I read the blog and the comments, very interesting. However they didn’t comment on what in my opinion is a crucial issue of repeat offenders. It is common for certain people today to have a record of 50 or even 100 offenses. I think that’s ridiculous. If a person is that dangerous to society, he should not be on the lose. So obviously putting repeat offenders in jail for a long long time makes a lot of sense. Now how can this be solved in an an-cap society in which the history of the criminal is supposed to be irrelevant?
Let me tell you how I’d solve it: if you’ve cost me, as an insurer, this much in the past, and you’re very likely to cost me much in the future too, you either pay an indecent premium, or you’ll have to go by without liability insurance. Now, folk can let you into their property without such insurance but in doing so: 1) they assume the risk that you’ll cause damages and 2) they let is someone whose trustworthiness or indeed sanity is insecure. Could you be a serial killer? If not, why no one is isnuring you?
Do you think he’ll be able to walk anywhere once out of his house? Anywhere at all? Thus, he’d be, de facto, under house arrest for the rest of his days.
Keep in mind some thieves steal for pleasure, regardless of the value of the product.
-
I agree that repeat criminals should rarely be allowed into private territories. However if they stil enter, they should be punished severely, not only for trespassing, but also for endangering the land owner.
-
I agree with people who wrote in the Kinsella blog that if you put signs announcing that thieves will be shot or dealt with in certain specific ways, and those signs are plainly visible, then thieves will have to abide by them.
-
In general I think thieves should restitute the victim + the effort the catch the thief and try him in court.
-
However if there is a significant problem of catching thieves, I expect a lot of people to post signs threatening thieves with very serious punishments. In that case it might make sense for the courts to start producing more severe punishments for every thief caught, not only for those thieves who stole from people who posted the signs, but for all caught thieves. I expect then restitutions to become X2 or X3 of the value of the stolen property.
-
I think thieves should restitute the victim not only for the market value of the stolen property, but also for the subjective value of the property (for example family heirlom).
-
I think all thieves should bear the same punishment in the community regardless of their intent, their economic situation, the “goodness” of their character, how much they needed the stolen property, and how they spent it.
These are all arbitrary pronouncements, no better than the central-planning of law that comes out of Washington DC. We don’t need to set any specific a priori outcomes, we simply need a free market in the production of law services.
Clayton -
Not at all, for now every owner sets the rules for his own land, which he is fully entitled to do. This has nothing to do with central planning.
What if a free market in the production of law services produced such outcomes? After all, many consumers of such servicesmay very well feel the same way that Eugene does.
Interesting question. I think certain forms of proportionate punishment can be used as obvious means to prevent future crimes. For example, castration for rapists, death penalty for murderers, maiming for batterers who cause permanent damage to their victims, ect.
For thieves, I think forced labour as a means of paying back their victims is pretty good.
Nothing can count as a crime without intent. See Kinsella and Tinsley here.
That is not too far from what we have.
Since the criminal forced the victim to play a sort of vicious roulette with the odds heavily stacked against him, he is estopped from arguing against the victim doing likewise or its equivalent once he’s caught.
Apparently having the thief also pay for the probability to catch him is a popular notion in the libertarian circle.
I quote Bruce Benson.
Awesome. Can u provide a link?
I think I do agree that proportionate justice (that is an eye for an eye) is the most just form. However in some cases justice is not enough. For instance:
-
Repeat offenders I believe have to either be deported to some very remote place, or be punished more than the “just level”. Why? Because they are dangerous and can repeat their offense and hurt others. A court that represents a lot of people will also act according to the intreset of these people, and that interest might even be the execution of the criminal, since it is not safe to have him freely walking around.
-
I also believe that types of crimes that are hard to prove or crimes in which it is very hard to catch the criminals, should also be punished more severely. Otherwise these types of crimes will be very lucrative.
Besides I don’t think this un-proportinate justice is so unjust or incompatiable with libertarianism. When the punishments are known to all, including the criminals, the criminals in fact enter an implict contract with the customers of those courts that published the punishments, in which they agree to receive upon them the punishment by that court in case they commit one of the specified crimes against the customers of the court.
That is not a valid argument in a voluntary arbitration system… why should I accept punishment “beyond what is just” in order to be made an example of? Why is it my job to be the whipping boy to “send a message” to others? Any system of “deterrence” is necessarily unjust.
Courts don’t represent people. Even the State’s courts - which do represent the State - bend over backwards to divest themselves of all appearance of “representing” anyone since they understand that a court is supposed to be impartial.
I hate to be a sour grape but you really need to tighten up your thinking. You make lots of assertions but you offer little insight.
In a moral social order - that is, a society where systemic double-standards tend to be minimized - punishments emerge from “case history”, that is, from the customary punishments that have been found to work in settling disputes.
Pure gobbledy-gook.
Clayton -
This stuff is way too abstract. This is not science, nor is there an objective value being dealt with. Furthermore it is pointless to speak of specific oughts in legal practice in an abstract way. I honestly don’t think anything is actually being said.
This is all trial and error stuff within the context of a community working within their local customs and jurisprudence.
I would say this is not libertarian. Not because of any rights issue, but because you are largely discounting the viability of non-designed, ‘spontaneous’ solutions. I do think communities will be more peaceful if repeat lawbreakers are not freely walking around, but I also think this problem would resolve itself. As far as I know, countries did not have to deport pirates; rather, pirates formed their own communities to congregate and carry out their piracy, so as to avoid the costs of ducking local authorities and all that. It is conceivable that outlaws would respond to various incentives by voluntarily leaving/avoiding more civilized communities.
And if they don’t, then we can talk about deportation or more severe punishments. Course, our talking won’t do much good, since these alternatives will be tried by those actually involved with real-life cases.
The more difficult the investigation, the more costly it is, and so the more damages the offender must pay if he is found guilty. This is a pretty common ancap point.
Well said.
Does this estoppel occur before or after conviction? Regardless, how did the accused/convicted force the victim to do such a thing? This goes along with the whole notion of being a “danger to society”. Eugene never answered my question there.