Kinsella posted a criticism of Block’s & Rothbard’s ‘two teeth for a tooth’ principle, by Mr. Vladislav Gluhovsky, here. Gluhovsky suggests that the punishment of a criminal should be adjusted by the inverse of the likelihood that the criminal will get caught.
Isn’t punishment for criminals just another service to be provided in the free market? So who’s to say what SHOULD be the proper punishment ,except for the consumers.
Punishment necessarily requires invading rights, so it isn’t “just a service”.
On the critique, I look forward to reading it later today.
OK I read it and I have to say it is hilarious and absurd. Case in point: “…nobody would support a law that makes theft profitable.” How ridiculous! It’s not the law that makes theft profitable! The purpose of the law is to outline what is legal or not. The law doesn’t create profit! The thief profits due to his skill and the lack of skill on the part of the watchman. If he is caught stealing a chicken, then that is what he is punished for. What a nutcase article that you posted.
Further, “two teeth for a teeth” is derived from the fact that a criminal must 1) be made compensate for what he has violated (first tooth) and 2) he loses his rights to the extent that he violated others (second tooth).
Not necessarily, once it has been determined by a court that the criminal has indeed committed a crime, given that this crime was a violation of someone else’s rights, doesn’t the criminal thus forsake his own rights to the extent to which he violated another’s?
Which btw fits perfectly fine with the two teeth for a tooth doctrine, given that the criminal must first return what was stolen, and then also experience equally what he perpetrated.
Feel free to correct me though, I haven’t really studied this.
It seems like sort of a play on words. Rothbard says he “loses” his rights to the extent that he violates those of others. Therefore, it is legal to aggress against him to that extent. But if he doesn’t have those rights – to that extent – then it can’t be called “aggressing”. So call it what they will i guess, the result is the same – the criminal is properly punished.