1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Dealing with criminals

Home Forums Research Law and Politics Dealing with criminals

This topic contains 67 replies, has 26 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of xiagos xiagos 4 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 68 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2797
    Avatar of thebastidge
    thebastidge
    Participant

    When you control another person through force and are “legally” or socially entitled to dispose of that person’s time and person with no further consent or consequence, that person is chattel property. Slavery exists.

    • It doesn’t make it right, but it is a fact, and airily dismissing “the possibility of owning another person” doesn’t change that, amigo. Someone who is inclined to traffick in persons will shrug at your elegant thesis, knock you on your ass, chain you to something solid and beat you until you do as you’re told.
    • Everyone has a breaking point. They teach you that in the military. In the event of capture, your only duty is to resist to your own utmost. And when you do eventually, fail to resist, you bend as little as possible to avoid breaking. And then hopefully, you go back to resisting. But you are wrong about a person’s free will. It can be destroyed.

    This is a much grimmer topic than people seem to treat it. Sorry.

    #2802
    Avatar of Jesrad
    Jesrad
    Participant

    Don’t misinterpret what I’m saying: I’m only stating why there is no way slavery could be right, in the ownership sense, under any circumstance whatsoever. And not that it can’t exist.

    #2803
    Avatar of thebastidge
    thebastidge
    Participant

    I did indeed misunderstand you.

    #4019
    Avatar of Incognitum
    Incognitum
    Participant

    For my part, it would seem imprudent to join a floating society from which i could not readily leave, where I do not know the members of the community, but the excepted punishment for violations of a code I may not have access to read in advance, is capitol. It would seem like a good idea for someone to create a website cataloging various sea-cities (sities). They could compare their laws, level of economic income, the areas they operate in (all of which the members of the various sities would be able to update, subject to editorial review by the webmaster) and even provide bandwidth for journal entries and videos of sea life in their particular community.

    It is all very well and good to pontificate in advance, but the real laws will be made the first time adultery is witnessed by the spouse, or the first time an overprotective parent finds someone sleeping with their 14 year old (the age of consent in many countries)

    #4208
    Avatar of Dil
    Dil
    Participant

    I think in a voluntary society, the punishment would vary depending on the living agreement. I don’t think it makes sense to list punishments for a community that hasn’t declared what it expects. Anarchy is not lawlessness.

    Maybe one community would be fine with banishment, another with hanging, and perhaps, even one with monetary fines to pay for potential psychological damage of children. I mean, I’m actually for the last option, punishing the guy won’t fix the children, seizing his money to fix the children actually helps fix the children.

    Having said that, jailing someone doesn’t seem viable, but a community may actually want to pay for something like that —who knows.

    Revolution starts in the mind.

    #4209
    Avatar of Jeff-Chan
    Jeff-Chan
    Participant

    Spacing a la Heinlein (not Herbert)? 1/3 ;)

    #4237
    Avatar of thebastidge
    thebastidge
    Participant

    Knowing that bad guys are punished for doing bad DOES help children.

    1. It fulfills the sense of justice.

    2. It encourage righteous behaviour to avoid punishment

    3. Removal of the perp increases the feeling of security in the community ( a perceptual point of view, but valuable, as societies are created in trust, and trust is a part of human capital).

    4. #3 also ensures that they don’t offend again in actuality.

    #4238
    Avatar of thebastidge
    thebastidge
    Participant

    Knowing that bad guys are punished for doing bad DOES help children.

    1. It fulfills the sense of justice.

    2. It encourage righteous behaviour to avoid punishment

    3. Removal of the perp increases the feeling of security in the community ( a perceptual point of view, but valuable, as societies are created in trust, and trust is a part of human capital).

    4. #3 also ensures that they don’t offend again in actuality.

    #6839
    Avatar of GoldfishAuthor
    GoldfishAuthor
    Participant

    First and foremost we should acknowledge the difference between “slavery” and “hard labor”. Slavery implies individual ownership (as was mentioned earlier) whereas hard labor is a pretty scary way of saying “lots of community service”. Hard labor is, most likely, the best way to punish crimes that do not reach a capitol point (everything ranging from larceny to minor assault charges), but with capitol crimes there will be those ‘steads that choose the death penalty. This will be especially true of the first rape, or child molestation, or murder a seastead sees. Hard labor, even though it does not give the immediate gratification of seeing the aggressor hanged or forced to walk the plank, gives back to the community as a whole by creating a cheap labor force. It’s this same cheap manual labor that Americans use to get our license plates pressed nationwide. With proper monitoring/guards this could be turned towards everything from construction to street cleaning. I agree with the King quote from earlier, and taking a life shouldn’t be a knee jerk reaction from any legal system, and here in America (especially states like Texas) is used like a more controlled mob mentality anyway. I’m not saying the death penalty should be entirely ruled out, as there are things that are undoubtedly punishable by death, the most heinous of which would be the molestation, exploitation, or rape of a child. It is situations such as these that will start causing people, even that one seastead that will undoubtedly crop up filled with long-haired-pinko-commie-dirty-hippies (of which I normally align myself with), to have to make that moral decision of “does this person deserve to die for what they did?”. I can almost guarantee a great many of the seasteads at first will say “off with his head” not as a cost cutting measure but as a vengeful one. Then again I may just be talking out of my ample posterior, as it will ultimately be the individual seastead’s choice, and if it’s a decision I don’t like there’s nothing keeping me from shipping off to another ‘stead.

    Though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

    -Sun Tzu, the Art of War

    #6847
    Avatar of Michael-Hawkins
    Michael-Hawkins
    Participant

    We need to distinguish two seperate possibilities:

    • Being subject to a land nations law
    • Being sovereign

    If you are subject to a land nations laws, well, you have to live with that. You can’t just go around declaring things illegal and doling out your own justice.

    However, arbitration would still be available. You could on a voluntairy basis try to come to terms with somebody who did you wrong (or the othre way around) Example: somebody gets drunk and gets into a fight, your nose is broken as collateral damage. Filing charges for assault would be perfectly possible, but sitting down toghether with a neutral person to negotiate a form of reimbursement (service, labor, material payment) may prove far more cost effective ans swift than relying on a land nation to serve justice. In addition, this may avoid some bad press.

    Even a sovereign seastead nation cannot simply make stuff up as it goes. There are human rights to consider, and cimes against those may draw some serious and unwanted interest. Arbitrations may be the best option here as well. Simply locking people up is entirely counterproductive, as opposed to forced labor, on a seperate seastead perhaps, one with minimal comfort, lots of locking doors and everything else you’d expect at a penal colony.

    #6853
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    Michael wrote:

    We need to distinguish two seperate possibilities:

    • Being subject to a land nations law
    • Being sovereign

    If you are subject to a land nations laws, well, you have to live with that. You can’t just go around declaring things illegal and doling out your own justice.

    However, arbitration would still be available. You could on a voluntairy basis try to come to terms with somebody who did you wrong (or the othre way around) Example: somebody gets drunk and gets into a fight, your nose is broken as collateral damage. Filing charges for assault would be perfectly possible, but sitting down toghether with a neutral person to negotiate a form of reimbursement (service, labor, material payment) may prove far more cost effective ans swift than relying on a land nation to serve justice. In addition, this may avoid some bad press.

    Even a sovereign seastead nation cannot simply make stuff up as it goes. There are human rights to consider, and cimes against those may draw some serious and unwanted interest. Arbitrations may be the best option here as well. Simply locking people up is entirely counterproductive, as opposed to forced labor, on a seperate seastead perhaps, one with minimal comfort, lots of locking doors and everything else you’d expect at a penal colony.

    If two people get into a fight, why should it be the concern of the state or any state-actor? Let the aggreved party seek out whatever retribution or recompense they desire, using what ever means are at hand. If someone uses excessive means, the rest of the society, through the friends/family of the newly injured person(s) will settle it.

    As far as getting into fights in the first place: “An armed society is a polite society”.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

    #6855
    Avatar of thief
    thief
    Participant

    Doc, that’s just crazy. That means people with superior ability or will to fight can just take whatever they want from whoever thay want.

    And if two people of equal ability and will get into a fight, it could escalate in almost no time.

    You can let people fight amongst themselves if you like, but I won’t be staying on that stead.

    - Nick

    #6857
    Avatar of JLMadrigal
    JLMadrigal
    Participant

    Scalable? Tort and contract law doesn’t need to be scaled. It’s case by case. If you break a contract or aggress, your victim or his estate sues you for damages.

    Criminal law can only be arbitrary, and is antithetical to both libertarian society and anarcho-capitalist civilization.

    #6860
    Avatar of Michael-Hawkins
    Michael-Hawkins
    Participant

    If two people get into a fight, why should it be the concern of the state or any state-actor? Let the aggreved party seek out whatever retribution or recompense they desire, using what ever means are at hand. If someone uses excessive means, the rest of the society, through the friends/family of the newly injured person(s) will settle it.

    As far as getting into fights in the first place: “An armed society is a polite society”.

    Retribution is not something to be left to one party. E.g. suppose you antagonise somebody with a background in biochemistry and he thinks that a botulin shell would be an adequate form of retribution. Fast forward a bit and there’s a seastead with a couple of hundred corpses and no friends and familly to do anything about it. Not how I would picture a proper seastead.

    #6869
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    Michael wrote:

    If two people get into a fight, why should it be the concern of the state or any state-actor? Let the aggreved party seek out whatever retribution or recompense they desire, using what ever means are at hand. If someone uses excessive means, the rest of the society, through the friends/family of the newly injured person(s) will settle it.

    As far as getting into fights in the first place: “An armed society is a polite society”.

    Retribution is not something to be left to one party. E.g. suppose you antagonise somebody with a background in biochemistry and he thinks that a botulin shell would be an adequate form of retribution. Fast forward a bit and there’s a seastead with a couple of hundred corpses and no friends and familly to do anything about it. Not how I would picture a proper seastead.

    [/quote]

    And who decides what ‘retribution’ is appropriate? A state-actor? Even today, the state doesnt seek retribution, they seek control via intimidation. A criminal trial doesn’t have the injured as a party, they have the ‘state’ and that is who the prosecution works for. Currently we have Bernie Madoff, the greatest non-governmental THIEF of all time, negotiating for a ‘good’ prison to spend the rest of his life in. How exactly does that make any of his victims whole?

    Or, we have people who develop some pseudo-religious concepts of justice and retribution. We see how well that is working in various middle-eastern countries, and in China (a factory manager does what everyone else is doing at the orders of the state, chemicals are detected in their milk products or whatever and so he gets a lead injection – and the family pays for the bullet).

    I’d much rather be responsible for my own actions and my own defense. Where I live it would take the fire department over 30 minutes to reach me, you can be certain that I am very careful with fire and even more careful with strange people on my land who may not be as careful as I. Same with protecting against criminals, my end of the county has one patrol officer per shift and even if the roads are good he can easily be more than an hour away if I called.

    The threat of state-sanctioned retribution didn’t stop Cho at Virginia Tech, or the two mutants at Columbine. Waiting for the authorities to stop them resulted in dozens of deaths, whereas one person with determination and tools could have stopped them in each case. They would have at least not made anything worse.

    As far as speciouos arguments about microbiologists killing everyone, there is nothing to stop a mutant from doing that now. Just who sent the Anthrax to the US Congress and TV studios in 2001? We still don’t know, but it seems clear that whoever it was didn’t find the threat of state retribution credible.

    And botulism isn’t that scary to me, I treat one or two people for it every year.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 68 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate