Incorrect. In that passage Rothbard is assuming that those police are working on behalf of the victim. An agent of the victim is not an “outside party”.
“Aristotle lays the foundations for his political theory in Politics book I by arguing that the city-state and political rule are ‘natural.’ The argument begins with a schematic, quasi-historical account of the development of the city-state out of simpler communities. First, individual human beings combined in pairs because they could not exist apart. The male and female joined in order to reproduce, and the master and slave came together for self-preservation. The natural master uses his intellect to rule, and the natural slave uses his body to labor. Second, the household arose naturally from these primitive communities in order to serve everyday needs. Third, when several households combined for other needs a village emerged also according to nature. Finally, ‘the complete community, formed from several villages, is a city-state, which at once attains the limit of self-sufficiency, roughly speaking. It comes to be for the sake of life, and exists for the sake of the good life.’” ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/supplement3.html )
“Political science studies the tasks of the politician or statesman (politikos), in much the way that medical science concerns the work of the physician (see Politics IV.1). It is, in fact, the body of knowledge that such practitioners, if truly expert, will also wield in pursuing their tasks. The most important task for the politician is, in the role of lawgiver (nomothetês), to frame the appropriate constitution for the city-state. This involves enduring laws, customs, and institutions (including a system of moral education) for the citizens. Once the constitution is in place, the politician needs to take the appropriate measures to maintain it, to introduce reforms when he finds them necessary, and to prevent developments which might subvert the political system. This is the province of legislative science, which Aristotle regards as more important than politics as exercised in everyday political activity such as the passing of decrees (see ENVI.8).” ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/ )
I don’t think we, as humans, need an institution outside of the free market to help foster such affairs.
Yeah, force corrupts the responsibilities of each individual. I think that’s why there are so many criminals in this society. People are not even given the chance in many places to be responsible. Of course there will still be criminals, but on the scale this culture currently corrupts each person it’s easy to see how people are corrupted by the State system into irresponsibility. I’ve come across individuals by working in the criminal sector of this culture that I could clearly see that their parents and they themselves were forced into very difficult positions by the workings of this State. The State, at times, is a force that works against an individual trying to be responsible. It’s sad.
I agree on everything you say except I don’t think we need a government monopoly that is anti-competitive for a law that prohibits the initiation of force to exist. It’s that one sticky point. All else that you say seems excellent!
Ah…the idiotic notion of the Monopolistic Final Arbiter.
Stop begging the question, Steph. Stop presuming that there needs to be such a thing. Stop refusing to show that a monopolist is better than competition when both praxeologically and historically competition is always better.
The police are an outside party. Since the victim was murdered there was no way for the victim to ask the police to work on his/her behalf. In a libertarian society there wouldn’t even be police but hired enforcement agents and a dead victim can’t hire or get anyone to do anything on their behalf unless he/she foresaw his/her death. Also in what I quoted, Rothbard said that the police would have to act by the same standard as anyone else in the same situation which is pretty much implying that outside parties or anyone can take on criminals as long as they are guilty and the punishment proportional to the crime. If you replace the word “police” with “batman” or “citizen Joe” it would be the same situation. In the end, actions by a third party can be justified by your criteria just by saying that he/sh was punishing the criminal on the victim’s behalf . Just like the police who were never in contact with the victim and were responding after the victim’s death.
**“**That means that police, in a libertarian society, must take their chances like anyone else; if they commit an act of invasion against someone, that someone had better turn out to deserve it, otherwise they are the criminals.”
This quote clearly implies that anyone can punish guilty criminals. He is pretty much saying if you use force on somebody else, the person being punished better deserve it or you are a criminal yourself. If you read the whole essay you would see that there is no reference to the victim asking the police to work on his/her behalf. Even if you think that the police are always working on everyone’s behalf the quote above quickly dispels that. Since “anyone else” means anyone else Anyone else is not always working on the victim’s behalf by state decree like the police is. Then there is the whole thing about the police being law enforcement and not agents of protection as ruled by the federal courts which completely rules out any implied contract (which in itself goes against libertarian ethics) between citizens and the police/state.
It also makes sense that people can pursue retribution on guilty parties. The victim is dead so there was no way for the police to act on the behalf of the victim. If you did need need to work under someone else’s behalf then that would leave a huge loophole for criminals. Any criminal can just kill their victim before they can ask for retribution and be scott free since nobody else would be justified in punishing the criminal even though dozens witnessed the crime and no cry for help was heard.
Say you were in a crowded mall and you shot someone in the back of the head and robbed him. The victim who was caught by surprise could not ask anyone to take vengence on their behalf. The criminal then can just walk away like nothing happened without fear of retribution from anyone else in the mall. Since the only person that can bestow the act of retribution on the behalf of the victim is the guy with a hole in hishead.