No more than the multicultural state will be able to exterminate Aztecs or Spaniards or Ashkenazim.
In fact, when the multicultural state reaches the end of its fiscal and imperial overreach, Family and Tribe will be back quicker than you can say blood is thicker than water.
I just want to ask some of my questions from the OP more succinctly:
If it were entirely up to you,
What do you think should happen to convicted murderers?
What do you think should happen to convicted thieves?
What do you think should happen to convicted rapists?
What do you think of my suggestions?
Ah, discussing politics with a collectivist/nationalist/racist is so enlightening. I think I’ve absorbed enough conservative wisdom for today…
My general thoughts on the topic: prisons should be abolished as uneconomic, expensive and counter-productive. All punishment should be either capital, corporal or financial. Criminals could be given the option of avoiding the first two by agreeing to the third. Rapists and murderers would basically have to sell themselves into indentured servitude. Otherwise, they’d be declared outlaws and whatever happens to them, they are just SOL.
They either accept the ruling and discharge the judgment, or they’re declared outlaws and their life is forfeit. They’d be marked men, because with the State’s monopoly on the administration of justice over, the family could post a bounty on the criminal’s head, like the old “Dead or Alive” posters. This would be powerful incentives for civilized behavior. The only criminals would be the tiny percentage of the population that’s just pathological and who are eventually going to get killed by someone exercising self-defense.
But couldnt there be a form of truly private, competing prisons? After all, prisoners are treated as defacto slaves, I dont see why this might not continue.
I know, what I was trying to say is: how do we have justice when we cannot enforce rulings? Of course, that begs the question: how do we know enforced “justice” is just?
Well, define self-defence. How does one know, between one blow and the next, that the next blow will come? Surely, if one was to counter-attack, when the next blow wasn’t coming, one would be initating coercion - that’s what I was trying to ask.
Capital punishment - the libertarian solution!
I wouldn’t rule out work farms or factories along those lines, but the prisoners would have to cover the costs of their food and board from their own production rather than offloading this cost on taxpayers. Thus, a work farm would be pretty indistinguishable from any other, because the trappings of a prison would be cost-prohibitive. The specter of outlaw status would suffice to keep the prisoners there and working.
yes.
Absolutely. Too many people are alive because the State has made it illegal to kill them.
The only way that could happen is if people prefered to sign up with PDAs that might throw them in prison. If they are building prisons, there costs are going to be dramatically higher than a PDA that doesn’t spend the bilions(?) of dollars necessary to maintain a prison system. It’s a business model doomed for failure.
But suppose a few do manage to turn a profit, somehow. Suppose they were to arrest someone under a different PDA’s insurance and put them in prison. The arrested’s PDA would hopefully have a contract worked out with this PDA previously because it’s easy to predict that this situation would occur. Any such contract between the two would likely not allow the prison PDA to put another PDA’s client in prison, since any contract otherwise would be avoided by most consumers who obviously don’t want to live with the risk o being imprisoned. The PDA would lose money. So yes it’s possible, and the prison system would be limited to those who choose to abide by it.
Murray Rothbard makes an unshakable case in For a New Liberty, and Kinsella admirably builds on it in a piece he wrote some time ago. You can probably find it searching this site.
A criminal has no possibility of objecting to something done to him when he has done it to another person. He is “estopped” from objecting. Read Kinsella for more. Short summary: no one can have a right which they refuse to respect in others.
So does that mean you are more or less in agreement with my eye-for-an-eye type punishments?
I am basically in agreement, although Rothbard favored two eyes for an eye, and so do I.
Let’s say A unjustly punches B. Full justice would mean that B can now punch A to the same degree, or hire someone to do it for him. In addition, A must pay all medical fees incurred because of his punch. A must also pay pain and suffering damages to B for putting him through the experience, as well as any legal costs incurred by any parties during this whole process.
What should damages for pain and suffering be? I don’t know. Until someone can come up with a proof, which I doubt is even possible, reasonable people must do the best job they can. Also, B may certainly accept more money from A and forego his punch.
So what should the punishment for rape be? Certainly money for emotional damage, but beyond that what else?
punishment is not a ‘libertarian concept’ as such there is no libertarian answer. but certain cultural, moral,pragmatic, instinctual,feelings derived intuitions can be posed, and are! some of these can be implemented libertarianly, and some cant. I dont belive natural law says anything about punishment. certainly i would expect that if i was a citizen in ancap and had private defence and private law, i might face some punishments if i engaged in certain actions, the punishments would be voluntary, and ilbertarian, as i would have contracted over them. it is also possible to make a semantic argument that being shunned (i.e. not positively harmed, but harmed by the neglect of others vis-a-vis division of labour, cooperation in capitalism) is ‘punishment’
Give me one example of where in real life there was a proven case.
Then we can start imposing punishments. While the judgements in law are subjective, we have no case to enforce them.
I agree pretty much 100% with this.
I would certainly submit to rulings, because who is going to deal with an outlaw? I would protest my innocence but accept the ruling (most likely a fine, or a payment in kind), so long as it was reasonable, because I would want to remain a member of society. And those who repeatedly refuse to accept rulings, and indeed make it clear beforehand that they will not accept rulings, will be penalised in business, employment and social relations.