I am struggling with Rothbard’s idea of justice in as much as he seems to require the presence of the injured party. In the case of murder, the victim is gone and cannot demand restitution or retribution (unless he writes it into his will). Rothbard seems to allow that his kin could demand restitution in the absence of such an agreement, but on what basis? They have not lost their lives. And if family or friends could demand restitution on behalf of the victim, why could not strangers do the same?
Suppose a mass murder was systematically murdering homeless people whom he knew had no relations or friends. Would it be unjust for an unrelated vigilante to track down and kill the murderer? if not, on what basis could he do so?
“Or, if you die without heirs, in a sense, one of the goods you left behind was your claim to compensation, and that can be homesteaded.”
Interesting. I was also wondering if a stranger might assume the role of the victim’s agent. I was thinking that the only justification for an heir to execute the murder of his kin was that he acted as his agent, since he himself did not lose his life. Maybe this homesteading idea is the same thing.
“Would it be unjust for an unrelated vigilante to track down and kill the murderer? if not, on what basis could he do so?”
Personally, I don’t think it would be unjust. Killing (murdering) people like this is nearly incorrigibly repulsive. Besides inviting persona non grata status upon himself, the killer is also inviting restitution from at least a good number of people who are willing to act upon it because of the grisly nature of the murders.
This is probably not proper Misean/ancap justification.
Also consider, if someone is murdered on your property, what is your reaction going to be? What is the reaction you think “most people” are going to have? What kinds of consequences do you think the owner would suffer (socially and otherwise) if he didn’t take an interest in finding out who killed someone on his property?
I am with Coot, killing homeless people a pivotal part of our plans as ancaps! if a man can’t kill a hobo with his own bare hands (which he OWNS!) then the world is going to pot.
Honestly though I imagine some kind of charity would be the best detterent, or courts may give legal services pro bono in these cases, or a combination or none of these, the market will sort something out.
First of all, we cannot figure out with exact accuracy what will happen in a common law system. My guess is that someone would pick up the case, if only because it would be profitable to persecute the murderer. And if you compare it to what happens today, it’s not as if the government police really cares what happens to homeless people. If a few of them get killed, there are no investigations or prosecutions. But if a white girl in the suburbs gets killed, then all hell breaks loose.
if you die without heirs, in a sense, one of the goods you left behind was your claim to compensation, and that can be homesteaded
Homesteading goods like that could be problematic - how do I know if some other avenger has already homesteded it? This good has no clear posession, and what’s worse - it seems to be non-excludable (though probably not nonrival, as there is only one criminal to be prosecuted).
I thought restituition had precedence over retribution in most libertarian analyses? Regardless, what if A prefers to make the killer to work for the crime, but B decides he prefers to kill the killer? It sounds like a conflict between A and B.
This doesn’t require a great imagination. The first detective, PDA, law firm, or lawyer which figures out who the killer is and successfully prosecutes him is the one who has successfully homesteaded the homeless man’s right to compensation.
who first kills the killer, wins. Yeah, I also think homsteading non-existent things is kinda stupid, but… maybe it could work out somehow.
I dont see it as homesteading something non existant. It would be a claim to real property (the goods/money/land that would have been used to compensate the victim). The same way homesteading a peice of land is nothing more than a claim to real tangible property. But because the victim is dead his claim on the property becomes unowned.
A stranger may indeed do so but he may not then demand reimbursement from “the public”, as the public prosecutor does. There is an issue of standing that I think is important, specifically, that those more closely related to a victim who is incapable of representing himself (perhaps due to be being dead) should have a right of first refusal in investigating and prosecuting a crime. This is to ensure that investigations and initial legal measures are handled by those most likely to have an interest in the outcome of the affair. If Susie Q is murdered and Joe Rich steps in as a “philanthropic prosecutor” to investigate her murder, he may not put as much care into the handling of evidence and as much energy into the investigation of the circumstances of her murder as her father John Q might. The autopsy can only be performed in a finite window so John Q should have right of first refusal to the evidence in Susie Q’s murder. If the relative is a suspect in the death, then other relatives may be able to argue that they should have right of refusal over the more closely related relative.
What you are talking about in terms of people without relatives to investigate and prosecute their murders is really just a restatement of the fact that the world is a dangerous place and it’s most dangerous for those without family and other social networks to back them up in hard times. Poor, unconnected people die all the time under mysterious circumstances and the public prosecutor puts little, if any, resources into investigating their deaths. Think about the motives of the public prosecutor… he has hundreds of crimes to investigate at any given time and he has to choose how to use his finite resources to investigate them… do you think he gives them all equal weight or do you think he puts more resources into investigating those cases that are likely to get him promoted or otherwise win the gratitude of important and influential people??
Yeah, I also think homsteading non-existent things is kinda stupid, but… maybe it could work out somehow.