That’s OK - I started this thread for the specific purpose of off-topic conversation (hope that’s ok with the mods, hehe). Thanks for the post. Do you believe in the iluminati by any chance?
No, but you don’t need conspiracy theories to realize how messed and immoral government is.
I didn’t used to but now I do. However, I don’t believe in the Illuminati as some kind of “super-secret super-powerful society.” That’s definitely a myth.
But the idea of secret societies is actually quite ancient, so it’s rather absurd that “believing in” secret societies is treated as a sign of at least mild neurosis if not outright paranoid schizophrenia. Any sort of fraternal order usually has a tendency towards secrecy… priestly orders, criminal cartels, military fraternities, chivalric orders, and so on. In fact, if you want to learn about secret societies that certainly wield real power, look up chivalric orders… start with the Order of the Garter… just take a quick glance at its membership.
And, of course, there’s the Jesuits, probably the original “secret society” in the modern sense. I suspect that most of these new-fangled secret societies - Freemasons, Illuminati, etc. - were either started by the Jesuits or infiltrated by them. The Freemasons, especially, have a very “Catholicky” flavor about them.
Clayton -
Private, non-profit organizations were instrumental in saving the bison populations in the 1800s and 1900s American west. In fact, they were ahead of the government in these efforts.
I have to admit I’ve always been suspicious of these ‘conspiracy theory’ types but when you put it that way it does sound a lot more reasonable. Also, the Freemasons, as we all know have been around for a long time.
I just had a quick question or two for Libertarians;
(1) In light of the civil turmoil in Libya it appears that suppliers in both the UK and US have been supplying him the country with arms for a long time now. In the case of extreme humanitarian situations would you support state intervention to restrict arms trade over to military dictatorships? Or would you stick to your non-aggression principle and argue for laissez-faire - leave it be? Or is there a third way? Bad market reputation and so forth incurred in the free market. Arguably empowering authoritarian states goes against most libertarian principles in any case; the issue is when you desire to prevent the flow of weapons abroad using coercive powers…
P.s. I realise that the arms trade is vital for the economy.
Actually, I also agree. That’s why I’m against capital punishment by the state. Too many variables, too many prosecutors hiding evidence, etc. CP should only be used when there is concrete evidence to the murder. Maybe this would still be a problem in an uncap society? I don’t know.
The whole question of non-appealability of retaliatory execution is solved by strict liability… if someone commits a capital crime against you and you, in turn, execute the wrong person, you are liable for murder. People will be motivated not to wrongly accuse someone because, if it ends in execution of an innocent, they themselves will become liable for murder.
Clayton -
Respectfully, I disagree! 
Since after all, the problem that applies to the prosecutor (who becomes a ‘murder suspect’ himself) is the same problem that applied to the original murder (or rape) suspect in the first place!
My own position is that nothing is immoral about capital punishment provided that there is irrefutable evidence demonstrated (and I mean irrefutable CCTV footage, like with the crossbow killer in the UK who was captured on video taking prostitutes [soon to be victims] away in his car and branding his crossbow in front of surveillance shortly after killing them - it was he himself who referred to himself as ‘the crossbow killer’ rather smugly in court, thinking he would go down in history as some sort of legend) that proves the suspect is guilty. If there is irrefutable evidence, then there is no point giving the murder suspect a chance to reappeal, because we already know that he is guilty! If he is innocent, he should be put behind bars for the rest of his life unless new evidence comes to light in which case he has a chance to reappeal.
An example is Al Megrahi whom I believe was innocent; http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/christine-grahame-almegrahi-is-home-and-he-is-innocent-1776188.html . The thing the state controlled media don’t tell you about Al Megrahi is that it was not until he released a 300 page document of evidence that he was given a choice; (a) immediate release on grounds of ‘compassion’ or (b) attempt to reappeal (and try to release the document) and spend the rest of your life rotting in jail. Well, he would never have had the chance to reappeal had he gone through capital punishment. There was only inconclusive evidence, as I believe an EU (maybe UN?) spectator/official who witnessed the court at the time pointed out. I realise that private courts are more efficient but I obtain my stance on this.
Also, if the prosecutor is a good guy, just doing his job and trying to bring justice to the world, I believe he should be discredited if it is proved he was wrong (and maybe lose his job) but I think trying him on grounds of murder is going to far. You know that in Roman times, a prosecutor who launched a prosecution (and lost) was branded on his forehead - with a red hot iron - with a ‘K’ standing for a Latin word (can’t remember what it is) meaning ‘slanderer’?
So something similar to what you are suggesting has in fact been tried before! But respectfully, I think it is a bad idea…
P.s. I have noticed a tendency of some people to state that there would only be market demand for the most efficient form of prosecution (or other goods/services) in the free market but my problem is that, just like with democracy, people tend to have, lets say, ‘ill, uninformed, prejudiced opinions’. I’m not saying people in general are stupid but I fear that there would be market demand for exactly the kind of ‘services’ a lot of sane people could not even begin to imagine - which the entrepeneur would have to respond to.
Would that not be kidnapping and false imprisonment?? By what right do you imprison an innocent man based on your “suspicions” that he may have committed a crime? What if it were the other way around and you were the one behind bars for the rest of your natural life until some other scapegoat could be found?
The problem is that the prosecutor is a public prosecutor. He does not bear the costs of his own decisions. He is, in fact, explicitly legally immune for any actions he takes in his role as a prosecutor! Now you know why there are so many people in prison in the US.
Not the same at all. Getting branded on the head is nothing compared to losing your life. The difference between a public (immune) prosecutor and private (strictly liable) prosecution is almost impossible to overstate. Even your example above of “put him in prison for the rest of his life” would constitute a legal tort in a just legal system… you can’t imprison someone based on suspicion, that itself is a crime.
No, it is the public prosecutor who amplifies the demand for the “ill, uninformed, prejudiced opinions” of society precisely because he does not bear the costs of his own decisions (it’s not his children that are on trial and it’s not his money he’s spending to try people) so there is no reason for him to exercise restraint. His decisions become irrational in the economic sense of the word.
Clayton -
Holy …crap!!! I’m having conflicted feelings on whether this is sad or hilarious.
Clayton, firstly I think the prosecutor should be private and accountable for his actions, I just don’t think being accountable means he should suffer the death penalty (lose his job, credibility, money, perhaps?). For one thing, a lot of people would be too afraid to take up the role of prosecutor (at least not in cases of capital offences) in the first place, for another thing if he makes a mistake and prosecutes the wrong man, it is not necessarily because he intended to (action can no longer be deemed purposeful I believe). For instance, if I accidentally run over a small child who jumped out in the middle of the road, should I be hung? It often looks like someone is guilty, especially when all the evidence appears to point there, when they are later proved to be innocent. I can’t cite any specific cases but I’m not sure the prosecutor should be held accountable by death.
Also, I would prefer to be imprisoned and have the opportunity to reappeal or committ suicide in prison if that is my want than to have to suffer capital punishment for a crime I did not committ. I believe those who have been prosecuted should be presented with this alternative; life in prison or lethal injection/death by hanging/whatever. Their choice. The courts only imprison people who are highly likely to be guilty; it is most certainly immoral but the alternative is (a) they have to suffer death penalty and it later turns out they were innocent or (b) they are allowed to roam the streets. You asked me by what right I, the prosecutor (because I would have to be a prosecutor in this situation), imprison a man based on suspicion (not just my suspicion but the suspicion of those judges, jury members and other prosecution members of an established free market court system) alone and my answer would be to protect the individual rights of would-be victims.
Furthermore, I believe that free market prisons would be more humane because prisons could work to provide goods and services which could be sold by the prison manager on the open market and in turn the prisoner could receive higher quality of living and pay for prison maintainance and security himself (in fact there would be higher levels of security as a result and he would be protected from other prisoners and also he would be less able to escape the prison as a result). Even if he does not deserve this, there will be economic growth in the outside world as a result of selling his goods and services; he would be doing something good for a change.
There are so many inmates in American prisons partly because of the many, many social issues caused by statism, partly because they chuck them in there for stupid things and partly because, as you pointed out, they are public courts.
The situation is not even as black and white or straight forward as I myself put it above; what about crimes of passion? Should the woman who murdered her rapist be put to death? If no, since she was merely seeking retribution what if there is no clear evidence that her rapist in fact raped her? What if the jury believes her and a psychotic killer is let loose?
Prisons generally occur in a society because of the multitude of confusing variables that mean capital punishment as a simple alternative does not always cut it (unfortunately). If we knew for certain all those prosecuted on the charge of being rapists and murderers were guilty I would have no problem implementing capital punishment; we do not. That said, prosecutors will do a better job of gathering evidence and there will be technological growth, higher levels of security and more surveillance in the free market. So hopefully there will be less mistakes made. But people do not always act optimally.
Dark humour is sometimes the best way to bring humanity to a fundamentally evil situation.
Furthermore, I believe that free market prisons would be more humane because prisons could work to provide goods and services which could be sold by the prison manager on the open market and in turn the prisoner could receive higher quality of living and pay for prison maintainance and security himself (in fact there would be higher levels of security as a result and he would be protected from other prisoners and also he would be less able to escape the prison as a result). Even if he does not deserve this, there will be economic growth in the outside world as a result of selling his goods and services; he would be doing something good for a change.
The ideals created out of free market theory sound so magical and lovely, don’t they?
In reality free market prisons have been and will be nothing more than legalized slave labor. States do it as well. it’s wrong when they do it, and just because it is private doesn’t make it any more right!
(Sometimes I think free marketeers would be perfectly ok with everything about the status quo if it made a proit)
Oh dear, we’re at it again… this should be fun.
That’s exactly what it would be. In my opinion, this is a whole lot better than the current system of free room and board that is currently given to criminals.
Epicurus prefers socialist prisons over free market ones, lol.
Alternatively we could just let murderers and rapists walk free
Then it would be a legalised prison for everyone!
But you’re trapped in the statist mindset - who says that there ought to be specially designated “prosecutors” and that someone has to step up to fill this role?? If someone kills your wife and you think i did it, the dispute is between you and me. That is, you want revenge (to kill me) and I want to prove my innocence. “Prosecution” is a wholly statist idea. It’s just a lawsuit and you have your lawyer and I have mine.
“Greater good” is a useless argument in a dispute between two people… anyone can claim to be working “for the greater good”.
Prisons are wholly statist entities. Why would anyone bother imprisoning anyone in a free market??
They are chucked into prison for stupid things precisely because the police, prosecutors and courts are publicly funded. The decision makers do not feel the costs of their stupidity.
How is killing someone who raped you “murder”?? Even if you did it after the act was completed, I don’t see how it’s murder.
I think you’re getting into details that are not relevant. The point is that when people do not feel the costs of their own decisions, bad decisions get made. If lots of bad decisions are being made, you can surmise that somewhere, people are not feeling the costs of their bad decisions.
Before the advent of the modern State, most disputes were settled with some form of economic compensation from the aggressor to the victim (not the State). Even gross crimes, such as murder, were settled with monetary payments at times.
I look at it differently… by what right does anyone interfere with a victim carrying out lawful retribution against his or her aggressor? In the case of a gross crime (rape, murder, etc.), homicide has long been considered proportionate retaliation until recently (again, with the advent of the modern superstate which has monopolized all forms of punishment). So “death penalty” is a statist misnomer… it’s simply retribution… and in the case of gross offenses, that retribution may take the form of homicide.
Clayton -
It would also solve the issue of prison overcrowding and lack of prisons. Taxpayers no longer have to fund prisons; prisoners do so themselves.
That’s exactly what it would be. In my opinion, this is a whole lot better than the current system of free room and board that is currently given to criminals.
In my opinion they are both crap. Look into the “prison abolition movement.”
But I have to say I find it quite barbaric to see someone think that a somewhat humane prison is worse than legalized slave labor. Of course, Im almost certain this stance won’t continue to be held when it is them falsely accused of a crime, or even convicted of a crime they actually did.
There are far more humane ways to deal with crime than either slave labor or prisons.
“Socialist prison” doesn’t even make sense. Not even the USSR had prisons as we think of them. They had labor and re-education camps.
Don’t be so certain mi amigo, whether prisons are five star hotels or Jersey flop houses, I’m almost certain that’s the last thing arrested individuals care about.
The only reason they have “high class” luxury’s is because of tax payers money. In a free market no one in their right mind would be interested in funding a 5star hotel prison, unless it can produce a revenue, that is…
Go on, say it’s cruel, I dare you!!!haha