Suppose that I am very rich man in an anarcho-capitalist society, I am the richest man in the world and I own trillions of dollars. Then one day a poor manic rapes and kills my mother. In this case I wouldn’t want to just put him in jail, I would want to torture him and inflict the most pain possible to every inch of his body. If I owned a big military company, there would be nothing stopping me from torturing this guy… Even if he had a company to defend him, the money that I would be willing to spend to have this guy under my control would make it impossible for his company to protect him from torture… I don’t think that is moral.
You’re right, but under our current system this is even easier. Bribing key people wouldn’t cost you trillions.
Does that happen in the US today?
The media would publish that, and people would put too much pressure on the government…
And what exactly do you think would happen in an anarcho-capitalist territory? Everyone would just sit back and twiddle their thumbs?
I think this is also a related article, which I recommend reading, entitled “Wouldn’t Rich People Go On Murder Sprees In a System of Private Law?":
So what about girls who were born in a fundamentalist Muslim community into which they were locked, would they depend on the charity of outsiders to be rescued too?
As opposed to depending on outsider thieves and murderers?
Perhaps you should reconsider just where the immorality lays.
Fairy tale premise but ok.
Accept this man’s PDA. Not to mention if you go on all out war with this guy what do you thinks going to do with your customer base for your security or insurance agency. Your going to lose all your customers and you won’t have much left to fund your war for long. By your logic I doubt you will have ever amassed trillions and if you had, based on what your telling us here, your quickly establishing a public smear campaign against yourself.
No one’s going to do business with security firm such as yours after you perform such an action.
Why would a PDA go on all out war? It’s the most counter-productive counter profitable thing one could do. It also wouldn’t last long and despite your wealth your PDA would loose as you’d essentially be a rogue PDA. All other insurence agencies would add you and your employees to their blacklist.
Your subscribers will leave you destroying your revenue. Also have you thought about what your employees will do? Do you think they’re just going to continue to work for you while you run a death campaign? No, half your ‘army’ will quit if not all of them. You’ll have to bribe all your money way to keep only the scoundrels. The rest who don’t want to feel the repercussions of society will leave you.
Also how do you plan on spending your wealth when the majority of society no longer wants to do business with you? Wealth is a reflection of your purchasing power. Gold, Fiat, or anything else by itself is entirely worthless. Gold doesn’t make food, or shelter. You’ll be forced to go black market(If such a thing could exist in ancap) to buy anything. Even as a rich man the cost of doing business for you will skyrocket. Your plan falls on its own head.
Why would other PDA’s engage you in war? In fact it’s just plain stupid. Instead the opposing PDA may make a concession that it’s member subscriber did something wrong. Even after going through private arbitration but your open aggression will make you and your company public enemy number one across an entire society numbering a collective body of PDA’s. You will fail and the only one who is immoral is you and your company for being vengful.
You haven’t proven to us that anarcho capitalism justifies the vengeful. All you’ve proven is attempted to construct a pathetic strawman built from a fairy tale. You’ve also allowed us to demonstrate how evil men conceivable get their justification far more legitimately and timely as opposed to a statist system.
Whats most annoying is you make it apparent that you’ve done next to no reading on the topic.
Are you enlisted in the military? Perhaps you should be.
Are you advocating that we should police the world? Do you realize that is a form of welfarism for the entire globe? Paid for by you and your productivity?
What the hell is subjective law anyways? Do you even know what subjective means?
You’ve come here and posed a strawman. You have no intention of cracking open a book and actually researching what you advocate or what your arguing against. You are plainly a troll.
And you would be justified in doing so.
Punishment and Proportionality - Rothbard
Punishment and Proportionality - The Estoppel Approach by Kinsella
The criminal is a murderer… he killed someone, he took their life. He now lost the right to his own.
B. The Victim’s Options
"At this point we have established the basic right to one’s body and to property homesteaded or acquired from a homesteader, as well as the contours of the basic requirement of proportionality in punishment. We now further consider the various types of punishment that can be justly administered.
As has been shown, a victim of aggression may inflict on the aggressor at least the same level or type of aggression, although proportionality imposes some limits on the permissible level of retaliation. In determining the maximum amount and type of punishment that may be applied, the distinction between victim and victimizer must be kept in mind, and we mustrecognize that, for most victims (i.e. those who are not masochists), punishing the wrongdoer does not genuinely make the victim whole and does not directly benefit the victim very much, if at all. A victim who has been shot in the arm by a robber and who has thus lost his arm is clearly entitled, if he wishes, to amputate the robber’s own arm. But this, of course, does not restore the victim’s arm; it does not make him whole. Perfect restitution is always an unreachable goal, for crimes cannot be undone.
This is not to say that the right to punish is therefore useless, but we must recognize that the victim remains a victim even after retaliating against the wrongdoer. No punishment can undo the harm done. For this reason the victim should not be artificially or easily restricted in his range of punishment options, because this would be to further victimize him. The victim did not choose to be made a victim, did not choose to be placed in a situation where he has only one narrow punishment option (namely, eye-for-an-eye retaliation). On the contrary, the responsibility for this situation is entirely that of the aggressor, who by his action has damaged the victim. Because the aggressor has placed the victim in a no-win situation where being restricted to one narrow type of remedy may recompense the victim even less than other remedies, the aggressor is estopped from complaining if the victim chooses among varying types of punishment, subject to the proportionality requirement.
In practice this means that, for example, the victim of assault and battery need not be restricted to only having the aggressor beaten (or even killed). The victim may abhor violence, and might choose to forego any punishment at all if his only option was to either beat or punish the aggressor. The victim may prefer, instead, to simply be compensated monetarily out of any (current or future) property of the wrongdoer. If the victim will gain more satisfaction from using force against the aggressor in a way different than the manner in which the aggressor violated the victim’s rights (e.g. taking property of an aggressor who has beat the victim), the aggressor is clearly estopped from complaining about this, as long as proportionality is satisfied."
And? You assume someone would be justified in stopping you.
That is your personal opinion, which is subjective. That is fine.
What we are dealing with though, is a political ethic which is objective.
We are not herewith concerned whether it is moral or immoral for someone to lie, to be a good person, to develop his faculties, or be kind or mean to his neighbors [OR the extent to which a criminal should be punished]. We are concerned, in this sort of discussion, solely with such “political ethical” questions as the proper role of violence, the sphere of rights, or the definitions of criminality and aggression. Whether or not it is moral or immoral for “Smith” — the fellow excluded by the owner from the plank or the lifeboat — to force someone else out of the lifeboat, or whether he should die heroically instead, is not our concern, and not the proper concern of a theory of political ethics.[5]
He’s not.
By subjective I meant “distorted by emotions”… The law is subjective because it is moved by the emotions of the customer of the PDA, instead of an objective and impartial judgement of right and wrong by people who are not involved in the matter… In this case the emotion is vengefulness of the PDA owner.
But if you think about it the common law is a bit based on the emotions of the jury, and the civil law is based on the emotions of politicians…
Hmm… I guess I never really thought about it that way… I’ll read an entire book about the subject and I’ll see what I think.
Now I’m gonna make myself some pancakes.
How is state arbitration any more impartial, objective, or subjective than private? For that matter how is arbitration NOT subject to the thoughts and emotions of men? Are judge’s robots? Last I checked they were still human.
But his vengence does not constitute him practicing a law. You are convluting various terms into one. You need to understand what positive actually is. Positive law in an anarchist society does not mean rampant war and vengeance.
As I said, all forms of law must deal with the subjective perceptions of man regardless. Such is the case with any system, anarcho-capitalist or statists alike.
The difference is Anarcho-Capitalists derive laws from logic and deductive reasoning. Ironically statist claims that derive laws from logical fallacies and economic fairy tales derived from emotional shortsightedness. By statists I mean socialists and fascists alike.
You need to learn about these.
Which one will you read if you don’t mind me asking?
How is that the case? Plaintiff and Defendant - have a property dispute, they may choose and agree on a third party to settle the dispute. to come to a fair conclusion.
The individual doesn’t even need to own a PDA, that doesn’t essentially have anything to do with it at all. All the money factor implies is that the person can buy a good lawyer/s.
The individual can straight away go take the murders life, if he so wishes. However, if it turns out the man was innocent - then HE becomes the murderer and criminal, liable for punishment.
Both which neither have necessairly anything to do with liberty. Have you read much about Natural Law?
Thanks Conza I actually haven’t read those yet. Despite that fact I don’t think it would be profitable for a PDA firm to act in a vengeful manner for the reasons I mentioned above.
Anarcho-capitalism doesn’t eliminate lunatics.
I’ll start with Power and Market, or is there a better one?
I think he edited in the rape part after I replied. I’m pretty sure his initial post was just that there was some guy he didn’t like (or I misread it to be that).
There are certainly coverups. “Accidents” happen to certain people, etc. There’s the whole CIA for starters…
You still wouldn’t get away with it.
Are you serious? ACORN, Unions, Bank bailouts, Auto bailouts, Illinois Senators, Bush 2000, Haliburton, need I go on?
The media just makes it seem as if this is normal and not wide scale bribery. They are wrong.