What do you feel the most justified retroactive justice would be in an anarchist society concerning a murderous outlaw? Death? Imprisonment? Say that there is damning evidence, such as a video tape of the murder, but no cirumstantial evidence (motive).
Justice belongs to the victim. It is not the business of anyone else what kind of punishment to enact.
The penalty for murder should be the same as it is for civil wrongful death: the full value of the life of the victim measured in money and, again as in civil wrongful death, the victim’s conscious pain and suffering.
If you don’t have the money, then you have to work or beg for contributions until the debt is satisfied. If you refuse to work, you’re declared outside the protection of the law, i.e., an “outlaw,” and it is open season on your hide. I’d add that if the surviving family is willing to forgive the matter, then the outlaw should regain his legal status and privileges.
I can foresee some refinement on this basic model. An outlaw who killed his drinking buddy in a stupid argument may retain some protections that an outlaw guilty of the premeditated murder of a child would not.
Imprisonment should not be an option. Punishment of criminals should be capital or financial, and perhaps even corporal as an option. This would not preclude some work camp or other facility where the criminal could enroll to pay off his debt.
My 2 cents.
I favor the death penalty for murder. It seems to me that taking a life, one forfeits his own. Your view might be more common historically, though. Even bedouin will waive vengeance in exchange for blood money.
–Len.
I agree, although I think this would still be decided by an arbiter court with a list of varying punishments already decided upon before. To answer the OPs question, the punishment will be whatever the people who hire the security firms will want, as these security firms will have contracts between each other with regards to what court they use. If a customer doesn’t like what court and system of punishment a particular PDA goes to, they will look for another that satisfies their demand.
We cannot answer the question of what the punishment would be. Only statist social engineers who legislate without regard to the demands of the people can do this.
In a primary sense, yes. However, anyone who wants to can recover stolen property from a thief. The property would still belong to its original owner, so whoever recovers it must return it to the owner. He can at most seek compensation for his effort. Free-market bounty hunting is perfectly reasonable.
–Len.
I tend to agree, but in more pluralistic societies where there may not be as much consensus I think blood money is a civilized option. Death penalty opponents can put their money where their mouths are.
Recidivism is a problem that may not be covered by my proposal. But I think in a truly free society sociopaths would be killed or driven into exile before they could do much harm.
I agree. I’m against any institutionalized murder.
Dealdy force is appropriate by a victum in a number of circumstances, like attempted murder or rape. But after the act it would have no constructive purpose.
If a person commits murder he should be declared a none person under the legal system, forfeiting societies protections.
That is not correct. A bounty hunter is pursuing a contract with a victim, which has specifically requested that his property be recovered. However, simply the fact that someone has stolen property does not grant you the right to steal it from them without the authorization of the legitimate owner. Because you are not authorized to possess or handle the property, you would be in exactly the same situation as the original thief.
Well the case is simpler if the murderer belongs to a security organization. But what about the case where someone who is already an exile/outlaw kills. In other words, would you subscribe to a security service that assigns no value to the life of an outlaw? Where it is basically “open season” on their asses.
Absolutely. I’m paying them to care about my life, not some outlaw’s.
Our current socialist, universal legal system subsidizes crime because it protects the criminal from the victum(and other criminals) at the victum’s expense.
Applause.
Twistedbydesigh99
It would be for the relatives of the murdered person to decide on the means of punishment. Murray Rothbard suggests that punishment should be reciprocal. So, murder means that the next of kin may choose execution.
Should the next of kin choose life imprisonment instead, the question arises as to who will pay for the cost of the imprisonment. The next of kin may choose to pay himself, or the murderer may offer to pay out of his own savings. But, in such an anarchist society, the public at large would not have to pay for this person’s incarceration.
For theft, Murray Rothbard suggests that the robber should pay back what he has stolen, plus an equivalent to the amount stolen in compensation. Should the robber not be able to pay, he would then have to work for the person he robbed until the amount was repaid.
With kind regards
Remnant.
That’s the original definition of outlaw, actually: one who has excluded himself from lawful society, and therefore from its protection. The outlaw still has a right not to be aggressed against; people have simply declared their unwillingness to stick up for him any longer. That does leave him relatively undefended, and therefore prey to criminals.
In that context, what would it mean for a security service to “assign value” to his life? In Libertopia, to be an “outlaw” simply means that one subscribes to no security firms, nor participates in other mutual defense arrangements. The security firm won’t come to his rescue, but only because he isn’t a client. Are you suggesting that they should come to his rescue for free?
–Len.
Just imagine how convincing an argument that would have been if I hadn’t spelled victim wrong. [:S]
What I was driving at was, would a security firm presume to put its sphere of influence over a person who is completely opted out of the security market. If they would presume, what do you think the ethical implications of that action are? Is it a slippery slope situation that could lead to dominion over the unaffiliated? Personally I would not subscribe to any service that would do this arbitrarily, but given the current support of our current government.. I’m not sure I could rest easy that others wouldnt. I was also noting that this would be retro active justice as the victim is murdered. Therefore killing this outlaw doesn’t balance any losses it just prevents future aggressions.
You dont seem to make the distinction between sanctioning murder and refusing to aid an person. Withholding “protection” is no different than withholding any other good. Surely you don’t mean to speak out against boycotts.
A security firm would not presume to put its sphere of influence over a person. That would make it a government, wouldn’t it? What you are envisioning, declaring someone devoid of human rights because they are criminal, is what actually happens today when criminals become property of the state. The market solution already presented is incomparable to that in terms of supporting human dignity.
I guess I am not understanding the argument. Without a government, should I kill my neighbor for whatever reason and refuse retribution, I would no longer enjoy the protections of any security org. right?? Who cares though?? I have tons of able bodied twenty-five yr old friends that will protect me and we own lots of guns. What did I lose? Or say we get really bold and start a gang/mob sort of thing, it seems to have no down side in forming a MS-13 sort of thing.
I guess i’m asking, without a government, won’t the most well-connected, well-known, well-armed people be impervious from recourse??? Or am I completely missing something???
How would that be any different from the case today, where “the most well-connected, well-known, well-armed people” form the government?