PDA

View Full Version : Question: Detectives in a libertarian world




libertybrewcity
08-16-2010, 10:01 PM
Let's say that someone in my family is murdered by someone. I don't know who did it, I have some evidence, but I work and only make a small amount of money. I am basically poor, maybe a student, like many others in society.

Because this isn't a perfect world, yes, murders do happen along with burglaries, etc etc.

How would I pay for a detective. Would my family member's murder go unsolved? How does the free market take care of justice where the free market may not serve it?

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-16-2010, 10:11 PM
Let's say that someone in my family is murdered by someone. I don't know who did it, I have some evidence, but I work and only make a small amount of money. I am basically poor, maybe a student, like many others in society.

Because this isn't a perfect world, yes, murders do happen along with burglaries, etc etc.

How would I pay for a detective. Would my family member's murder go unsolved? How does the free market take care of justice where the free market may not serve it?

You have to change the nature of the penal system. A system whereby the defendant upon being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is sent off to rot in a 15x15 cell to be a parasite of society and not productive, creates a problem for this very reason. It is why voluntary systems of justice (IE non-taxation funded), do not have such systems. They use restitution forms of justice, which are both more just to the victims, and produce better results in society.

So, to answer your question the foundation of the justice system must be upon restitution. The aggrieved party is awarded a sum from the defendant in the amount equal to his crime. So for instance, if he killed your brother who made 30,000$ a year, it is not unreasonable to award a sum of 300,000$ to the victims family. This is either paid directly, or through the garnishing of wages.

In the scenario you posit, the prosecutors of such cases would be paid through winning the case. Even if you had no money, someone would take your case. This problem is moot in a system built on restitution.

libertybrewcity
08-16-2010, 10:41 PM
You have to change the nature of the penal system. A system whereby the defendant upon being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is sent off to rot in a 15x15 cell to be a parasite of society and not productive, creates a problem for this very reason. It is why voluntary systems of justice (IE non-taxation funded), do not have such systems. They use restitution forms of justice, which are both more just to the victims, and produce better results in society.

So, to answer your question the foundation of the justice system must be upon restitution. The aggrieved party is awarded a sum from the defendant in the amount equal to his crime. So for instance, if he killed your brother who made 30,000$ a year, it is not unreasonable to award a sum of 300,000$ to the victims family. This is either paid directly, or through the garnishing of wages.

In the scenario you posit, the prosecutors of such cases would be paid through winning the case. Even if you had no money, someone would take your case. This problem is moot in a system built on restitution.

I'm talking about finding the criminal in the first place. Every police station has detectives working for them, and many have forensic units that solve cases. I am asking how the free market provides that service for those who can't afford it or have no money.

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-16-2010, 10:42 PM
I'm talking about finding the criminal in the first place. Every police station has detectives working for them, and many have forensic units that solve cases. I am asking how the free market provides that service for those who can't afford it or have no money.

I answered this question. Someone will take up the task because they will get paid. Not by you, but by the actual aggressor. History is rife with empiricism for this.

This is why I said this would not be a problem in a society in which the justice system is built on restitution, not retribution via cage. Our justice system penalizes ME for doing no harm. It is absurd.

YumYum
08-16-2010, 10:52 PM
I answered this question. Someone will take up the task because they will get paid. Not by you, but by the actual aggressor. History is rife with empiricism for this.

This is why I said this would not be a problem in a society in which the justice system is built on restitution, not retribution via cage. Our justice system penalizes ME for doing no harm. It is absurd.

You mean, like a bill collector, a detective would go after the murderer? Also, how would you make a convicted murderer, who has no job and no money, pay back $300,000? Even if the murderer had a job, who would pay to watch him 24 hours a day, so he doesn't escape?

mtj458
08-16-2010, 10:56 PM
You have to change the nature of the penal system. A system whereby the defendant upon being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is sent off to rot in a 15x15 cell to be a parasite of society and not productive, creates a problem for this very reason. It is why voluntary systems of justice (IE non-taxation funded), do not have such systems. They use restitution forms of justice, which are both more just to the victims, and produce better results in society.

So, to answer your question the foundation of the justice system must be upon restitution. The aggrieved party is awarded a sum from the defendant in the amount equal to his crime. So for instance, if he killed your brother who made 30,000$ a year, it is not unreasonable to award a sum of 300,000$ to the victims family. This is either paid directly, or through the garnishing of wages.

In the scenario you posit, the prosecutors of such cases would be paid through winning the case. Even if you had no money, someone would take your case. This problem is moot in a system built on restitution.

This seems like you're saying if a person values murdering someone more than they value the amount of money they'd have to give up were they to murder, then society would have no way to stop them from murdering. Am i misinterpreting this?

Brooklyn Red Leg
08-16-2010, 11:13 PM
You mean, like a bill collector, a detective would go after the murderer? Also, how would you make a convicted murderer, who has no job and no money, pay back $300,000? Even if the murderer had a job, who would pay to watch him 24 hours a day, so he doesn't escape?

Putting his ass in a cage that costs society at large millions of dollars when you stack him in with all the other inmates makes no sense. Again, Austrian Econ Disciple is right that something based on Restitution (Anglo-Saxon wergild law) takes care of this problem. You think there WON'T be companies set up to do work specifically with those convicted of crimes? We have it now with the Prison Industrial Complex, just under a Retribution Model.

YumYum
08-16-2010, 11:21 PM
Putting his ass in a cage that costs society at large millions of dollars when you stack him in with all the other inmates makes no sense. Again, Austrian Econ Disciple is right that something based on Restitution (Anglo-Saxon wergild law) takes care of this problem. You think there WON'T be companies set up to do work specifically with those convicted of crimes? We have it now with the Prison Industrial Complex, just under a Retribution Model.

It cost a lot of money to go after a murderer. What if after 3 years of an intense search they finally find him, and he dies? Now, the detective company has lost money on their investment. What if the murderer that they are looking for has AIDS and cancer and has only one year left to live, and the cost of looking for him could never be recovered; let alone no profit to be made off of his labor? Why would they waste their time looking for him?

johngr
08-17-2010, 12:27 AM
There should be a severely limited process for people who are smoking-gun guilty of crimes which result in death or severe injury and standards of evidence for incontrovertible guilt. The only people I can see being against that are murderers, judges, prosecutors and defence attorneys.

Elwar
08-17-2010, 07:43 AM
Guess what the "P" in PI stands for?

Back in the day there were a whole lot more private detectives. There were even private environmental detectives.

Your argument against private detectives would be the same for private schools, private garbage service, private computer companies...the poor can't afford it.

Just as with private schools, the hope is that charities would intervene for the poor. In the case of private detectives, a solved murder case would lend credibility to the new detective, thus making him more willing to work on the cheap.

You see it all the time where someone is accused of a crime and the local community comes together to provide money for the defense team. Why would this not happen for the prosecution side? You think a local community will be fine with letting a murderer roam free?

t0rnado
08-17-2010, 07:47 AM
Private investigators and detectives would be abundant in a libertarian society where a public police force doesn't exist. They would be far cheaper than they are now and their abilities wouldn't be limited by laws that are in place now. In a libertarian society, you're more likely to figure out who the murderer was than you would right now in the police state. Detectives who fail in a free market would not have jobs, whereas cops who fail today will never lose their jobs.

MelissaWV
08-17-2010, 08:18 AM
I don't know which idea I find more revolting:

That, if one is rich enough, one can kill someone and simply pay the restitution fee and that's that.

That, if my family member is murdered, $300,000 will make it all better.

wizardwatson
08-17-2010, 08:39 AM
You have to change the nature of the penal system. A system whereby the defendant upon being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is sent off to rot in a 15x15 cell to be a parasite of society and not productive, creates a problem for this very reason. It is why voluntary systems of justice (IE non-taxation funded), do not have such systems. They use restitution forms of justice, which are both more just to the victims, and produce better results in society.

So, to answer your question the foundation of the justice system must be upon restitution. The aggrieved party is awarded a sum from the defendant in the amount equal to his crime. So for instance, if he killed your brother who made 30,000$ a year, it is not unreasonable to award a sum of 300,000$ to the victims family. This is either paid directly, or through the garnishing of wages.

In the scenario you posit, the prosecutors of such cases would be paid through winning the case. Even if you had no money, someone would take your case. This problem is moot in a system built on restitution.


I answered this question. Someone will take up the task because they will get paid. Not by you, but by the actual aggressor. History is rife with empiricism for this.

This is why I said this would not be a problem in a society in which the justice system is built on restitution, not retribution via cage. Our justice system penalizes ME for doing no harm. It is absurd.

This is the kind of Rothbardian/Hoppe claptrap that really annoys me.

"So, to answer your question the foundation of the justice system must be upon restitution."

Restitution should be the focus in civil cases. But in criminal cases the focus should be on neutralizing the aggressor. If the criminal is deemed to be a non-threat to people, perhaps he's let out of jail and pursued in a civil case for monetary restitution.

The town hires the Sheriff, the Sheriff enforces the law. The Sheriff doesn't enforce the law based on which criminal represents the best investment of his time, but which criminal is the greatest threat to his town.

Why do we need to make it more complex than it needs to be? If the Sheriff is taxing you too much, run for Sheriff, move out of town, or get together with the other townspeople and have him replaced.

fisharmor
08-17-2010, 08:43 AM
I'm talking about finding the criminal in the first place. Every police station has detectives working for them, and many have forensic units that solve cases. I am asking how the free market provides that service for those who can't afford it or have no money.

Yeah... if you think that people with no money are getting the same level of justice as, say, the family of a murdered policeman, then you're really fooling yourself about the current system.

The worst case scenario in the libertarian world is equivalent to the best case scenario in our current system. The fact that our system has nowhere to go but up is the main selling point with me.



What if the murderer that they are looking for has AIDS and cancer and has only one year left to live, and the cost of looking for him could never be recovered; let alone no profit to be made off of his labor? Why would they waste their time looking for him?

Again, look at our current system with your theoreticals.
Why do they waste time and MY MONEY looking for this person in our current system?
If you truly believe it is a waste of time, why would you support the outright theft of society's resources to pay for such a manhunt?




I don't know which idea I find more revolting:

That, if one is rich enough, one can kill someone and simply pay the restitution fee and that's that.

That, if my family member is murdered, $300,000 will make it all better.

Well, obviously you find it much less revolting that someone who is halfway smart about it, and isn't targeting a cop or someone politically connected, can simply kill a person and not have to pay a fee or be punished in any way, because our current system just doesn't give a shit.

Obviously you find it much less revolting that the high priests of the state, our brave boys in blue, not only get a free kill-whatever-prole-you-like pass but also two weeks of paid vacation when they do it, all because they're supposedly looking to throw suspected murderers in a rape dungeon.

$300,000 doesn't make it all better and nobody ever said it would. All we're saying is that it's SOMETHING. It does the victims absolutely no good whatsoever to lock up someone in a cage and charge the victim in perpetuity for that.

Nothing is perfect, but some things can be obviously better than others. And it's really hard for me not to see our current system as much less desirable than a free market system.

fisharmor
08-17-2010, 08:44 AM
The Sheriff doesn't enforce the law based on which criminal represents the best investment of his time, but which criminal is the greatest threat to his town.

You're.... you're fucking kidding, right?

wizardwatson
08-17-2010, 08:50 AM
You're.... you're fucking kidding, right?

Yeah, whatever.

So a police officer sees 50 cars parked illegally that can net his department $4000, but gets a call for a crackhead trying to kill another crackhead and he should/would issue the parking tickets because its more economically viable?

TheBlackPeterSchiff
08-17-2010, 08:58 AM
lol, have your ever heard of a Private detective? Reward money, etc. If your brother got killed Im sure tons of people would be ready to chip in for a reward for capture of the killer and evidence presented. Plenty of PI's and agencies would take on that task. Once he is caught, you could have him ousted from society, put to death, etc.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
08-17-2010, 09:02 AM
Also, since the police have a monopoly on violence and power, you do not have the ability to investigate yourself. You could be arrested from interfering with a police investigation. In a free society, you and your friends can get together, and investigate on your own if no Private detective will take your job, you can collect the evidence on your own.

wizardwatson
08-17-2010, 09:02 AM
Let's say that someone in my family is murdered by someone. I don't know who did it, I have some evidence, but I work and only make a small amount of money. I am basically poor, maybe a student, like many others in society.

Because this isn't a perfect world, yes, murders do happen along with burglaries, etc etc.

How would I pay for a detective. Would my family member's murder go unsolved? How does the free market take care of justice where the free market may not serve it?

I honestly don't know what "in a libertarian world" means. Do you mean without a Constitution? Without any government entities?

To me the only difference between current reality and libertarian reality is that in a libertarian society taxes would be voluntary, and if you didn't like the contract/level of services, you'd just leave and that'd be ok with the others. You'd still have police protection.

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-17-2010, 09:09 AM
I honestly don't know what "in a libertarian world" means. Do you mean without a Constitution? Without any government entities?

To me the only difference between current reality and libertarian reality is that in a libertarian society taxes would be voluntary, and if you didn't like the contract/level of services, you'd just leave and that'd be ok with the others. You'd still have police protection.

That creates a natural conflict, which will pit the payers against the non-payers, and tear the fabric of your "voluntary" taxation apart. Ergo, the tax-payers will not want to subsidize the non-tax payers. If there is a State they will lobby to get the guns to point at the non-payers to force them to pay. Your solution is no solution at all.

Acala
08-17-2010, 09:19 AM
I don't know about you, but I would have me some insurance with the baddest-ass detective agency around. They would track down the murderer.

Insurance in a free market is all about pooling risk. The risk of your house burning down on any given day is VERY small but the consequences are huge. There are millions of people in the same situation so they pool their risk through an insurance company. Everybody pays a tiny bit each year for fire insurance and then if their house ever burns down, it is paid for out of the insurance pool.

Same thing for murder. The chances of anyone in your family being murdered is very low (with some exceptions to be addressed shortly). So you pool the risk with others in you situation. Then, if you are unlucky enough to be a victim of murder, the insurance company/security agency takes your case, tracks down the murderer and extracts restitution from him if possible. Or executes him since
I personally think restitution in the case of murder includes killing the murderer but I won't go into my defense of that position.

Of course just as some houses are more prone to fire and will cost more to insure, some lifestyles and locations are more prone to murder and would cost more to insure. Or might even be uninsurable. The market would decide and would exert an influence toward murder-reducing behavior among the insured.

Oh, and I would have that little sticker on the window that says "If you burglarize this house or rob, rape or kill anyone inside, the XYZ Detective agency WILL track you to the ends of the earth, WILL find you, and WILL extract restitution from you or kill you as the case requires." Because my detective agency/insurance company wants my business it will have built up a reputation to back up the threat on the sticker and eventually criminals will know it and stay away.

MelissaWV
08-17-2010, 09:37 AM
...



Well, obviously you find it much less revolting that someone who is halfway smart about it, and isn't targeting a cop or someone politically connected, can simply kill a person and not have to pay a fee or be punished in any way, because our current system just doesn't give a shit.

Obviously you find it much less revolting that the high priests of the state, our brave boys in blue, not only get a free kill-whatever-prole-you-like pass but also two weeks of paid vacation when they do it, all because they're supposedly looking to throw suspected murderers in a rape dungeon.

$300,000 doesn't make it all better and nobody ever said it would. All we're saying is that it's SOMETHING. It does the victims absolutely no good whatsoever to lock up someone in a cage and charge the victim in perpetuity for that.

Nothing is perfect, but some things can be obviously better than others. And it's really hard for me not to see our current system as much less desirable than a free market system.

Don't hurt yourself jumping to conclusions.


So, to answer your question the foundation of the justice system must be upon restitution. The aggrieved party is awarded a sum from the defendant in the amount equal to his crime. So for instance, if he killed your brother who made 30,000$ a year, it is not unreasonable to award a sum of 300,000$ to the victims family. This is either paid directly, or through the garnishing of wages.

How this number was arrived at is beyond me. I suppose my brother was only worth the sum of his wages, and at that only for ten years. What a ridiculous concept. It also introduces the fact that, really, if you want to kill people you should just make sure they're poor. If they make $0 per year, then the killer never pays a penny, being that the person they killed was "worthless" to start with. Kill the poor, pay your fine (if there is one), and we'll call it a day. What a great and glorious kingdom this will be.

I don't want to be "awarded a sum." You can't put a price on my loved ones. It's so nice to see others in the forums would be okay with this, and so be it if you see the killer next week, or they kill more people; they paid their fine, after all.

Think practically of this for a second. You kill the aforementioned poor person, and you pay nothing or almost nothing. You kill an "elite" rich person, and if you are poor, you go to work off the amount of money you now owe for that person's life. The rich's lives are worth more, any way you slice this, than the poor.

How is that better/different than what we have now? Ah, the funding. See, that's where you make your biggest leap, which is that I support the way things are funded now. I don't. Your assessment, however, that society does not benefit from locking someone up under any circumstances, might not be shared by a lot of folks who might pool their resources to ensure that some do get locked up for certain crimes.

* * *

So, in short, the OP's answer is basic greed. Detectives will solve crimes where the victim is rich (and hence the person who did the killing will have to pay a huge restitution) and important. Most won't really bother with the poor, whose killers will not have to pay much.

wizardwatson
08-17-2010, 09:49 AM
That creates a natural conflict, which will pit the payers against the non-payers, and tear the fabric of your "voluntary" taxation apart. Ergo, the tax-payers will not want to subsidize the non-tax payers. If there is a State they will lobby to get the guns to point at the non-payers to force them to pay. Your solution is no solution at all.

Way to avoid my other points and change the subject.

I know how these ancap convo's go. I've seen quite a few. Voluntary "taxation" could never work, but somehow voluntary "insurance" schemes will. Because changing the semantics of what we're talking about makes all the difference apparently.

Ancaps say, "there would be more charity in a libertarian world, because it was like that before and the burden of the state will be lifted." But then you fault me by saying that "the tax-payers will not want to subsidize the non-tax payers", because the people inhabiting my dreamworld are clearly less charitable than the ones in yours. So in the current evil state-dominated world everything is doomed to collapse because of self-centered interests that the state perpetuates, but in an ancap paradise justice will reign and charity and good will toward men will reign supreme?

And what does it mean "if there is a State they will lobby to get the guns to point at the non-payers to force them to pay."? I never said anything about a state. Please define "state". If state is as per Nockian "an entity that appropriates wealth via political means" then I wasn't talking about a "state".

I really struggle to understand this point. At what point does a voluntary organization go from something that ancaps believe society could be based on, to something that represents a "state" and is doomed to collapse? Clearly by your response, it is not based on the "voluntary" nature of how its funded. So what is it?

Please point me to a single thread which states exactly how such an organization should be formed to avoid the pitfalls of the current system and its propensity towards statism.

The typical answer to this though is "it would be based on private contract law" or "everything would be based on property rights".

But this avoids the question. The question is not "what is the foundation of a just society", that's easy. The question is what does that magic contract look like? How do 3 or more people come to an agreement about how exactly to enforce and achieve justice and liberty within their domain? It is not a question of ideals, but of strategies and methods to achieve those ideals. What would a good libertarian constitution look like?

If we could start answering and discussing these real questions. Questions of strategy of how to get from where we are to where we want to be, we could make some real progress.

Anyway, that's most of what I'm trying to say. I could go into how I hate all this intellectual BS in general but I get the "educational" aspect that we attribute to these forums.

And mostly what I'd like to contribute for the furtherment of the "education" of those that may be lurking/reading, is that no one really knows the way forward, and people that act like they are certain of the way forward are either being intellectual dishonest/ignorant, or simply haven't read enough.

We need to start engaging one another for solutions, and stop intellectually "play fighting" with one another with our favorite intellectual action hero.

mczerone
08-17-2010, 10:09 AM
It cost a lot of money to go after a murderer. What if after 3 years of an intense search they finally find him, and he dies? Now, the detective company has lost money on their investment. What if the murderer that they are looking for has AIDS and cancer and has only one year left to live, and the cost of looking for him could never be recovered; let alone no profit to be made off of his labor? Why would they waste their time looking for him?

Because they are purporting themselves as a "justice agency", and as a repeat player in this game the incentive is to provide diligent work in every case, lest potential victims begin to suspect that you will cut corners if the criminal isn't worth the haul, and you lose business to those agencies who are more reliable and give the buyers of these services what they want.

I also envision "unsolved murders" charities being run to provide individuals a sense of security in knowing that all murderers are held accountable, who would pay the investigation costs on many murders that are either against the poor, or those against the victims with no heirs to instigate an investigation. Today this function is absorbed into the common tax-funded police, and the return on investment is warehouses full of unsolved crimes unless there is some easy break or publicity stunt warranting proving who the criminal was.

There is a definite need for service in this area, and like all other services the governmental solution is rife with inefficiencies, corruption, and wrongheadedness and is fueled by theft. Let the people pay bills for services they demand, and we will quickly see an improvement in all aspects of social interactions from legal enforcement to corporate regulation.

YumYum
08-17-2010, 10:10 AM
I honestly don't know what "in a libertarian world" means. Do you mean without a Constitution? Without any government entities?

To me the only difference between current reality and libertarian reality is that in a libertarian society taxes would be voluntary, and if you didn't like the contract/level of services, you'd just leave and that'd be ok with the others. You'd still have police protection.

Its like Disney World, where everybody is happy and loves one another and they work for a dollar a day.

People that are for privatizing law enforcement use words like "hope, believe, charity, maybe, possibly, everybody chip in, faith, goodness, love". It won't work.

ninepointfive
08-17-2010, 10:29 AM
I honestly don't know what "in a libertarian world" means. Do you mean without a Constitution? Without any government entities?


This is the most important part of the thread. Austrian Econ is arguing his own version of libertarian; which I find there exist as many "libertarian" positions on the same issue as there are as many colors as the rainbow.

I also think he's wrong, and I'd be embarrassed if this was the first forum post someone had came here and read. $300,000 is pitiful and shameful. Garnished wages my ass! That would never work. People would simply seek revenge.

mczerone
08-17-2010, 10:33 AM
And mostly what I'd like to contribute for the furtherment of the "education" of those that may be lurking/reading, is that no one really knows the way forward, and people that act like they are certain of the way forward are either being intellectual dishonest/ignorant, or simply haven't read enough.

We need to start engaging one another for solutions, and stop intellectually "play fighting" with one another with our favorite intellectual action hero.

The way forward is how we can sell the message to people outside of our thought process. Many people came to libertarian/free-human thinking because of seeing what was wrong with the world and logically thinking about what could be done with varying methods, and then deduced that it was simply wrong to initiate violence.

Most people in the wider population reject libertarianism (to use an umbrella term) because it is filled with people finding problems in policies and interventions who can't really formulate why adopting their viewpoint would help the observer. This is why a better theory is needed of what will replace govt once its lights are out, because people just want water, food, income, and security - and they want them provided cheaply and reliably. This is the mindset that is put on display every election day, when Ds and Rs and LPs and Greens each try to out-do each other in the "we'll provide X" games.

In non-political libertarianism, especially in the An-Cap version, a dire viewpoint is put forth to these people that reads to them as "Govt is not the answer, the market can only provide the answer." Which is why it is so hard to say what we really are advocating for: no one can foretell the market as a whole.

So, what to do except rail against govt? Be entrepreneurial and test what you think will happen when you try to provide a service? Well, in the current 'market', there is no way that a free market service provider can be competitive against the govt subsidized versions of those services. There is too much threat from the force of govt to be able to be separated from them without first demolishing their own legitimacy through direct action.

So that leaves the true libertarians few options in really giving a specific view of how people's needs will be taken care of in the future. The only option down this route is to show the inefficiencies of the status quo, and hypothetically address them to your reader. You can never be certain which firm structure will win out in providing any service, but you can be sure that it will be at least marginally better than a govt agency.

Beyond the hypothetical, the only real actions that can be taken now are to either try to start a competing agency in such a skewed and malinvested market, or to dismantle the competition inhibitor by either briefly seizing the reigns of power before slicing them, or by educating the individuals who support the system that it is only their own servitude that is keeping us all enslaved.

If you think that someone's hypothetical vision of the future is flawed, by all means argue about why it is, and what could be done to improve it. Better yet, take your improvements and set them into action yourself. The market will decide which is better, even if that is measured by how long it takes for the govt to shut you down by force or through tax-hemorrhaging. You both might have different solutions that are equally effective to different groups of people. All we can do is speculate until the ideas are put into action.

mczerone
08-17-2010, 10:49 AM
Its like Disney World, where everybody is happy and loves one another and they work for a dollar a day.

People that are for privatizing law enforcement use words like "hope, believe, charity, maybe, possibly, everybody chip in, faith, goodness, love". It won't work.

So if people don't possess those empathetic characteristics, why will a forced monopoly institution work?

Seriously, people value security and restitution (and even punishment and retribution) - if they aren't being taxed for it, they will provide these services themselves through clans and gangs.

What scares me more than private agencies not being able to effectively wield their legitimate force is the demand for due process not being great enough to keep the agencies in check and not persecute innocents, or to exact capital punishment for middling crimes.

But even in the face of such a horror story, I remind myself that the govt system in place now still goes too far in prosecuting innocents and coming up with cruel and unusual punishments for peaceful people. Competing agencies that really sought justice would have every incentive to give each defendant his due, because a competitor would easily see that injustice and offer to help the defendant seek his own justice.

Of course there would still be problems in the world - but there would be one less institution with a blank check for violence against individuals. What is the problem with that?

YumYum
08-17-2010, 11:02 AM
All we can do is speculate until the ideas are put into action.

Very good post. That is all we can do is speculate. The problem with the individual/libertarian philosophy is that to survive in human society, there must be some form of a collective. A study of the cells in our body shows that for them to survive, they have to work as a part of a collective. The Emperor penguins in the movie "March of the Penguins", work as a collective, otherwise they would all freeze to death. I would love to live in an ideal world were I can do what I want (as long as I don't hurt my fellow man) and be left alone. But I cannot stand up to tyranny and evil all by myself. To survive, I must belong to some sort of collective. That is why I like Noam Chomsky. He is anti-government, but believes in that in order to survive, we must be a part of a collective. That is taught in the study of evolution. Man by himself is not at the top of the food chain.

Acala
08-17-2010, 11:09 AM
Very good post. That is all we can do is speculate. The problem with the individual/libertarian philosophy is that to survive in human society, there must be some form of a collective. A study of the cells in our body shows that for them to survive, they have to work as a part of a collective. The Emperor penguins in the movie "March of the Penguins", work as a collective, otherwise they would all freeze to death. I would love to live in an ideal world were I can do what I want (as long as I don't hurt my fellow man) and be left alone. But I cannot stand up to tyranny and evil all by myself. To survive, I must belong to some sort of collective. That is why I like Noam Chomsky. He is anti-government, but believes in that in order to survive, we must be a part of a collective. That is taught in the study of evolution. Man by himself is not at the top of the food chain.

Probably so. But IF that is so, then people will join the collective voluntarily and THAT makes all the difference.

Wesker1982
08-17-2010, 11:09 AM
If they make $0 per year, then the killer never pays a penny, being that the person they killed was "worthless" to start with.


Don't forget about any friends and family who were harmed by the murder. The victims family would be caused expenses and anxiety. The aggressor has the responsibility to make compensations for the primary loss suffered by the victim and to anyone who he has caused to suffer a direct and serious loss. The person who was killed is not the only victim.



I don't want to be "awarded a sum." You can't put a price on my loved ones. It's so nice to see others in the forums would be okay with this, and so be it if you see the killer next week, or they kill more people; they paid their fine, after all.


This is assuming the only punishment in a free market would be paying restitution. I am pretty sure the market would decide that having murderers running around is too risky.


Detectives will solve crimes where the victim is rich (and hence the person who did the killing will have to pay a huge restitution) and important. Most won't really bother with the poor, whose killers will not have to pay much

If detectives only solved crimes where the victim was rich, then the detective would probably go out of business. There probably wouldn't be enough rich people for a detective to exclusively solve high priced crimes. Even if a detective were to act in such a way, it would open an opportunity for an entrepreneur to specialize in helping the victims with less money. Doing business with many poor people could be more profitable than doing business with just a few rich people.

What if the poor people are REALLY poor and have no money at all? It is unlikely that only the victim and whoever else suffered a direct loss would be the only ones interested in solving a murder case.

First we can't make the assumption the private detectives are paid ONLY when their services are needed. Think of it like an insurance company. Its likely that people would pay a price each month to be "insured" by private defense agencies, private detectives, private courts, etc. They could even be packaged together for a better deal. People paying for these services would want their plan to include insurance against people going around town killing poor people.

There would be incentive for private detectives to solve murder cases where the victim is poor because their customers would probably quit paying them if they didn't protect them by attempting to solve murders in their area. Its likely that the customers would feel threatened by the possibility of getting murdered by someone who isn't being pursued and because of this demand their insurance/private defense/private detective agency to attempt to catch the killer.

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-17-2010, 11:12 AM
Very good post. That is all we can do is speculate. The problem with the individual/libertarian philosophy is that to survive in human society, there must be some form of a collective. A study of the cells in our body shows that for them to survive, they have to work as a part of a collective. The Emperor penguins in the movie "March of the Penguins", work as a collective, otherwise they would all freeze to death. I would love to live in an ideal world were I can do what I want (as long as I don't hurt my fellow man) and be left alone. But I cannot stand up to tyranny and evil all by myself. To survive, I must belong to some sort of collective. That is why I like Noam Chomsky. He is anti-government, but believes in that in order to survive, we must be a part of a collective. That is taught in the study of evolution. Man by himself is not at the top of the food chain.

You don't think the market is a collective? Businesses are not a collective? Joint-stock companies aren't collectives?

Libertarianism is not hermitism.

Luckily you don't have to stand up by yourself, because the effects of the Government have left a lot of victims, and they are eager to stand up for their individual rights and liberties.

Chomsky is a dolt when it comes to economics. If need be I can elaborate.

PS: To everyone thinking I advocate 300,000$ for someone who makes 30,000$, that is false. I was merely saying that it would not be an unreasonable sum, not that, that I believe that to be an adequate sum. Murderers weren't running rampant in Celtic Ireland for instance, and their justice system was based on restitution. Same with every other private customary, and market-based law/justice system in history. Those societies were in fact, more peaceful with less crime. I don't think I should be forced to pay for the welfare of a criminal for the rest of his life, when I am not the aggrieved party. If you want to pay for him for the rest of your life, then be my guest, but don't expect me to pay for it.

YumYum
08-17-2010, 11:14 AM
Probably so. But IF that is so, then people will join the collective voluntarily and THAT makes all the difference.

Good point. I want to belong to a collective of my choosing. I joined C4L because I wanted to. Same with this forum, which begs the question:

Do you think that Ron Paul Forums.com is a "collective"?

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-17-2010, 11:18 AM
Good point. I want to belong to a collective of my choosing. I joined C4L because I wanted to. Same with this forum, which begs the question:

Do you think that Ron Paul Forums.com is a "collective"?

Ron Paul Forums.com is a group. If we start using collective for any congregation of more than one person, well, that is very broad. I perhaps used collective wrong in my previous post, but I view a collective as essentially a hive -- with all the characteristics of the hive mentality and mechanisms.

Acala
08-17-2010, 11:20 AM
Good point. I want to belong to a collective of my choosing. I joined C4L because I wanted to. Same with this forum, which begs the question:

Do you think that Ron Paul Forums.com is a "collective"?

I suppose it depends entirely on how you define collective. I don't have a ready definition.

YumYum
08-17-2010, 11:21 AM
Ron Paul Forums.com is a group. If we start using collective for any congregation of more than one person, well, that is very broad. I perhaps used collective wrong in my previous post, but I view a collective as essentially a hive -- with all the characteristics of the hive mentality and mechanisms.

You don't think that there are some Ron Paul supporters that are of the "hive mentality and mechanisms", and when people don't go along with the status quo they get stung? bzzzzzz..:D

wizardwatson
08-17-2010, 11:26 AM
The way forward is how we can sell the message to people outside of our thought process. Many people came to libertarian/free-human thinking because of seeing what was wrong with the world and logically thinking about what could be done with varying methods, and then deduced that it was simply wrong to initiate violence.

Most people in the wider population reject libertarianism (to use an umbrella term) because it is filled with people finding problems in policies and interventions who can't really formulate why adopting their viewpoint would help the observer. This is why a better theory is needed of what will replace govt once its lights are out, because people just want water, food, income, and security - and they want them provided cheaply and reliably. This is the mindset that is put on display every election day, when Ds and Rs and LPs and Greens each try to out-do each other in the "we'll provide X" games.

In non-political libertarianism, especially in the An-Cap version, a dire viewpoint is put forth to these people that reads to them as "Govt is not the answer, the market can only provide the answer." Which is why it is so hard to say what we really are advocating for: no one can foretell the market as a whole.

So, what to do except rail against govt? Be entrepreneurial and test what you think will happen when you try to provide a service? Well, in the current 'market', there is no way that a free market service provider can be competitive against the govt subsidized versions of those services. There is too much threat from the force of govt to be able to be separated from them without first demolishing their own legitimacy through direct action.

So that leaves the true libertarians few options in really giving a specific view of how people's needs will be taken care of in the future. The only option down this route is to show the inefficiencies of the status quo, and hypothetically address them to your reader. You can never be certain which firm structure will win out in providing any service, but you can be sure that it will be at least marginally better than a govt agency.

Beyond the hypothetical, the only real actions that can be taken now are to either try to start a competing agency in such a skewed and malinvested market, or to dismantle the competition inhibitor by either briefly seizing the reigns of power before slicing them, or by educating the individuals who support the system that it is only their own servitude that is keeping us all enslaved.

If you think that someone's hypothetical vision of the future is flawed, by all means argue about why it is, and what could be done to improve it. Better yet, take your improvements and set them into action yourself. The market will decide which is better, even if that is measured by how long it takes for the govt to shut you down by force or through tax-hemorrhaging. You both might have different solutions that are equally effective to different groups of people. All we can do is speculate until the ideas are put into action.

Well, I would love to "put my ideas into action". But the funny thing about implementing alternative currency is that it requires more than one person.

There have been lots of good ideas for things we could do but they never seem to get any attention, "refining the message", "arguing about hypotheticals" seems to be all we do. Many of the "boots on the ground" people in this movement have left, probably until something more tangible presents itself again like RP 2012, or whatever.

The people that seemed to have hung around here the longest/most are all the braniac/smart people, who have more potential in my opinion to do good, but conversely seem more content to justify their inaction with rationalizations about how "the free market will decide the best path", or "we're refining the message and educating the masses".

I'm not judging or pointing fingers at specific people. I think the fact that we're all tuned in to these ideas at all, knowing how unknown/unpopular they are says a lot. I'm just wondering if its ever going to transition from the smart people around here saying "the movement should do this/that" to "I'M going to do this/that".

So many agorist ideas like alt. currency, organic farming, collaborative websites, etc. have been posted discussed on these forums and it seems like a lot of us with ability/talent have lone-wolfed it for a little while then gave up on this idea or that. Maybe we need to start simpler, just basic organizational stuff, get to know each other, be honest about what we're "actually" involved/not involved in. If we could at least come together organizationally, with the intention to share ideas and strategies more formally, perhaps we can pool our resources/talent enough to get some of this ideas out of "idea" phase.

People have not seemed to have absorbed the fact that nothing is really happening outside these campaigns. And my fear is that whoever the RP candidate is in 2012, whether its RP or RP endorsing someone else, the mood of these forums will shift back to people's ideas being parallel to the campaign and any "electoral politic naysayer" will be ostracized by some indignant jerkoff thinking that he's "helping" the movement by bitching at everyone who he/she believes is going to cost the campaign a vote. In other words, I fear the "campaign" for RP will once again think it is the "movement", rather than the campaign being a part of the movement.

Now we're in a lull sort of and I just wonder if maybe we shouldn't be hammering out the boring stuff now, trying to get some clarity of direction strategy. Because once the campaign starts, the flurry of activity is going to bring out all the opportunists and others and the illusion of progress will reign.

Just wondering where to start I guess, and wondering if anyone else is wondering the same thing, or if we're all too busy/disinterested to care, or simply content to treat these superficial encounters as mere time pass.

YumYum
08-17-2010, 11:26 AM
I suppose it depends entirely on how you define collective. I don't have a ready definition.

Well, when someone expresses an opinion that is not in agreement with the majority, and they are called a "moron" and an "idiot" for having an opinion, I would say that those who do the name calling are part of a collective with a "beehive mentality" (you should patent that, AED :D).

Mini-Me
08-17-2010, 11:35 AM
I don't know about you, but I would have me some insurance with the baddest-ass detective agency around. They would track down the murderer.

Insurance in a free market is all about pooling risk. The risk of your house burning down on any given day is VERY small but the consequences are huge. There are millions of people in the same situation so they pool their risk through an insurance company. Everybody pays a tiny bit each year for fire insurance and then if their house ever burns down, it is paid for out of the insurance pool.

Same thing for murder. The chances of anyone in your family being murdered is very low (with some exceptions to be addressed shortly). So you pool the risk with others in you situation. Then, if you are unlucky enough to be a victim of murder, the insurance company/security agency takes your case, tracks down the murderer and extracts restitution from him if possible. Or executes him since
I personally think restitution in the case of murder includes killing the murderer but I won't go into my defense of that position.

Of course just as some houses are more prone to fire and will cost more to insure, some lifestyles and locations are more prone to murder and would cost more to insure. Or might even be uninsurable. The market would decide and would exert an influence toward murder-reducing behavior among the insured.

Oh, and I would have that little sticker on the window that says "If you burglarize this house or rob, rape or kill anyone inside, the XYZ Detective agency WILL track you to the ends of the earth, WILL find you, and WILL extract restitution from you or kill you as the case requires." Because my detective agency/insurance company wants my business it will have built up a reputation to back up the threat on the sticker and eventually criminals will know it and stay away.

I believe this post deserves more attention than it has gotten. Combine it especially with the lower cost of private detectives in an unrestricted labor market.

Someone offered a very simplistic version of a restitution-based system earlier in the thread, but I should point out that I, like MelissaWV, find it appalling for the same reasons...which is pretty bad, considering I'm very much in favor of a system which focuses primarily on [the closest thing possible to] restitution. ;)

A restitution-based system should work more like the following: A criminal is initially given a prison sentence by a jury. However, the victim has the power to forgive this sentence, since they are in fact the aggrieved party. The criminal may then bargain with the victim (or the victim's family, if his crime was murder) for a reduction or removal of the prison sentence, and he may offer things such as a monetary sum, years of indentured servitude, etc. It is ultimately the power of the victim (or the victim's family) to haggle and determine whether or not to accept any contract offer. (Note that if someone murders a family member, usual rules would not quite apply. ;))

If the victim/family chooses not to accept any offer of restitution, SOMEONE obviously has to pay for the criminal's prison sentence. As an initial guess, I'd say it would probably fall to the victim's insurance company, and the criminal would owe a debt, but there are three snags: One, a life sentence could mean the criminal can never get out to work and repay the debt. Two, this would give the insurance companies an incentive to agitate for a seat at the bargaining table, because they have a stake in the outcome. Three, the victim may not have an insurance company (charity?). All of this can be alleviated if the prisoners have to somehow support themselves while in prison to neutralize the costs (courtyard agriculture? etc.), but otherwise, some more cleverness is required that I haven't stumbled upon yet.

Wesker1982
08-17-2010, 11:39 AM
I believe this post deserves more attention than it has gotten.


+1

fisharmor
08-17-2010, 11:49 AM
I also envision "unsolved murders" charities being run to provide individuals a sense of security in knowing that all murderers are held accountable, who would pay the investigation costs on many murders that are either against the poor, or those against the victims with no heirs to instigate an investigation. Today this function is absorbed into the common tax-funded police, and the return on investment is warehouses full of unsolved crimes unless there is some easy break or publicity stunt warranting proving who the criminal was.

Why does it have to be charity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Most_Wanted

wizardwatson, I take your admonishment about discussing how to get there as opposed to describing what it will be like.

But please realize that it's stuff like AMW that makes me realize that step 1 in the strategy is to point out to as many people as possible and as often as possible that the market already has mechanisms in place to take over the jobs that we've been brainwashed into thinking are only ever going to be state functions.

There are also many mechanisms that would be employed if they were not hindered or directly outlawed by the state.

This is part of the strategy, IMO. The astute reader will bypass the strawman in this thread, that a human life is worth $300k, and see the meat of what we're discussing instead of getting bogged down in the weeds.

I don't think the non-astute reader is reachable. I could be wrong, but I'll leave the discussion of that strategy to people who aren't convinced that some people simply need to be ruled by the state.

Wesker1982
08-17-2010, 11:56 AM
Chapter 13: Punishment and Proportionality
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf

The subject of retribution and murder is talked about here.

wizardwatson
08-17-2010, 02:09 PM
wizardwatson, I take your admonishment about discussing how to get there as opposed to describing what it will be like.

I'm just against the whole way we are discussing everything in general. We pretend their are goals and that there is organization when there isn't. And I know a bulletin board isn't the ideal way to organize anything because posts that "feel like work", people just ignore because they know no ones really paying that much attention anyway. Non-reciprocation has no negative feedback mechanism online. If people walked away from convo's in real life they way they do online, they'd be called a-holes.

And again, I'm not judging anyone, I'm the same way most of the time online, I'm just here passing time between doing all the boring, counter-productive, shit I do at work. I've been a web programmer for awhile, and like many other programmers have spent a considerable amount of time analyzing how people interact online, what they like to do online, how you maintain identity and how people "broadcast" information about themselves online, how to make money online, etc.

And my theory on what's "wrong" with online "interaction", and of why people become so easily addicted to social networks, is because the superficial way in which we interact with one another functions as an artificial self-esteem generation mechanism. Real interaction requires work and there's an element of humility involved. But on the internet you can always be right, and if someone says you're not right you just ignore them. When someone isn't willing to give you an 'atta-boy' or tell you you're cool or special, you just move on to one of your other 500 facebook friends.


But please realize that it's stuff like AMW that makes me realize that step 1 in the strategy is to point out to as many people as possible and as often as possible that the market already has mechanisms in place to take over the jobs that we've been brainwashed into thinking are only ever going to be state functions.

So, I have to disagree with the above. Step 1 for you is practically the last step in my mind, if we're to take an objective look at where we're at. Right now, outside the campaign structures, what are we? Is there a list of members of the movement? If "we're" supposed to be pointing things out to people what are we offering them as a means to achieve the visions we lay out for them?

There's a Christian saying that fits this situation nicely. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" It is the intellects in this movement that need to get their shit together, not the people who have no skill or talent or desire to be theoretical about everything. I've never bought into this "sheeple" are stupid and deserve the government they get crap. I guess it sells ad space on the LRC blog for those who like to feel better about how smart they are but the mass of humanity doesn't need theories, it needs help and it wants to be left alone. The job of the enlightened is to kill the wolf, not to brow-beat the sheep because it can't run fast enough or defend itself well enough.

I used to think that the worst thing wasn't the ignorant among us but the over-educated among us who think they know the answers. But the internet has amplified this mental error into people that not only think they know, but think they are "doing" stuff about it as well. The internet is an echo chamber, and as I said lacks many of the negative feedback mechanisms that actually help people learn their errors and mistakes.


This is part of the strategy, IMO. The astute reader will bypass the strawman in this thread, that a human life is worth $300k, and see the meat of what we're discussing instead of getting bogged down in the weeds. I don't think the non-astute reader is reachable. I could be wrong, but I'll leave the discussion of that strategy to people who aren't convinced that some people simply need to be ruled by the state.

The disease of what many on here call "statism" isn't the denial of some theoretical axiom. It is mental. It is a very old problem in the human psyche. A problem that has to do with the type of thinking that says "some people deserve what they get". "Nature means for the weak to perish." and this pervading meme in the human psyche that one class of people is "smarter" or "wiser" than another.

So here is my conundrum. How do we get those in the "movement" or those who see the potential of a movement to come of their hidey holes and actually start to do some stuff? Furthermore, how do we even suggest that more general internal focusing needs to take place without all the intellectual lurkers calling us out for being pompous or pretentious, or being negative?

It seems whenever I PM with someone who isn't really intellectually oriented they will readily admit that they don't know what to do but they feel we need leadership. But whenever I talk to smart people who could be leaders, have the potential to really help, I get all this rationalization for inaction, and "let the free market work" BS. The free market isn't going to pull that idea out your head and manifest it in reality for you. YOU are the free market. I swear you could replace every occurrence of "free market" on these boards with "God" and the semantics would hardly change.

This is why I scoff, when people are like, "just go out and do stuff, educate people". We don't need more education, we need more simplification. This movement has educated itself into near paralysis. It needs concrete, well-defined achievable goals that aren't going to go away when we lose our next election.

I don't know people. I just really struggle with what's missing or what we need to be more autonomous and active. It seems we have all the right ingredients. But we lack a mechanism of some sort to generate leadership, or to activate it or to get the leaders to step up to the plate.

Mini-Me
08-17-2010, 02:24 PM
It seems whenever I PM with someone who isn't really intellectually oriented they will readily admit that they don't know what to do but they feel we need leadership. But whenever I talk to smart people who could be leaders, have the potential to really help, I get all this rationalization for inaction, and "let the free market work" BS. The free market isn't going to pull that idea out your head and manifest it in reality for you. YOU are the free market. I swear you could replace every occurrence of "free market" on these boards with "God" and the semantics would hardly change.

I think you're overlooking an important factor here: We're discussing how the free market could and would handle a problem in the absence of the current system. However, given the current system which is perpetuated by force, taxation, etc., there is simply no existing opportunity for any of us to implement a lot of these alternative free market solutions.

For instance, take this thread: Who the hell is going to pay a premium to an insurance company to handle investigation costs, when the government already funds these costs by taxing other people? The insurance model can be a better and more efficient model, and people here argue for it to open up people's minds and demonstrate how things could [and should] be done in the absence of taxation. Still, an entrepreneurial effort to institute it cannot actually succeed in the presence of the current system.

So, are we all just pissing in the wind? No. The point of suggesting these possibilities for change is to give others the understanding, inspiration, and reassurance that it is a good idea to change or eliminate the current system in the first place, and that doing so will open up opportunities for a better system. Unfortunately, there's just no easy agorist solution here; the way the judicial system works can only be changed through through the political process or by a collapse of its funding (e.g. collapsing governments and/or tax revolts). In the meantime, we need to point out why such a major change would be desirable in the first place. You say that we have educated ourselves into paralysis, but you're overlooking the fact that the vast majority of the American people cannot conceive of any alternative ways of doing things. Until they can, we will always be fighting an uphill battle.

Long story short: Agorism has its place, and agorist activity is a favorable alternative to paying higher prices for goods/services (or being unable to buy them at all) in a highly regulated above-the-table market. However, agorism is not capable of fixing all of our problems, because no entrepreneur (above or below the table) can compete with a tax-funded government monopoly in any given sector. It's just a fact of life, and no market-oriented action items are going to change it. The only way to open up new market opportunities in areas dominated by tax-funded monopolies is to eliminate those monopolies or their funding. Regardless of the exact mechanism, the only way to achieve that is to somehow get enough people to want that to happen...and we don't have NEARLY enough yet. It is always a numbers game, and that is why it is always about education (or failing that, flat-out propaganda; that's how our enemies wooed so many people, after all).

wizardwatson
08-17-2010, 02:42 PM
I think you're overlooking an important factor here: We're discussing how the free market could and would handle a problem in the absence of the current system. However, given the current system which is perpetuated by force, taxation, etc., there is simply no existing opportunity for any of us to implement a lot of these alternative free market solutions.

For instance, take this thread: Who the hell is going to pay a premium to an insurance company to handle investigation costs, when the government already funds these costs by taxing other people? The insurance model can be a better and more efficient model, and people argue for it to demonstrate how things could [and should] be done in the absence of taxation, but an entrepreneurial effort to institute it cannot actually succeed in the presence of the current system.

The whole point of suggesting these possibilities for change is to give others the understanding, inspiration, and reassurance that it is a good idea to change or eliminate the current system in the first place, and that doing so will open up opportunities for a better system. Unfortunately, there's just no easy agorist solution here; the way the judicial system works can only be changed through through the political process or by a collapse of its funding (e.g. collapsing governments and/or tax revolts). In the meantime, we need to point out why such a major change would be desirable in the first place.

There's no easy agorist solution because you're goals are too lofty. So rather than reframe the strategy in terms of more local achievable goals your strategy is to convince some unknown number of people that your lofty goal is worthy of achieving? That is strategy fail.

What's really happening, is that a lot of smart people who could be doing more productive stuff have convinced themselves that going around convincing others that "liberty is cool" is a viable strategy to achieve liberty. This is ridiculous and only stands as the norm because its a rationalization of what we were already doing in the first place, flapping our yappers.

Ron Paul saying "the message is most important" has been twisted into this rationalization for constant online mental masturbation about liberty concepts. He meant the "message" is more important than winning elections, not "spreading the message is the best way to achieve liberty".

Alternative currency is probably the easiest thing to achieve because it can be done locally and then grown starting with a small geographic area. But I've beat that horse to death. People here will tear apart any idea that sounds like work and that points the finger inward and shows them that they aren't really doing anything. Its sad that progressives online are doing way more work in the alternative currency movement than the so-called "sound money" proponents.

We need to stop with the lofty goals and take baby steps in strategy. Clinging to this "education" meme isn't a strategy I care to participate in really. It's a part of the whole, but it isn't the most important part and it certainly isn't the foundational piece.

What's to education anyway? People can only absorb so much information. Write a 30 page collaborative essay, that has all the BS removed, link people to it, and move on. Pretending that we're accomplishing something or performing some great service to humanity by "helping people understand" in these forums and in comment threads of the oppositions hit pieces is self-delusion and rationalization of what we'd be doing anyway even if there was no talk of a "movement".

See, now you've gone and made me all negative sounding.

Daamien
08-17-2010, 02:58 PM
Historically Blood Money was used to pay restitution based on the murdered person's status (especially in the Holy Roman Empire). Even Bishops and Princes had Blood Money prices if they were murdered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_money_%28term%29

WaltM
08-17-2010, 03:02 PM
Let's say that someone in my family is murdered by someone. I don't know who did it, I have some evidence, but I work and only make a small amount of money. I am basically poor, maybe a student, like many others in society.

Because this isn't a perfect world, yes, murders do happen along with burglaries, etc etc.

How would I pay for a detective. Would my family member's murder go unsolved? How does the free market take care of justice where the free market may not serve it?

it would be just like today, if you can't afford a good defense or detective, you're screwed.

no society makes justice available to everybody, the ones that try always use government. And those who do it for profit ultimately become corrupt.

MelissaWV
08-17-2010, 03:32 PM
Don't forget about any friends and family who were harmed by the murder. The victims family would be caused expenses and anxiety. The aggressor has the responsibility to make compensations for the primary loss suffered by the victim and to anyone who he has caused to suffer a direct and serious loss. The person who was killed is not the only victim.

This is assuming the only punishment in a free market would be paying restitution. I am pretty sure the market would decide that having murderers running around is too risky.

If detectives only solved crimes where the victim was rich, then the detective would probably go out of business. There probably wouldn't be enough rich people for a detective to exclusively solve high priced crimes. Even if a detective were to act in such a way, it would open an opportunity for an entrepreneur to specialize in helping the victims with less money. Doing business with many poor people could be more profitable than doing business with just a few rich people.

What if the poor people are REALLY poor and have no money at all? It is unlikely that only the victim and whoever else suffered a direct loss would be the only ones interested in solving a murder case.

First we can't make the assumption the private detectives are paid ONLY when their services are needed. Think of it like an insurance company. Its likely that people would pay a price each month to be "insured" by private defense agencies, private detectives, private courts, etc. They could even be packaged together for a better deal. People paying for these services would want their plan to include insurance against people going around town killing poor people.

There would be incentive for private detectives to solve murder cases where the victim is poor because their customers would probably quit paying them if they didn't protect them by attempting to solve murders in their area. Its likely that the customers would feel threatened by the possibility of getting murdered by someone who isn't being pursued and because of this demand their insurance/private defense/private detective agency to attempt to catch the killer.

Please read the post that is being addressed, as the portions I bolded are in direct conflict with the post I was addressing. None of what you've said was in there. What the poster stated is that the entire system needs to be based upon restitution. When it was further discussed how a detective would decide to take up a case, it was pointed out that a portion of that restitution would go to the detective(s) once it was recovered.

If that is the case, then there is no incentive to go after anyone for the murders of the poor, because the monetary reward if someone is caught is going to be so slim that it doesn't adequately compensate the detectives in question.

Again, the post (#2) does not mention insurance. It reads:


You have to change the nature of the penal system. A system whereby the defendant upon being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is sent off to rot in a 15x15 cell to be a parasite of society and not productive, creates a problem for this very reason. It is why voluntary systems of justice (IE non-taxation funded), do not have such systems. They use restitution forms of justice, which are both more just to the victims, and produce better results in society.

So, to answer your question the foundation of the justice system must be upon restitution. The aggrieved party is awarded a sum from the defendant in the amount equal to his crime. So for instance, if he killed your brother who made 30,000$ a year, it is not unreasonable to award a sum of 300,000$ to the victims family. This is either paid directly, or through the garnishing of wages.

In the scenario you posit, the prosecutors of such cases would be paid through winning the case. Even if you had no money, someone would take your case. This problem is moot in a system built on restitution.

The poster, however, has indicated that the money won in the case would be based on the victim's worth (wages). Why would someone take up cases, routinely, where they would expend huge amounts of resources and get no compensation in return? Oh I'm not saying NO ONE would do it, but you would certainly see fewer people willing to help someone when the victim was poor.

MelissaWV
08-17-2010, 03:38 PM
...

This is part of the strategy, IMO. The astute reader will bypass the strawman in this thread, that a human life is worth $300k, and see the meat of what we're discussing instead of getting bogged down in the weeds.

...

The meat of what's being discussed, since the second post, is compensation over imprisonment, at least by some. Others are discussing other things entirely. Compensation carries a dollar amount. Whether that be $1 or $1,000,000,000, it still carries with it the problems I pointed out. Moreover, I don't think the OP has been addressed at all.

* * *

In a "Libertarian world" (and define that however you will, since so many versions exist), how would a detective even go about doing their job? You have the freedom to refuse to answer, of course, and to conceal evidence, and to do any number of things that cause no harm. After all, in the example of brother killing brother, is the shooter's girlfriend doing anything wrong by hiding a weapon? By cleaning it? By destroying it? If the answer is "yes" then how does one enforce this? Is it also a crime? To whom is the restitution payable here, and on what will it be based? How do you investigate when everyone has the right to refuse you, and you must ask permission to enter property, even the crime scene?

Those are questions people really haven't approached. We're still stuck on hiring the detective; they haven't started detecting anything :p

Wesker1982
08-17-2010, 05:11 PM
In a "Libertarian world" (and define that however you will, since so many versions exist), how would a detective even go about doing their job? You have the freedom to refuse to answer, of course, and to conceal evidence, and to do any number of things that cause no harm. After all, in the example of brother killing brother, is the shooter's girlfriend doing anything wrong by hiding a weapon? By cleaning it? By destroying it? If the answer is "yes" then how does one enforce this? Is it also a crime? To whom is the restitution payable here, and on what will it be based? How do you investigate when everyone has the right to refuse you, and you must ask permission to enter property, even the crime scene?


DROs

WaltM
08-17-2010, 05:13 PM
DROs

DRO is for fantasy land.

what gives DRO authority? If they can't violate property, what use are they?

Wesker1982
08-17-2010, 05:44 PM
what gives DRO authority? If they can't violate property, what use are they?

If you are really interested in your question being answered you should check out

Police, Law, and the Courts
http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

The chapter starts on page 219, page 226 (The Courts) is where your question starts to be addressed but the whole chapter is worth reading.