SC,
If you’re going to have a police force (state or private), shouldn’t their role be to apprehand a suspect? As I described, what he did was not out of self-defense. Hanging someone might be out of self-defense, but shouldn’t that be decided by procedural law?
I have no problem with vigilantism. If I lived in Arizona in the 1880s and saw a shopkeeper beating (within proportion) a kid with a stick for stealing from his shop I would tip my hat to him and say “howdy Mister”.
That would be barbaric. If you actually wanted to create a better future then there are other routes to pursue. A child who is stealing has serious problems. The certain way to make the situation worse is by creating even more trauma.
But you’ve effectively dodged my question. I said if we have developed a procedural institution (state or market), resorting to taking the law in your own hands based on emotional outbursts is bad.
I have no problem with “vigilantism” - that is, keeping of the peace by law-abiding citizens instead of tax-fed bureaucrats armed to the teeth riding around in air-conditioned patrol cars. But what is at issue here is what happens when the victim of an assault charges his aggressor. If I lay down on the ground and surrender but get kicked - very hard - in the head by a man wearing combat boots, that is an assault and I should be able to get justice from my aggressor. If my aggressor were a private citizen performing a citizen’s arrest on me, I would likely succeed in my claim on justice. But if my aggressor happens to be wearing a police uniform, there will be no justice because he is granted legal immunity by the courts and the justice department. That is the problem. Read the details of the case. The cop got off because police policy authorizes use of a “distraction blow” which is what he claims he was doing. That is total BS, the kick had the cop’s entire weight behind it and you see the trauma of the kick register when the victim reflexively pulls his head into his shoulder-pit while still attempting to remain in the spread-eagle surrender position. Later in that video, another officer arrives with his night stick drawn and crouches down, striking him twice for no good reason. The guy was clearly surrendering, he was not “resisting arrest” - as if that were a crime in itself.
These cops were high on adrenaline after the high-speed pursuit - a legally questionable behavior in itself - and, knowing that public ire is directed unconditionally against people who “run”, they let off some steam, under cover of the procedural “distraction blow” and “inducing compliance with arrest” and other such bullshit.
Vigilantism is fine but strict legal liability ought to be in place at all times for all individuals without exception. If you hit someone and that person charges you, you had better be able to legally justify your striking that person without resort to bullshit defenses like, “I’m a cop” or “My union says that is within policy” and so on. The courts provide legal immunity to the cops because the cops are the courts’ leg-breakers. Think about it.
Clayton -
I think of police brutality like the Wizard of Oz - everybody looks at the big, loud scary images of the cops beating the shit out of innocent people and they think that’s the problem… bad cops. Or maybe cops shouldn’t dress in combat uniforms or drive armored vehicles or whatever. These are all just the exterior. The real culprit is the judge, hiding behind the curtain of his law degree, the bar and his robes. The goons in the street are just enforcers of the policies the judge permits the police to operate by. And the judge looks to popular opinion (yes, they do) to see what the market of public outrage will bear. Since old people were brainwashed by the schools and government propaganda to believe that anyone who has ever been in the presence of a marijuana leaf is a child-killing, psychopathic drug-pusher, almost any abuse of someone caught with a blunt in their car is unlikely to raise public anger. So the police are given massive leeway in how they handle drug arrests. But that leeway ultimately comes from the judges, the cops do not make their own rules.
We should really be getting pissed off at the judges. Yeah, the cops are scum but they couldn’t get away with being scum without the implicit approval of the judiciary.
Clayton -
Clayton, you seem to misunderstand me. I don’t think any of these events were justified. I am merely trying to get across the point that the videos by themselves are not enough to conclude that an injustice has occured (without the context).
There is nothing barbaric about the spontaneous administration of justice. Even in a world with PDAs, how would a PDA stop you from enacting justice without infringing on your liberties. Claiming that spontaneous justice requires “emotional outbursts” is simply a strawman. I never said that it was a good idea to be guided soley by your emotions when you would be dealing out justice to the guilty.
It should be noted that any innocent person has the freedom to defend themselves from the states goons and can use deadly force to do so. If someone busts into your house with weapons drawn, you are in the right if you mow them down with your automatic weapons. The fact that you smoke dope or have “illegal weapons” makes no difference to the justice of the issue.
No, we should be pissed at the cops. To illustrate: Sure, Obama is an awful guy. But ultimately he just signs some papers and makes some speeches. So what? He’s not the person doing the actual killing. Yes, he has culpability because all these guys listen to what he orders. But surely the people doing the actual crimes should be the ones deserving the most disapproval.
The cops should be asked why it’s moral to kidnap and cage someone for smoking a plant. If they are affraid to answer, then the situation is perfectly clear. There is really no point in asking the intellectuals or judges, as their job, reputation and self-image depends on it.
It turns out that the particular woman was not the only one who had this treatment, and women in the area are regularly picked up by the cops and stripped naked for their sick pleasure.
The whole thing is just so surreal. It is outright methodical and systematic sexual exploitation by police for their strange sense of amusement, with absolutely no restraint. For all we know, far worse things would have been done to the other women who later came forward.
Sometimes I wish a giant burning crater would appear all over the North American continent, cleanse it, and tear it away from this planet. Yes, very un-libertarian hyperbole, but my goodness - United States is the only First World nation that doesn’t behave like a First World nation. It’s like Argentina during Peron - a rich developed nation in transition towards decadent Third World style sadism and senseless violence.
Normally, a First World nation would be defined by ideals of moderation and peace - the kind exhibited by Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, or Western Europe. The kind worse nations can look up to as better ideals for which they can strive. United States is a grotesque anamoly - a rich and powerful nation that is the exact opposite. and somehow still remains sustainable, and even exports its brutality. Normally, such deep immorality tends to send nations backwards. You don’t find many Third World nations which aren’t known for pervasive dishonesty and disrespect for civil order, often by authorities themselves. But United States is an exception - a case where backward barbaric practices don’t send the nation backward.
And hence, I see many Indians saying that India would be better off if its government tried to be as brutal as American authorities are.
By throwing you out of their clientele and giving you a bad rating.
Hans Hoppe - A Private Law Society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzglDS88u50
There is nothing just about beating people who aren’t a direct threat. You either punish them economically, you treat them psychologically, or you remove them from society. Neither of those involves beating up on someone.
Revenge is not just. It is counterproductive, backwards and barbaric.
@Prateek: Well, I think it is a mistake to portray other First World governments as qualitatively more humane or rights-conscious than the US government. Perhaps they have fewer violations but the nature and degree to which all governments inherently violate the rights of their citizens is always massive. Implicit in the idea of taxation is state-ownership of even the very bodies of its subjects. Should the state decide to dispose of one of those bodies, the only real loss has been the hit it will take in tax revenues. In taking (or torturing) a life, the State has only taken to the logical end that power which it already exercises in taxation.
Clayton -
I think you have bought into the government lie that only large specialized organizations can enact justice. I agree that modern man’s justice skills have atrophied to a considerable extent thanks to the monopolization of it by government, but for most of history unjust acts were successfully punished by private actors and their allies (and these skills can be relearned if the state would pull back). In the past (say, in the Middle Ages), governments didn’t even discourage this because it saved them money (think Medieval Communes). This changed only recently because states figured out that monopolizing justice could increase its legitimacy.
That’s your defence for beating up a child who is too poor or too neglected to understand the value of property rights and trade? It’s private therefore it’s just?
Come on.. you’re sidestepping my questions.
@Nielsio, where did I say because something is private it is just? That wasn’t my claim, therefore you are creating a strawman. I am saying that simply because it isn’t a specialized institution doesn’t mean that it is “revenge” or “barbaric”. Notice how I said “in proportion” when I was talking about beating a kid for stealing.
There is nothing unjust about privately enforcing rules against torts.
@Nielsio,Solid_Choke: You guys are really debating a pretty large undecided issue in libertarian philosophy, namely, whether retaliatory punishment is ever justifiable. My view, in two words, is yes but. Yes, retaliation can be justifiable but there is no way to know what is the correct degree of retaliatory force for a given action without a competitive market in law which can produce impartial legal norms regarding the use of retaliatory force. There is a fine line between justifiable retaliatory force and a new crime. Every action an individual takes against another individual should always be liable to dispute in court, meaning, if I think you have committed a “crime” against me and I retaliate against you, my retaliatory act is as much a subject for legal dispute as is your original “crime”. Maybe you did commit a crime maybe you didn’t. And maybe my retaliation against you was justified, maybe it wasn’t. But neither of us should be shielded from legal liability for any of our actions.
Long, Rothbard (I think Hoppe) and many other heavyweight libertarian philosophers disagree with the view that retaliatory force can be justified. In part, I think it is a failure to take the idea of market-based production of law seriously. All libertarians who oppose the use of retaliatory force come to their conclusion on the basis of a rational derivation of rights based on abstract norms. While I think rational rights arguments are extremely important and would dominate legal practice in a competitive law market, in the end, people will do what they will do. That is, law must grapple with the reality that humans are violent and the ends to which human beings believe violence is justifiable does not always conform with rational analysis of rights theory.
Rothbard presents an acidic critique of statutory violations of individual rights by pointing out that no one would accept as “justified” the murder of all red-heads based on a majority vote. This, he argues, shows that there is a higher standard than law, that is, reason. However, I think in this argument Rothbard fails to distinguish between customary law (market-based law) and statutory law. While it would still not be acceptable for red-heads to be murdered even if the common law allowed it (and common law has often permitted egregious violations of individual rights), what is important is that common law has never permitted the murder of red-heads. Mob law (democratic statute) has authorized many such acts of mass-murder. The difference between statutory law and customary law is that customary law is usually much closer to strict liability where every individual is always liable for his actions - and, in the absence of a state, the costs of one’s actions cannot be exported onto others through systematic tax plunder. When people are liable for their own actions and bear the full costs of their own legal disputes, social aggression tends to a minimum.
Clayton -
I agree. This video may be less dramatic, but it reveals the deeper evil. The speaker is California attorney Richard Fine, exposing how LA county pays state judges to throw cases in favor of the county. Later, Fine was arrested and jailed by the LA county Sheriff’s Department, and they covered it up with false records that he was “hospitalized.” Here is the news report. This is what happens to dissidents in China…
I have no problem with vigilantism. If I lived in Arizona in the 1880s and saw a shopkeeper beating (within proportion) a kid with a stick for stealing from his shop I would tip my hat to him and say “howdy Mister”.
@Solid_Choke: That isn’t a proportional response. That someone might think it is and leave themselves open to later punishment is a good reason for the division of labor and specialized justice/security firms.
There is nothing just about beating people who aren’t a direct threat. You either punish them economically, you treat them psychologically, or you remove them from society. Neither of those involves beating up on someone.
Revenge is not just. It is counterproductive, backwards and barbaric.
Nielsio, why should a victim have to pay for a criminal’s psych treatment? It is very important to understand the primacy of punishment over restitution (see teh main argumentation ethics thread). A “civilized” (I mean this in the sense of those who desire to save the rainforests or the whales) system of justice, in order to maintain a facade of libertarianism, would have to resort to handing out judgements by attempting to calculate restitution as if they were able to actually proportionally punish. Rather than initiate a dialogue between aggressor and victim to find agreement on restitution, in lieu of actually beating the criminal half to death (or whatever is the appropriate maximum punishment), an arbitrator takes a guess at what the two would have agreed upon given the chance.
There’s serious problems with this approach. Read David Friedman on what would happen if capital punishment was disallowed. A thief who would anticipate life in prison for his crimes has no incentive to not commit murder along the way if the punishment for that is also life in prison.
While I think rational rights arguments are extremely important and would dominate legal practice in a competitive law market, in the end, people will do what they will do. That is, law must grapple with the reality that humans are violent and the ends to which human beings believe violence is justifiable does not always conform with rational analysis of rights theory.
Clayton, this is why Long fails at formulating legal theory. Legal philosophy and jurisprudence are separate disciplines with entirely different methodologies. It’s also why I just roll my eyes when Mises, the “thicks”, etc. conflate political action with legal action, or get hung up on “subjective value judgments”, which have no place in legal philosophy.
ER,
I didn’t say the victim should pay. The aggressor could pay with his money or belongings (or else be excluded from society). The aggressor could pay through working it off. Someone else could pay voluntarily (a prospective caretaker, or a charity).
For anyone who’s not willing to beat up children, I’m willing to discuss the whole matter on Skype.
I don’t know what you imagined what I meant, but I most defintitely do not believe it would be unjust to spank a kid or rap on his legs with a stick for stealing. I even said “within proportion” to make it clear that I wasn’t talking about a severe beating. Try to be a little more charitable next time you try interpreting what I’m saying.
How would you “remove” them without using violence? What if they resist? Letting a PDA “remove” someone doesn’t prevent violence, it just means someone else is doing the violence (the PDA). There is definitely a place for PDAs, but spontaneous enforcement of the rules can be very efficient and create a more humane society by lowering the expected amount of time from crime to punishment (which, because criminals have high time preference, works better than even more severe punishments that won’t come until later). Again, I don’t think most people would do a good job at spontaneous justice because they are so used to letting the state do it, but it is something that can be learned and is a valuable skill for those living in orderly anarchy.
Nielsio, there’s some prison in the US that started charging its prisoners $40/day for their stay due to budget pressures. Yes, rather than being paid from government’s magic pot of gold, those who were destitute and non-compliant with jailers would probably be exiled. There’s actually some problems with traditional exile though. I think we would see something like the Panamanian prison in Prison Break for prisoners who refused to work off their debt and were continually violent.
If you have time, I suggest reading Foucalt’s Discipline and Punish for a little background on how punishment has changed in the last ~150 years. I think that institutions would develop to buy out victims of children or the insane, but it sounded like you meant it was on the victim. The “premium for scaring” aspect of proportionality would probably develop into a rating system, with institutions buying out that portion in exchange for charity work or as part of insurance contracts. Any system that both hastens restitution (perhaps at a reduced percent to the victim) and gets criminals out of prisons or work camps would be in demand.
I’m not sure what you are talking about beating up children. Maybe a parent will assume responsibility for children, but generally speaking, being of a certain age doesn’t evaporate responsibility for crimes fully.
I don’t know what you imagined what I meant, but I most defintitely do not believe it would be unjust to spank a kid or rap on his legs with a stick for stealing. I even said “within proportion” to make it clear that I wasn’t talking about a severe beating. Try to be a little more charitable next time you try interpreting what I’m saying.
How was I supposed to be more charitable SC? What you are saying is wrong. When what you mean by “proportional” is “roughly equivalent” or “not too extreme”, it sort of makes sense but is still inappropriate punishment.
I figured you were talking about libertarian proportionality (see also this from page 12). Talking about children can only complicate the issue, but given that the “child” was aware that what they were doing was wrong, the appropriate punishment is the same. If you were talking about your own child, then it it is on you as a guardian to assign punishment, up to not permanently maiming a child for a lesser offense.
When you are talking about someone stealing a candy bar from a shopkeeper, and not spanking or rapping the shopkeeper on the knees, the beating is not an appropriate response because it isn’t what was done to the shopkeeper.
ER,
How do you justify beating someone? Speaking in generalities about responsibility is not enough.