Due process rights for the poor in the an-cap system

[otherone]

"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."

Interesting quote. Revisiting Paine's claim:
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." For some reason, people believe that if something is necessary, then it is good (or at least not evil). War, for instance, or even lying. It is the justification of evil that has made government evil, and the further we get from statelessness, the more deluded we all become.

[fisharmor]

It's a question of ethics, not economics.
....Maybe you have a different figure in mind, but surely you must have some figure.

No, I surely do not have some figure in mind.
I have released my mind from the idea that there is one and only one way to handle this.
I'm not sure how else to put it. You are one man with one idea. Rothbard was one man with one idea.
If we could find the one man with the one idea for how it would work best, then statism would work.
The point is you can't find that man. Not unless you allow that man's idea to be implemented voluntarily and totally outside a coercive system.
His best idea will rise to the top because it is the best idea, and not because men with uniforms and guns will shove a broken toilet plunger up your ass if you disagree.

It can't be that any amount of restitution at all (i.e. whatever the market decides) is just.

Well there, you said it, not me. You don't believe in markets.
I already knew this, of course, but thanks for clarifying for those watching at home.

Would it be just to make me pay $1 million for stealing a pack of gum?

I would not completely disallow this option.

Or make me pay $1 for stealing $1 million?

I would not completely disallow this option.

However restitution is calculated, there will be situations where the restitution ordered is less than the what it would cost to collect it.

I agree. But the point I've tried to make is, yes, this is not just an economic calculation.
That guy staying up all night working on a kernel patch for Linux to plug a security hole isn't getting money for it.
He's doing it primarily because it needs to get done. He is one of the untold millions of us who are not primarily motivated by money. He's doing it because it is the right thing to do and because it benefits everyone.
As a side benefit he gets to put it on his resume' and gets kudos from his peers. Money comes later. He gets taken care of. He doesn't get filthy rich, but because most people are motivated by ethics first and economics second, it doesn't matter to him.

The main problem is not that the victim goes uncompensated, it's that the criminal goes unpunished.

Lack of punishment is only a problem if you get a rise out of people getting punished.

...i.e. because then other would-be criminals go undeterred (see re profitable crime).

I gave you an example how the state actively forbids innovation in finding deterrents, and you called it "a lot of speculation, tinged with wishful thinking".
You think there is one and only one way to deter crime. I do not.
That is why I advocate for a system that doesn't act like there is one and only one way to deter crime, and you actively fight against the idea.
This is a necessary consequence of the fact that you fundamentally do not believe in markets.

[Ronin Truth]

No, I surely do not have some figure in mind.
I have released my mind from the idea that there is one and only one way to handle this.
I'm not sure how else to put it. You are one man with one idea. Rothbard was one man with one idea.
If we could find the one man with the one idea for how it would work best, then statism would work.
The point is you can't find that man. Not unless you allow that man's idea to be implemented voluntarily and totally outside a coercive system.
His best idea will rise to the top because it is the best idea, and not because men with uniforms and guns will shove a broken toilet plunger up your ass if you disagree.


Well there, you said it, not me. You don't believe in markets.
I already knew this, of course, but thanks for clarifying for those watching at home.


I would not completely disallow this option.


I would not completely disallow this option.


I agree. But the point I've tried to make is, yes, this is not just an economic calculation.
That guy staying up all night working on a kernel patch for Linux to plug a security hole isn't getting money for it.
He's doing it primarily because it needs to get done. He is one of the untold millions of us who are not primarily motivated by money. He's doing it because it is the right thing to do and because it benefits everyone.
As a side benefit he gets to put it on his resume' and gets kudos from his peers. Money comes later. He gets taken care of. He doesn't get filthy rich, but because most people are motivated by ethics first and economics second, it doesn't matter to him.


Lack of punishment is only a problem if you get a rise out of people getting punished.


I gave you an example how the state actively forbids innovation in finding deterrents, and you called it "a lot of speculation, tinged with wishful thinking".
You think there is one and only one way to deter crime. I do not.
That is why I advocate for a system that doesn't act like there is one and only one way to deter crime, and you actively fight against the idea.
This is a necessary consequence of the fact that you fundamentally do not believe in markets.

+Rep!

[r3volution 3.0]

...No, I surely do not have some figure in mind. I have released my mind from the idea that there is one and only one way to handle this.

...You don't believe in markets.

In the hypothetical ancap society, legal norms will reflect consumer preferences.

The market for legal services (like any market) will efficiently satisfy demand.

But what if consumer preferences are unlibertarian?

E.G., if the preponderance of consumers view redheads as sub-human, such that killing them should not be a crime, the law will reflect that.

That would be market-emergent law; but would it be just?

Libertarians would say no.

If you're saying yes, whatever the market decides is just, well okay, but that's not libertarianism.

Lack of punishment is only a problem if you get a rise out of people getting punished.

no punishment --> less deterrence --> more crime

I gave you an example how the state actively forbids innovation in finding deterrents, and you called it "a lot of speculation, tinged with wishful thinking".
You think there is one and only one way to deter crime. I do not.

I'm not saying there's only one way to deter crime.

If you don't punish criminals, there is less deterrence than their otherwise would be, which means more crime than there otherwise would be.

[ArrestPoliticians]

In the hypothetical ancap society, legal norms will reflect consumer preferences.

The market for legal services (like any market) will efficiently satisfy demand.

But what if consumer preferences are unlibertarian?

E.G., if the preponderance of consumers view redheads as sub-human, such that killing them should not be a crime, the law will reflect that.

That would be market-emergent law; but would it be just?

Libertarians would say no.

If you're saying yes, whatever the market decides is just, well okay, but that's not libertarianism.

Its so clear than anarchists cease to become libertarians at a certain point, the driving force always being "no state" rather than "libertarian values," which were effectively forced on Americans by an intellectual elite via the coup of the Constitution. They are willing to forego many libertarian principles to achieve no state.

[erowe1]

They are willing to forego many libertarian principles to achieve no state.

Can you cite an example of that?

[ArrestPoliticians]

Can you cite an example of that?

Can you read the responses in this thread downplaying the importance of many due process rights we hold dear?

[The Gold Standard]

In the hypothetical ancap society, legal norms will reflect consumer preferences.

The market for legal services (like any market) will efficiently satisfy demand.

But what if consumer preferences are unlibertarian?

E.G., if the preponderance of consumers view redheads as sub-human, such that killing them should not be a crime, the law will reflect that.

That would be market-emergent law; but would it be just?

Libertarians would say no.

If you're saying yes, whatever the market decides is just, well okay, but that's not libertarianism.

What if the preponderance of voters view blacks as subhuman, such that they should be considered property and treated as such? Oh, that's right. The state made laws reflecting and enforcing this sentiment. If a society is so $#@!ed up as to hold those views, the presence or absence of a state will have no bearing on it. It has nothing to do with "libertarianism".

[The Gold Standard]

Can you read the responses in this thread downplaying the importance of many due process rights we hold dear?

Who holds them dear? The police? Your "public servants"? The 2% of voters that supported Rand Paul?

[erowe1]

Can you read the responses in this thread downplaying the importance of many due process rights we hold dear?

So you can't.

[The Gold Standard]

I'd say you're saying having a state in any capacity is worse than denying the indigent due process.

The indigent don't get due process now under a state that explicitly lists it as a right in their Constitution. They have a much better chance of getting it being served by the free market. You are arguing that having a state pick and choose who gets due process is preferable to people interacting freely doing so.

[Ronin Truth]

Perhaps lawyers will be much much cheaper and affordable under An-Cap.

[ArrestPoliticians]

The indigent don't get due process now under a state that explicitly lists it as a right in their Constitution. They have a much better chance of getting it being served by the free market. You are arguing that having a state pick and choose who gets due process is preferable to people interacting freely doing so.

You just assumed what you're trying to prove. Prove(or demonstrate) why anarchy would do a better job.

[The Gold Standard]

You just assumed what you're trying to prove. Prove(or demonstrate) why anarchy would do a better job.

It's impossible to prove or demonstrate. But your argument is that we need the state to provide due process for the indigent, and the state continually denies due process to the indigent. So, what am I supposed to prove again? Or do you need to come up with another reason we need a state?

[r3volution 3.0]

What if the preponderance of voters view blacks as subhuman, such that they should be considered property and treated as such? Oh, that's right. The state made laws reflecting and enforcing this sentiment. If a society is so $#@!ed up as to hold those views, the presence or absence of a state will have no bearing on it. It has nothing to do with "libertarianism".

I'm just pointing out that market-emergent law is not necessarily libertarian law (contrary to what some ancaps seem to believe).

I'm not making any comparison with the state (it goes without saying that the state can pass unlibertarian law).

[r3volution 3.0]

Its so clear than anarchists cease to become libertarians at a certain point, the driving force always being "no state" rather than "libertarian values," which were effectively forced on Americans by an intellectual elite via the coup of the Constitution. They are willing to forego many libertarian principles to achieve no state.

Yep

[Ronin Truth]

Its so clear than anarchists cease to become libertarians at a certain point, the driving force always being "no state" rather than "libertarian values," which were effectively forced on Americans by an intellectual elite via the coup of the Constitution. They are willing to forego many libertarian principles to achieve no state.

Q: What is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?

A: Twenty years.