Take this example. I was negligent when I built a football stadium, so the roof fell down and killed 100 people. Now the heir of each such victim demands a retributive damage. Since I had no intent to kill these people, let’s say my fault is relatively minor. If I had killed 1 person I would serve maybe 1 year in jail, now with 100 victims I’d serve 100 years. Now I agree with you that I should provide compensation to all the victims (that is my insurance company will provide them), but I have a problem with retributive damage. I don’t believe such person will deserve 100 years in jail. On the other hand the libertarian individual justice demands that. What do you think?
In what way were you negligent?
I know what you are driving at, but let’s assume for the purpose of this question that I was negligent.
Why should someone serve a jail sentence?
Ok, well assuming by negligent you mean that you didn’t buy the best materials or something then a fine of some sort or compensation to the victims would be the consequence.
The question is not about this though. You can take assault as example, not negligence. The question is about the harshness in the multiplication of the retributive damage in case there were multiple victims, that’s the point.
How about you take extra care about not being negligent then aye?
Would it not be the case that it provides incentives for sound structures, buildings, places be built and checked constantly in a free society?
It may look harsh, but unless punishment is roughly proportional to the aggression, be it unwilling, there’s no way in which we can rationally judge how much safety are we willing to pay for. So, yep, he’ll have to pay 100 times the sum of money.
I think that libertarian justice does not demand jail time.
Funnily enough, you advocate the exact opposite when intentional aggression occurs.
I have no problem whatsoever with paying 100 times the money. It is very reasonable. I have a problem with receiving 100 times the retributive damage. This does not seem just to me.
I believe the trend in the arbitration market, just as in any market, would be to monetize everything. So I suspect that jail time in any for would disappear from an anarchic market. If its not in money, we cannot calculate.
I don’t think everything will be monetary. I’m sure many victims would prefer retribution. So my question remains unanswered. What if 100 victims demand retribution? I don’t think a person who was negligent and killed 100 people deserves 100 times more retributive damage than a person who was negligent and killed 1 person.
Even in non-monetary terms, if we agree that 100 relatives can punish the guilty party not more than a single relative can, we throw calculation out of the window. Is it the same to involuntarily cause the failure of a car’s brakes (say, I’m the mechanic) and to involuntarily cause the failure of a plane’s flaps? Of course not. It may seem harsh, but I’d give (not cause!) 499 car accidents to save one plane with 500 people from crashing. While non-proportional retribution equates a car accident with a plane crash, and would probably disappear from the arbitration market, if it anyone even takes it into consideration.
No, the calculation is wrong. If you get 50 years in jail or 500 years it won’t change the calculation. I think anything that involves serious jail time is already a deterrent, so multiplying it especially by such ridiculous numbers as 100 or 1000, or even 1,000,000 for nuclear disaster won’t achieve higher deterrence.
Good point. Beyond certain numbers, punishment makes no sense. And so what? This seems to be a fact of life: one man’s life ha sonly as much value, factoring in everything. This would hardly seem a good justification to do away with proportional punishment at all. If we can calculate within a certain band of damage but not further, so be it. I see no reason to do away with calculation within the band too.
If anything, this would only make a stronger case for liability insurance as a central tenet of a libertarian society, which has always been my strong belief. If you cannot be punished for killing a million folks, you can give compensation to the victims kin. So, beyond certain numbers, its either monetary compensation or nothing at all, while within the band one can also opt for physical revenge.
So if a person was negligent and killed 100 people he will be capitally punished, and if he killed only 2 people he will serve a few years in jail? I don’t think this is just.
If the victim’s kin think like you, they’ll take the money and leave him be to his own sense of guilt. But if you and I (I agree) are in a tiny-tiny minority, that’s what the market will do.