Oh and also: “society is what gives rights to individuals.”
Oh dear.
Who can write such nonsense?
A person going to law school, apparently…
I really didn’t even know where to begin to respond to it.
Violent criminals are the only ones who need to be in jail, and they are a very small segment of society. I foresee the penal system moving toward a compensatory model. For example, a rapist would have to compensate his victim with money. If he can’t or won’t pay, then he’s outside the protection of the law and it’s open season on his scalp.
Criminals actually thrive in statist society. In a free society, they are harried from town to town.
Yes, at some point you need force - and we’d have it if “private” provision of services monopolized by the “public” sector were not illegal. It’s not that the bait din chooses not to use a police system of some sort, it’s that doing so is illegal. It’s not an example of the limits of voluntary society, it’s an example of how government prevents voluntary society from forming.
Would you please give an example of a Torah matter which is formally prohibited in Israel? There is no Sanhedrin, no enforcement of sabbath laws, or anything else there, any more than in the American bait din system.
I’d qualify that statement with “reactionary” force, which would even theoretically preclude any organization from arresting/kidnapping a person accused of committing a crime, against their will.
If you consider that in a free market, property is all owned by someone (ignoring for the moment, the unowned property), and those other someones will have protection agencies/detective agencies/insurance companies, etc. of their own… These arrangements might stipulate that you can’t give safe haven to people accused of crimes, that you can’t aid/abet them, that you can’t transact business with them, etc.
So the accused has the choice of facing a trial, voluntarily, or submitting to permanent house arrest.
Sure, he could stay locked up in his house for the rest of his life, if he wanted to avoid the hassle of a trial, but he’d have an awfully tough time procuring food & stuff that he needs to survive. He literally couldn’t leave his house without being apprehended in the act of committing criminal trespass, at which time he might be brought to face the other charges.
THere’s actually some research out there suggesting that sexual predators have a lower recidivism rate than the general population. I’m no expert, I just recall seeing a few studies in the last year or so on the matter.
It’s been said before that the entire criminal justice system in the u.s. would collapse if it weren’t for the existence of (at least nominally) private bounty hunters.
Criminals being a miniscule proportion of any population, it is extremely unlikely that they would have a “police force” of their own, and even less likely that if such a force did exist, it would be powerful enough to protect its customers in mini-war (which is what you’re describing).
The drug war is so terrible an example of “competing” police forces, that it doesn’t warrant a response, except this: the only reason drug cartels employ mercenaries is because the State outlawed drugs.
Think about how many robberies, muggings, car thefts, home invasion/burglaries, etc., must happen each and every year, and the consider the very small percentage of these crimes that are ever solved in a satisfactory sense, by which I mean, the victim is made whole by the decision.
In the real world, it’s usually safer, and less expensive, to insure yourself against such matters, than it is to wage war against the person who stole from you.
That is a rather lame argument. First of all, Christianity is against suicide but Christianity deals in sin, not in crime. It deals with morality not legality. Nowhere does the New Testament prescribe law and make anything formally “illegal” including suicide. Second of all, Christianity praises defiance in the face of evil and esspecialy when it results in death. It is called martydom and gets you an instant get-into-heaven-for-free card.
How is rape not a violent crime?
Indeed, the Jews in fact commited mass suicide.
It is. Let me clarify
For starters, it is simply not worth the trouble to jail most thieves, frauds, etc. Their punishment really just needs to be financial: they should have to compensate their victims. They would do this by pledging their labor and posting a bond. If they violate the terms of the bond, then their persons are forfeit to a bounty hunter. The only people we’re concerned about imprisoning are violent criminals: pedophiles, rapists, murderers, psychopaths, etc. Now, it is absolutely unjust to tax the law-abiding and criminal victims to pay for the room, board and medicine of criminals. So, what I would foresee are work farms and factories where they labor in order to pay off the debt (set by a tribunal) to their victims. This wouldn’t be a prison. There would be light security around but if you took off and ran, nobody would risk their neck trying to stop you. Instead, the victim or her family would be advised that the prisoner had fled. He would then be outside the protection of the law and his life would be forfeit. Over time, criminality would dwindle to a small, marginalized population, easily defended against by a well-armed populace.
This research is likely skewed by a broad definition of sexual predator: “date rape,” under-age sex, i.e., people who really aren’t sexual predators. Because otherwise, rapists and pedophiles have extraordinarily high levels of recidivism.
This makes no sense. How many people are actually able to make a living being bounty hunters?
You’re taking a very narrow-minded approach; it’s not just “Dog the Bounty Hunter” or whatever Hollywood archetype you have in mind. It’s the entire private system of bail bondsmen, which is what most “bounty hunters” really are.
Bail bondsmen are entrepeneurs who emerged due to the common law and constitutional requirement that the accused be allowed to post a bond in order to remain free while his guilt or innocence is adjudicated. If bail bondsmen disappeared, the state would simply take over their function. What keeps the criminal justice system intact is the State’s overwhelmingly superior armed force, not Bob’s Bail Bonds And Tow Service down the street.
Some states allow you to post 10% to the court itself, there is a fugitive rate of 20-30% in this system. Private bail bondmen have a much lower rate of fugitivism.
I think you’re reading to far into this: sure, the bail bonds industry isn’t the lifeblood of the State, so in that regard, yes, it is the “overwhelmingly superior armed force”, but the point of my initial comment was not to suggest anything to the contrary, only that, for many people who look at the alleged “success” of the current Police force, they’re looking at an incomplete picture. That is, you can’t point to the functions of the police and the courts and say “Well, it works well enough and its publicly funded” when a great deal of the work is performed privately.
Ah, I see your point.
An excellent example of this is the central State’s absolute impotence in the face of high seas’ piracy. They literally do not know what to do and they’re telling private business to hire security. What the hell are they supposed to do–mount howitzers on the bridge? I find this amusing, because once they do start hiring Blackwater escort ships and mounting howitzers on the bridge, people will start to ask what the hell we’re paying all these taxes for aircraft carriers for.
“Obviously geo8rge believes that Hitler”
As the number of posts increase some will eventually accuse someone of being a Nazi. I think it is easy to bring up Hitler. Pres Jackson (and the state of Georgia) ethnicly cleansed the Cherokee against the judgement of the US supreme court.
The Cherokee, the US government, and the state of Georgia still exist. You could argue that states other than Georgia were not resposible as there was less federal power back then. My point is people who winge about genocide and ethnic cleansing never seem to want to pay reparations for the actions of their own people. They always say that was justified, or so long ago, they already paid(with affirmative action), or whatever. If you believe slavery was theft in the ante-bellum south, pay reparations to the survivors. If you believe genocide and ethnic cleansing are theft/murder pay reparations to US victims. Since you like to talk about voluntary this and that, why don’t you pay what you think is your share of proper compensation to Slaves, American Indians/Native/Indiginous, or whoever.(assuming you are American) . The reality is you only think something is theft when something is being taken away from you, or you are not involved altogether (like Rwanda).
The same people who yap about Tibet would never re-install the Queen of Hawaii. Why not, having royalty might be good for tourism. It’s done wonders for Britain, Burger King, and Disney Land.
Stalin and Pol Pot. It is easy to criticize. It is not clear that world leaders have as much manouver room as you might think. Pol Pot inherited the most bombed country in history, Cambodia was devestated before he was incharge. He certainly made things worse, but he did not start with a jungle paradise, he started out with an already collapsed society.
The movie “Dawn Patrol” (1930 and 1938 remake) are interesting in that they have a group of young officers who constanly second guess their incompetent out of touch commander. When one of them is promoted, they do exactly the same things.
Or, they’re telling private businesses that they can’t hire security 
Uhm, geo8rge. You just made my point. Thanks.
That did not happen. But hey, if playing the victim helps you rhetorcially, have at it.
I’m not an American. Although I am always happy to compensate anyone for damages done.
Re-read your post. Incredible condemnation of government. Did you do it unintentionally? I’ve never seen someone refute themselves in that manner before.