In a free society, only the victim can take an aggressor to court, and punishment is about restitution to the victim. But what about the case of murder, where there is no next of kin? Who will press charges against me, and who would I provide restitution to?
-
Search is your friend.
-
Anyone who has any interest in justice.
Ah, so a tranquil social order is something which people can claim a compensable ownership interest in.
Don’t confuse justice and security. While no one has a right to claim justice from you for killing a tramp, you may well be flagged as a dangerous individual and expelled from any property.
An insurance provider or other provider of security will more than likely find you and expel you for any area which they have an interest in.
If they do the work to bring the person/people to justice.
Their stench, no doubt.
Suppose I own a book, and then die while carrying my book in the street, and I have no next of kin. My book now becomes ownerless, and can be homesteaded by anyone who chooses to do so.
Suppose I own a right to life. and then am killed in the street, and I have no next of kin. My right to life becomes a right to compensation, and has now become ownerless, and can be homesteaded by anyone who chooses to do so. Anyone is free to pick up this right, use it against my murderer, and demand compensation against the murderer.
Thanks - this makes sense. So anyone can sue anyone else, regardless of whether they are the victim, or the victim’s next of kin, right? And my restitution would be paid to whoever happened to press charges?
What about if a Next of Kin later came forward, would the restitution then be paid to them?
No, that’s nonsense.
Please can you explain? Being regarded by others as a dangerous individual doesn’t seem like justice has been served.
Why can only the victim take the aggressor to court?
No, it’s not that anyone can sue anyone else. Take a case of not murder, first. Suppose I’m just beat up. My right to not be beat up becomes a right to compensation. But it’s not the case that anyone in society can take that right and demand compensation, anymore than we’d say that anyone can take my book and sell it because we believe in the free market. Rather, that right is mine, and only I can use it. What if I die without using it? If I have a will, then I leave it to someone. Otherwise, it goes to my next of kin. What if I die without a will and have no next of kin? Then it becomes ownerless, and anyone (but only one) can take it. Murder is an extreme case of this.
Now, I think your second question is this - what if I die without a will or next of kin, as far as anyone knows, and someone takes my property, but then a next of kin shows up? Well, if I die in that situation and my book becomes ownerless, and someone takes it, and then a next of kin turns up, what would we do? I’m not sure, but my intuition suggests that they’d receive some portion of the value of that book, but not all of it. So it should be the same for compensation.
Sometimes justice can’t be served, especially not by a pretense of justice. The purpose of justice is to preserve the peace and social order, nothing more.
This proposal certainly doesn’t preserve social order.
So if I came across a murdered tramp on the street, and had his murderer identified and caught, I can gain compensation, because I homesteaded the right to compensation that a next of kin would have had, if there was one. Is that right?
So there would be a known murderer walking the streets and no-one could do anything about it?
ask yourself, what would stop anyone, that wanted to do something about, it from doing something about it?
You are saying anyone can just take the law into their own hands and murder them, and the murderer’s next of kin would not be able to press charges against that person, because of the principle of estoppel. (By murdering, the murderer gave up his right not to be murdered.) You are agreeing with JAlanKatz that the right to compensation (the right to kill the murderer) can be homesteaded. Is that right?
What about if I didn’t want to kill the murderer, but wanted him to work for me - a lesser punishment - could I do that?
And Stranger, sorry if I’m not getting your point, but are you disagreeing with this and saying no one has the right to kill the murderer?
If you came across a murdered tramp on the street, and he has no next of kin, you may homestead the right to compensation, if you wish. You can also choose not to. However, we’re talking about an anarchist society here - no one has any obligation to help you exercise this right. Possession of the right requires you to then invest time, energy, and resources in collecting.