A libertarian acquaintance of mine says he doesn’t support the use of violence against those who did not use violence against you. Now this is a more consistent approach than the mainstream libertarian approach which makes it okay to use violence in order to retrieve your property that is currently in the possession of someone else. His solution to dealing with thieves who don’t want to return your property is to ostracize them, or to take their property without using violence. What do you think about this?
I guess it all depends on how you define “violence”. I know there are people who would use that term synonymously with “coercion” and “force”…and even more who would consider apprehending someone and placing them in prison as falling under at least those last two terms.
I don’t think putting someone in prison for theft or fraud is or should be completely out of the question.
I hold almost the same view, haha. But again, what if it is impossible to get your property back peacefuly? Some people will choose to ostracize the criminal, some people will choose violent restitution you talkin above. What’s the problem exactly? Free market will decide which theory gets the biggest support.
I mean, I am more leaning towards ostracism than using violence even against the criminal, but again, it’s better (according to my view of objective morality) to use violence and get your property back than to use violence and cage the criminal behind bars and expect that he “pays the price to socieyt” and “changes” from sociapath to modest human being. That it is stupid, in my opinion. I am not saying you are implying this though.