So I am wondering what everyone’s opinion is on how murderer’s would be dealt with in a stateless society? What is the legal justification for punishing them? What I mean is, who has the authority to stand in place of the victim to claim a wrong has been committed and demand justice?
With any other property violation, I can bring a claim against the perpetrator. But if the perpetrator kills me, well, then I cannot bring a claim against him anymore. And since no one else is the owner of me, no one else can claim their property was violated.
I am not advocating that murderers should not be punished, just trying to figure out the legal justification for it.
For purposes of this discussion, assume that a homeless person, with no family is killed. The body is found and identified. It is determined that the person was murdered and who the murderer is.
if you care about how your property is distributed after your death make a will. if you are owed $$$ restitution for your murder this is yours to bequeathto whomever i should think…
What exactly do you mean? Parents, children, aunts, uncles, second-cousins, third-cousins? And regardless, why would they have authority to stand in place of the victim? They cannot claim that the victim was their property.
Who has the authority to find them? Anyone? Would you place a reward in your will, if you could afford one? Would that be legal? Would there not need to be an investigation first to make sure the crime was worthy of death?
Sorry, I think I worded it poorly. No one owns anyone else. As such, if someone kills me, you cannot claim that I was your property, and as such you cannot seek compensation for the loss of my life. Does that make sense?
Anyone who takes up a claim. For instance, say I am being mugged and I scream help when I see you. If you help me you become my agent and act to help me.
They cannot claim the victim as their property but like with agents they can act in their stead.
Sure, you can make a general announcement asking all to help find your killer, and there could be a reward. As for an investigation, what do you mean? Would a person need to be tried in a court of law before capital punishment? Of course. Actual innocent till proven guilty.
I think a bounty hunter might be around, but who would pay him or her? maybe the community pools their money together as in the old west of America in which a person would ride into town and might be hired to protect and/or investigate a murder. A Sherlock Holmes type, but he was not, from the stories I’ve read so far, somebody to go out into the community and find work. People came to him. He had a name and family members sought him out. But that’s particular to a place like London were sedentary establishments, as opposed to a wondering bounty hunter traveling the old American west. I would think it would be a community interest to track down a murderer before such a person strikes again. If murder is something happens only once in a while then the bounty hunter might actually be a dairy farmer or sells gift cards, but has a hobby for these kinds of things. Yet if, for some reason, murder is more abundant in a given geographical region, then the bounty hunter might find a more steady job and establish a place to work out of. His or her sole job might be to pursue justice as differing people show up with a problem or two and they want somebody with the experience and pursuance to put themselves at risk (potentially this line of work can get a person killed without question). any number of variables might happen…
But that does not answer by what authority the bounty hunter gets to punish someone for murder. The only thing you suggested was that the community can decide to kill someone. And believe me, LS will jump all over your case for suggesting that. What gives them the authority to kill someone that has not harmed them?
LS seems to have the answer, I hope he will jump in and enlighten us.
The authority of being paid and seeking truth and justice. An individual needs no authority other than him or her self.
yes a community can.
I don’t know what you are asking. People desire and do many things. If people want a bounty hunter or want to track down a murderer then they do. If a community stops building - buildings - and they begin to live in the trees or maybe they become a community of pacifists, then they do. by who’s authority is going to stop them?
Paying someone to kill someone else is irrelevant. Me paying someone to kill another does not give that person authority to kill another.
“Seeking truth and justice” is completely vague and subjective.
Really? Do my property rights extend over your property rights? If not, then do mine and my neighbors property rights extend over your property rights? If not, then it is impossible for a communities property rights to extend over an individuals property rights.
Yes, people act. People murder, steal, and rape. But by what authority does someone act to punish a murderer?
Generally speaking, we have the authority to do whatever we want to another person, if we get that person’s consent first. Also generally speaking, we are not authorized to do anything to a person without getting that person’s permission first. A murderer most likely will not give permission to another to be punished. As such, how does society derive the authority to punish a murderer?
i never said a persons property rights extend over another’s.
their individual authority if they have the desire, time, and capability. and others willing to pay for the service would help the service provider pay their own bills.
i thought justice and truth were subjective - but why are trying to objectively define what authority is: “if we get that person’s consent first”? by the way, i don’t think justice and truth are subjective, i think they are objective, but of course that doesn’t mean there isn’t individual interpretations of what justice and truth is. personally i’m beyond the subjective/objective paradigm trap in my own thinking.
When a crime takes place, the victim has a right to claim compensation (& possibly retribution) for it. In the case of murder, the victim obviously cannot make use of that right. So the right is transferred to: 1st - whoever it says in the will, or 2nd - a next of kin. Exact rules about which next of kin gets the right will have to be determined. You would think that a spouse would get the right over a cousin, for example.
If there is no family at all, the right has been abandoned, so it becomes homesteadable, meaning anyone in theory can take on the right to persue justice and eventually receive the compensation. There would need to be rules about when the right becomes homesteadable (like how long to wait before a relative comes forward?) and about who has the better claim to have homesteaded the right, if more than one person claims it (like the finder of the body may be given preference to a random stranger?).
if you know about criminal investigations, then you would understand that as soon as the crime has been discovered important investigative measures have to happen instantly. it would be up to any individual to take the risk to perform such justice oriented investigations. the compensation can be decided upon during the investigation. it can be argued during the investigation who takes precedence during the investigation. so if an individual steps forward and the family does later on and due to geography is late to the crime scene, the family might argue they don’t want the current investigator to be investigating anymore. could this mean the original investigator doesn’t get paid for time already spent on the crime - yes. it is a risk like any other business venture. the purpose of being educated by such matters, in my opinion, is that if such a day comes that any one person is involved in the argument, after the crime has been acted, reasonable, thus foreseeable conclusions, have already been derived to help out any one individual in the argument at the moment it occurs. it’s what reason is all about - it has foresight. can reason fail to foresee certain events, acts, or argumentation - of course, but it’s better to be prepared and to help make ones thinking more accurate than less accurate. the failing would be any particular individual in trying to pose as an investigator of justice and be exposed by others to know nothing or hardly anything at all that might be considered justice. could disagreements arise in which the truth of justice is abandoned by other parties in the argument - of course. i think this is when marketing that any one individual has a good grasp of justice becomes handy. other parties might be willing to go along with somebody that has a good business. it would be difficult to begin a justice oriented business no doubt, but once a good reputation and foundation of getting the job done - the right way according to the ‘community’ - then such a investigative person(s) would probably by word of mouth or what have you, get more clients, etc…, etc…
Who will establish rules? By what authority? It’s my property, and if I specified no inheritor, then how can anyone else specify that for me? My point is, there must be a burden of proof for why kin are next. What is it?
You can’t homestead rights. Rights are not property. Don’t confuse them.
Again with the rules. Who makes the rules? This is both a question, and a challenge. It is the premise of the discussion. From where does a 3rd party derive authority? I agree, it can be derived by contract, or consent. But in the absence of a contract, defaulting to kin is nonsensical, and in the absence of consent, no one can assume your rights, otherwise the coercive state is legitimate.
This is a real puzzle. Spidey, perhaps unintentionally, made a positive assertion about the right of the mob to take action for a crime. And I rightfully pointed out, that in the mob, it is a form of democratic justice (still fiat, and arbitrary) and in the singular, it is vigilantism, which assuming by definition it lacks consent, is also a crime.
If we’re going to talk about rights and liberties and ethics, then we have to stop relying on such lazy conceptions of law, where we cobble together and borrow from the current paradigm based strictly on emotionalism.