I think so. Would you agree with this?
I think that in anarcho-capitalism there would de facto be a “right” to trial, because of all sorts of practical reasons, but that philosophically no such thing exists. It is an absolute necessity today because it is a way to hamper the state somewhat, but on the other hand in a situation where a monopoly on judiciary exists it can also hamper the pursuit of justice by entites not in position to give a trial.
Positive right has no coherent meaning Aside from that, the legal maxim is right to a fair trial. Which is negative because it means that you should not be tried unfairly. Of course, a trial can only be fair if it is optional, which discounts any real world trials. More like the state has a right to trial.
when the state will spend millions on prosecuting presidential blowjobs but basically forget that a president and former head of the cia was fooled by a republican pr firm into repeating lies about babies thrown from incuabators…maybe the state shouldnt have a right to anything?
but when bad things occur (people doing bad things) and the truth is sought concerning bad things i would think that cooler heads would be preferable for locating truth. perhaps rather than a right at best its an ideal that is hoped for.
I think the idea is that before they throw you into a dungeon they must give you a trial. So it is a positive right because it obliges the state to do something - go through a ritual called “a trial” - before they can do naughty things to you. So no extrajudicial killings and stuff.
But in reality a trial has nothing to do with it. You either deserve naughty things to be done to you, or you don`t.
It’s a good question
If we have a negative right to be free from force then the right to trial is really just an extension to the negative rights. Thus, before you can forcefully act to put me in a dungeon I must concede. A trial is in reality a concession. I believe I’m innocent of such charges that you believe me to be guilty. We agree to settle in a courtroom and thus accept whatever outcome. This is of course a cursory glance to how such a system would work but it serves as a point.
Well, negative rights entail derivative positive rights. See this for details.
I don`t share this opinion at all. I think you do not have to concede. You just have to be guilty.
I think in ancap you can simply assassinate a murderer who had killed someone close to you in a revenge killing without there necessarily being repercussions. You may find yourself tried for murder if other believe the assassinated individual did not commit the murder but if you can then establish that he indeed had committed the murder then you walk. You would not be charged with anything like failing to provide a trial before the legitimate assassination.
I mean ultimately it is similar to a scenario where a high profile Nazi is openly living in Franco’s Spain which refuses to hand him over. If he were to be assassinated it would be perfectly all right.
If you’re paying someone for protection, I hope they’ll insist on giving you a trial before turning you over.
Otherwise, if you’re on your own, you’re on your own.
I question this.
Think of a situation where a group of gun bearers are within the same vicinity. Someone fires a gun and kills a buddy; everyone pulls their gun in response to the gunshot. I would hate to think of that scenario under the shoot first, ask question second. Even in the case where there is probable cause judgment can be distorted–Think of the confusion of judgment from the twist and turns within a spy movie. Though you may site recent sources of the Wild West crime studies, I still don’t like the idea of force without a third party arbitrator.
…If we have a negative right to be free from force then the right to trial is really just an extension to the negative rights…
i dont know that a trial establishes a guilt or not. can trial verify events? sometimes i guess. i spoke to some guy that said he was locked up for 11 years only to have the fuckers say oops, we goofed. he may have been lying though but he didnt ask me for money or anything.
did he get a trial for those who put him away for 11 years. i doubt it.
so i would have to agree that a trail is just something some do to others…not a right.
if you consider a trial a method of determining truth then it just seems like any other scientific method but in a context of determining if other (sometimes subjective) rights have been infringed upon.
To clarify.
I agree with you that a trial is not a positive right. What I meant was that someone could opt for a trial and thus outsource their dilemma. They could do this to clear their name or because they believe they are innocent or there is not enough evidence to convict them. Since negative rights say that someone doesn’t have the right to be infringed upon without their consent, a trial is outsourcing their consent. Now, if they obey the verdict or if they refuse to go to trial to avoid punishment then we have another problem. Thus, a trial is still optional. It is not a mandatory right
There are no mandatory rights.
See my last comment.
What’s the argument?
From where did this mandate come?
Well yes in practice it is much safer to go the court route so that is how almost everyone would handle it. But from the moral aspect there is no difference. Making it mandatory to settle executions via private courts would be similar to making it mandatory to invest with one of the private retirement funds avaliable. It would mean it isn’t ancap anymore.