Restitution-based legal system
August 11, 2009 at 3:48 pm #7374
since you’re opposed to anyone being held personally responsible for anything and knowing that the system you propose would be sooo complex, large and costly that it could barely fit on a Seastead, your answer is to release criminals back into the general population unless, of course, they’re a Hannibal Lecter? Or if your proposed system could be made to work, necessitating high taxes and a seastead or two specifically to house the criminals, you would do this so that they may be Rehabilitated through Forced Labor?
Thief, I freely admit that the Constitution of the Oceanic Citizens Republic could be and has been interpreted as Fascist (National Socialist) its not, what you’re proposing on the other hand is quite obviously Communist (International Socialist)! I believe, a vein hope perhaps, that self-sufficient, self-reliant free people would not and will not commit the kinds of criminal offences that would be deserving of death but if they do, they do so in the absolute knowledge that punishment WILL BE SWIFT, SURE AND SEVERE! That all who bare witness can see that Justice has been maintained and that the Law has been fairly and uniformly enforced that they may KNOW the wages of [wrong doing] is death! This is why I’m into Seasteading and why I like the sea in general: there’s no BS! You put to sea in a boat unprepared, unwilling to accept the responsibility of command, you’ll die sooner or later. There is no appeal except to God…August 11, 2009 at 3:56 pm #7376
“Rehabilitation through forced labour?”
Not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about life imprisonment in forced labour. Call it slavery. One Seastead might call for the death penalty for murder, while another might call it 20 years forced labour. If you’re going to commit a murder, you probably won’t put much thought into where you are when you do it. You hate a person enough to kill them, you’re not going to manipulate them onto the 20 years Seastead before you do it. Which means it’s supremely unfair for the murderers on the death sentence Stead, who have no chance of leaving, compared to the 20 years Stead, where murderers can leave and still have a life afterwards.
Most people here are agreed that we can’t stop people from leaving a Seastead. While I agree that incarceration is different, the criminal still has a choice, once they leave captivity, to set sail for another Stead. Wherever there’s a death penalty, the criminal has no hope of doing anything ever again. They’ll be dead.
A life of slavery as punishment makes us profit. Death penalty gives us nothing, and takes everything.
- NickAugust 11, 2009 at 5:47 pm #7379
While I agree that a restitution-based legal system in a competitive marketplace environment is a gigantic step toward civilization and away from statism, without the mechanism of the State or ‘a’ state, how will you enforce it?August 11, 2009 at 8:26 pm #7382
Maybe the insurance companies are also the lawyers. You pay insurance, and when the need arises your lawyers fight their lawyers over who gets what. That could still need an impartial mediator though. Or huge, extremely detailed law systems.
- NickAugust 12, 2009 at 2:23 am #7384
Correct me if I misunderstand your question, but you would like to know how a market-based restorative system keeps the aggressors from avoiding making restitution to whoever has suffered losses or damages.
Since in the natural state of affairs (as also enshrined in the Civil Order Pact and the Constitution of the Freezone of Aquia), no one has a right to “take anyone’s money, property, time, labor, health, or life, against his will” and no one has a right to “obstruct compensation to a victim…for actual losses suffered thereby”, every victim may use whatever means are necessary to be fully restored for losses and damages. To that end he will employ professionals in various fields including private security, private arbitration, private investigators, insurance, &c. In many cases, all of these costs can be passed along to the aggressor via RTR.
If the victim (or his agent) needs to employ someone to capture the debtor and exact payment, he has the full right to do so, since the property is rightfully his. But he and whatever agent he chooses will need to be careful not to overstep. All costs will ultimately need to be paid by the appropriate party. If an aggressor is uncooperative, and requires surveillance, his bill will increase. If he is sneaky enough to hide, the cost of investigation will also be added. But if he can prove that he has himself been victimized, the excess costs will be shouldered by whichever party has overstepped. This is all driven by private tort and contract law.
Of course, in any system (especially an arbitrary state system), there will always be aggressors who evade justice. But when the natural market process (natural government) operates freely, the frequency of such aggressions will diminish dramatically.
RTR is another civilizing tool that can operate without any form of subsidy or involvement with the state, and in some cases eliminate the need for insurance. Don’t underestimate the civilizing force of market incentives and disincentives.
But this is all fundamental.August 12, 2009 at 9:40 pm #7390
like a litigious nightmare with complaints, counter complaints with the only people gaining anything are the lawyers and private contractors hired to enforce the RTR…
Here’s a ‘Real World’ scenario: The Bhopal disaster took place at a Union Carbide pesticide plant in the Indian city of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. At midnight on 3 December 1984, the plant released 42 tonnes of toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas, exposing more than 500,000 people to toxic gases. The first official immediate death toll was 2,259. A more generally accepted figure is that 8,000- 10,000 died within 72 hours. In the investigation that followed it was determined that there was and almost identical plant in the US. What made it almost identical was that it didn’t have the safety features to prevent the above ‘accident’. They were omitted to save money… How would your system have dealt with it?
Under Republican Law, the plant itself would become the Property of the State for a time, all profits generated by production would be distributed to the immediate family of the victims until for a period of time to be determined by law. Then the plant would be run until three times the amount awarded to the victims had been paid to the state in fines. Long before that had occurred though, the Board of Directors of Union Carbide would have been arrested, charged, tried, convicted and executed for Voluntary Manslaughter.August 12, 2009 at 11:01 pm #7397
Intentionally leaving out safety systems, resulting in thousands of deaths is an interesting example. I’d like to see how it might be handled by each legal system.
On the other hand, it’s a bit of an extreme example, making some aspects easier to determine than usual. What if all safety protocols were in place and it truly was an accident? What if only 3 people died as a result of a smaller accident (both with and without the safety protocols)? Would you still execute everyone and take over the business until all debts are paid (or the business has been run into the ground by bureaucracy, whichever comes first)?
You should check out “The Top 100 Things I’d Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord” before you rise to power. It could come in handy.August 13, 2009 at 12:50 pm #7399
You’re right: this is an extreme example. In the scenario you pose it wouldn’t be necessary to seize the plant because the amount of restitution and fines wouldn’t require it meaning we could trust the company not to go bankrupt rather than pay up. Further, because it was a genuine accident, meaning people screwed up [almost all 'accidents' are the result of human error] but no one just carelessly or negligently caused it, no one would be executed. Also in the previous scenario, when I say that the plant would be to Property of the State, I don’t mean the the Republic would ‘run’ it: the company would run it, just not to their benefit.August 13, 2009 at 3:06 pm #7403
equals catastrophe, elementary! I agree that when immunities are granted and strict accountability is removed, a situation that we currently have in the world, catastrophes like the ones mentioned along with the current economic melt down are the inevitable result. I don’t see how the RTR would be any faster or less arbitrary, grandstanding lawyers alone would prevent that! While it would provide ‘another option for uninsured victims’ [individuals who fail to take responsibility for themselves] I don’t see any other real advantages. It would simply be a competing system to redress grievances… The Free Market would decide!August 13, 2009 at 3:10 pm #7401
When the state puts its clumsy iron fist into any industry, it creates a potential catastrophe, in fact the state benefits from catastrophies because they seem to justify its existence. The conditioned public predictably responds to catastrophes by giving it more funds and even greater power. It’s a viscious cycle.
When immunities are granted and strict accountibility is removed, you have catastrophe. Bhopal, Chernobyl, and Valdez are three glaring examples.
Bhopal was the location of one of many chemical plants found all over the world. The main difference between the plant in Bhopal and other chemical plants was its lack of safeguards resulting from the Indian state ownership/ management arrangement. To the extent that the state becomes the insurer, accountibility is lost.
Factors leading to the huge gas leak at the plant in Bhopal include:
- The use of hazardous chemicals (MIC) instead of less dangerous ones
- Storing these chemicals in large tanks instead of over 200 steel drums.
- Possible corroding material in pipelines
- Poor maintenance after the plant ceased production in the early 1980s
- Failure of several safety systems (due to poor maintenance and regulations).
- Safety systems shut down to save money – including the MIC tank refrigeration system which alone would have prevented the disaster.
Plant design and safety procedures were modified by Indian engineers to abide by government regulations and pressures to reduce expenses. The problem was then made worse by the plant’s location near a densely populated area, non-existent catastrophe plans and shortcomings in health care and socio-economic rehabilitation.
After the accident, the plant was closed to outsiders (including UCC) by the Indian government, and the failure to make data public contributed to the confusion. The CSIR report was formally released 15 years after the disaster. The authors of the ICMR studies on health effects were forbidden to publish their data until after 1994. UCC has still not released their research about the disaster or the effects of the gas on human health. Soon after the disaster UCC was not allowed to take part in the investigation by the government. The initial investigation was conducted entirely by the government agencies – Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) under the directorship of Dr. Varadajan and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
UCC and the Government of India maintained until 1994, that MIC had no longterm health effects.
Another major catastrophe involving the Chernobyl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident) nuclear powerplant in the Ukraine, follows the same pattern of government bungling and blame shifting.
A little closer to home (for many of us) is the Exxon Valdez oil spill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill). The “Clean Water Act of 1977” capped the liability for damages from a spill to $100 million. The incentives for preventive measures such as using double-hulled vessels were thus directly reduced. At the time, the Alaskan regime extracted 85% of its $2.3 billion budget from oil sales and from oil industry taxes. A state pulls strings to streamline regulations only where it increases its bottom line. The rest of the time, it piles them on in a way that helps its cronies build their monopolies.
Insurance companies, on the other hand, demand strict safeguards, because their bottom line is directly effected by losses and damages. Injecting the state into the restitution process compounds bureaucratic nightmares, slows the restitution process, and makes both the reembursement for losses and the assignment of damages and penalties for intentional and unintentional aggressions arbitrary.
In the same way, RTR speeds the restorative process and quantifies accountibility. It adds another option for uninsured victims.
Elementary.August 14, 2009 at 6:09 pm #7426
Hi. I just thought I’d point out that the idea of this wacky Seasteading thing is to experiment with different systems so people could live in different ‘steads depending on what they wanted. You guys are acting like you’re doomed to live in somebody elses ‘stead. Am I the only one here who remembers the mobile single-family join-together-for-a-marketplace ideal? Wohl-Land will kill anyone who walks on somebody else’s lawn (it is tresspassing, you know), whereas somebody else will slap murderers on the wrist. These are both parodies of good, valid ideas, but the gist of it remains the same. There will be different ‘steads that do different things you will find abhorrent. There will probably be one or two places where general criminals run and hide, and nobody will have anything to do with those seasteads. Think early Australia. Or, take Communism. I happen to hate it with the fiery passion of a thousand suns. However, I fully expect a good many seasteads will practice some variant of Marxist bullcrap. That’s perfectly fine by me. I’ll just have nothing to do with them. I don’t even know what half of the entities you mention are (RTR?), but I’m sure somebody will have a system full to the brim of them, whereas somebody else will have none whatsoever. The point is, a lot of these ideas are still ideas, still hypothetical and untested. The whole point of this excersise is to test those theories. I’ll go rip off Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, someone else will go found Jesus-Land and still another guy will try to make everyone goose-step and wear silly armbands, and we all don’t talk to each other and leave happy. The crummy seasteads will end up depopulated and shunned, and the successful ones will run a thriving business and get lots of imitators. Now, let’s go bicker about structural issues. Thanks for reading, I hope this helps.August 15, 2009 at 4:12 am #7420
What’s wrong with “grandstanding”? It works great in the free market: Those who wish to sell their product, show potential customers how their product is better than that of their competitors. They expose the defects of their competitors. Market dynamics are no different in the industries traditionally monopolized by legislators.
There are many beneficiaries in a market that offers RTR:
- The victim, because he is reembursed,
- The insurance companies, because their costs are reduced,
- The RTR agencies, because they profit,
- Good arbitrators, because they would be preferred in an open justice market,
- Good, highly rated security companies, because they would be preferred by insurance companies and other customers.
- Even the aggressor can benefit, because he may have a better sentencing option (than excessive punitive damages).
Instead of requiring lengthy and costly trials for all cases, many cut-and-dried cases would be settled quickly. Reduced caseloads for arbitrators speed the process.
Punishments based on some arbitrary one-size-fits-all tables are arbitrary. Restitution that is directly proportionate to losses and damages plus cost of settlement are not.
There are many reasons that a person may not be insured that do not imply that individuals “fail to take responsibility for themselves” including:
August 15, 2009 at 5:07 am #7432
- Unforeseen circumstances such as acts of god or other losses or damages that could not have been predicted
- Underinsured losses or damages due to faulty assessments of property values or potential losses
- High deductibles that require a gap in coverage
- Other optional non-insurance coverages through other financial schema such as investments and self-insurance
This thread IS about RTR. It is under Philosophy and Law, which is exactly where it is supposed to be. Apparantly, my thread has taken so many wild turns that its theme has become hardly recognisable.
While the objective of TSI is to experiment with various legal and political systems, the wackiest ones will have to wait until there is sufficient momentum and backing. The international community will not stand for uncivilized behaviour – especially when the seasteading movement is at its infancy, and can easily be portrayed as a bunch of quirky loons. A little dictatorship would qualify as such.
Structural issues are secondary, and will be tackled with ease once the economic and legal foundation for seasteading itself is laid.
They belong in the appropriate thread.August 18, 2009 at 3:25 pm #7498
I never proposed a dictatorship, little or otherwise but given the choice between that and the Grandstanding, pandering and self promotion of Lawyers in what amounts to a litigious wealth re-distribution scheme… I would sail away.
“Come on down, come one, come all! Have you been ‘wronged’ or ‘injured’ in some way? There is a Jack pot o’ gold at the end of this rainbow waiting for YOU!!! Just reach out and take it! There are many beneficiaries in the RTR and we can’t get paid till you do! Acts of God got you down? No worries, our RTR process servers are knock, knock, knocking of heavens door for us…er…you…yea, YOU! It’s all for you, once we get our cut…”
That’s just my opinion, show me where I’m wrong.August 19, 2009 at 12:35 pm #7505
A “redistribution of wealth” from aggressors back to the victims?
And to whomever else the aggressor forces into the equasion by his own actions.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Posted on at