, and neither has s/he agreed to the judge/insurance company.
So, if I’m getting this correct, you are arguing that aggression is justified if you suspect someone to be guilty?
Well do you think it’s justified in the case of the victim personally? If so it is in the case of their agents too. If not, then it isn’t. The accused can appeal a decision if they do not agree with it and in this case all parties will need to consent as to which court is used.
(1) How can it be justified in the case of the victim personally? This would give me justification to attack anyone I felt like if I felt they might be the reason I was missing a £5 note.
(2) How is this [going straight to appeal if the judgement/decision is not accepted] different from consent at the outset/judgement, unless you are arguing that in “bringing the outlaws to justice” the security/insurance firms may use aggressive violence (in which case I would say it would be immoral)?
this is a boundary problem relating to epistemilogical issues.
the natural law is clear at the limits to what one can do before one is an aggressor. this is theoretical knowledge, given premises conclusions follow
determining things like who is an aggressor is a real world problem. picking the premises to feed into your natural law compliance understander brain unit ,thats a challenge!
Proportionally or not (note: that is another term courts will define)?
It isn’t. My point is that the firms, if they did use violence, would not do so in a way that’d leave the alleged aggressor no room to manoeuvre if they were found guilty. Only if the appeals court as well as one of the original courts found them guilty would punishment be justified.