Of course this would be assuming they were actual murderers and not innocents?
It wouldn’t be disproportionate since murderers having committed the ultimate crime against another human’s person would lose all those kinds of rights.
Pro’s.
better results than testing on animals.
Pleasing to ‘animal rights’ crowd.Not an important argument in of itself but still a plus.
Not a rights violation.
prisoner is contributing to society.
Con’s.
Potential backlash by those claiming rights are unalienable or that even prisoners should not be treated this way.
Potential backlash by prisoners themselves even though they might have contractually consented to this in most cases.
What? Come on. You’re not allowed to do anything to someone just because they’ve wronged you. You’re entitled to just compensation. So if someone mugs you a court decides how much he owes you in damages. You don’t get to mug him back, enslave him, or test drugs on him. If he literally can’t pay you back, either because of poverty or the nature of the crime, its still not a blank liscence to do whatever you want to him…
When one “takes a life”, they are actually “destroying some thing (a person)”.
Does it matter that they destroyed this person in a manner similar to the humane one of a “Dr. Kevorkian” (keep in mind that I am saying a “murder” vs “assisted suicide”), versus a guileful and vicious murder with dozens of stab wounds to the victim who had never hurt a fly?
I think that this is, within certain multivariate bounds, a continuum problem.
What? Come on. You’re not allowed to do anything to someone just because they’ve wronged you. You’re entitled to just compensation. So if someone mugs you a court decides how much he owes you in damages.
I don’t mean to attack anarcho-capitalism. This is a genuine inquiry on how this type of reperations system would work in lieu of forceful enforcement. What incentive would the criminal have to even appear at court? Would the criminal not have to be jailed after commiting the crime, or at least fear some type of reprimand should he decided not to go to court? But, if the criminal is jailed how do we objectively consider this “just compensation” for the crime?
You can still use force, just not against innocent people. So if we’re really uncreative and really want to preserve something like the status quo, you can just make prisoners pay for it.
Above, I pointed out that using violence against these people is legitimate, but there are probably cheaper/efficient/humane ways of doing it. For example, the power of boycott in courts could serve as a powerful deterrant. If you don’t show up to court, they could refuse to do business with you in the future, effectively limiting your options to pursue anyone who wrongs you.
If you look at how private businesses currently handle their security, its pretty humane and minimalistic.
Right. Practicality is always a consideration.
This brings up a good point. I think Justice requires that things be made how they were before the crime was comitted. But you can’t bring the dead back to life, and you can’t undo psychological damage, etc etc. So it seems like you can’t ever achieve justice in the vast majority of cases. Courts may and have resorted to some arbitrary way of quantifying intangible damages, but it is lacking in my opinion.
So, when really pressed, I think you can’t do Justice. You can only prevent Injustice. Luckily, I think its cheaper to prevent crimes rather than let them happen and seek restitution later. This idea needs more development though.
What incentive would the criminal have to even appear at court?
I guess that the alternative is dragging them in to court shackled. For lesser offenses, a court could just pass judgment without one party attending and handle any restitution with police action.
People seem to think that libertarian law has to resort to boycotts to solve everything or that we are somehow pacifists, and this is not true.
It is reasonable to jail someone while awaiting trial for serious offenses, the same as it might be reasonable to detain a guy in a blue cap when a guy in a blue cap just robbed a store in the area. If found guilty, the criminal is responsible for the costs of being jailed or monitored outside of prison.
Compulsory drug testing would make the murderer feel even more sub-human and increase resentment. The priority must be that (apart from compensation) they don’t wrong again, this isn’t compatable with that.
“Murderer” can be replaced with “slave”. Quite literally, your legal status is equivalent to that of a “lamb for slaughter”. Nobody owes you medical care, food, etc. (which costs actual money FYI for those who’ve lost touch with reality). If you are going to act like a homicidal maniac towards your jailers, they don’t owe you carte blanche.
How so ? by their own’s they have committed themself to the position that violence especially initiating it is ok.
Plus there has to be a line somewhere.If you violate anothers rights you lose some of your rights.
“as for someone convicted of murder still has rights” , that seems to imply that rights can never be lost even when the person commits a crime i.e. your claiming rights are inalienable and such a position means that self defense is also a rights violation since by this standard self defense is ‘initiating force’ thus the inalienable rights position becomes pacifism.
Jonathan:" What incentive would the criminal have to even appear at court? "
Property owners out of their own self-interest would not do business with such people. Consumers would demand it.
Jonathan: “But, if the criminal is jailed how do we objectively consider this “just compensation” for the crime?”
We don’t objectively determine anything. Why should it be any different for “just compensation”? The punishment for a particular crime - light, medium, or severe - is just another economic trade off that economic agents must decide upon by their buying and abstention from buying. “just compensation” , as well as services for arbitration, will be determined by contractual agreements.
If one concedes the point that Law and Order are economic goods and services, then it naturally follows that they can be supplied only by the market. From there, it almost becomes trivial that such goods can and should be supplied by the free market instead of by coercive territorial monopolists. The result will be like any other good freed from government monopoly. Law will seize to be arbitrary and political in nature, and instead, it will be the product of rational economic calculation.