[Rainbow Crow]

Would all crimes be based upon the economic loss one causes to another? If so, wouldn't those with little or no contribution to the economy have weaker rights under criminal law? If a more traditional legal system is followed, how can traditional laws be reconciled with a completely free market, in circumstances where powerful companies or rich individuals cause injuries to people who have no contribution to the economy? If you allow injured parties with no contribution to the economy to collect from companies when they become injured, isn't that regulation by the judiciary and no longer a free market?

[acvar]

I will speak as an anarchist. There would be no criminal law. There would be no crimes. There would be only civil cases. The law would be nothing more then a system set up to allow people to seek non-violent resolutions to their disputes. You are not forced to partake of this service. You can deny this service even if you are the defendant. Doing so is to declare yourself an outlaw. Being an outlaw means you are outside the law. It means anybody can do anything to you and you have no recourse under the law. They steal all you stuff. Tough luck. They beat and rape you. Tough luck. They kill you. So be it. Being an outlaw is not very rosy. If you want to be protected by the law you need to respect the law. That means making restitution when warranted, and submitting to arbitration when you have a dispute with another that you can not come to an agreement on.

[The Immortal Goon]

It would be sweet if the statists could stop getting in my face and leave me in my mom's basement talking about RON PAUL on the internet.

Instead, what they should do, is privatize the police. It's already happening, in some regard. In my city, for instance, the Business Alliance (businesses should certainly organize, by the way, just not labor because that's communism) has its own private police force called, "Clean & Safe."

Some statist stooges think that park rangers should patrol the parks. But the Business Alliance know who John Galt is, and just because the plebs want, "a more regular presence in the parks," doesn't mean that the Business Alliance should back down.

It would be nice if everything became more privatized. If you come home to find that your family had been murdered, hire a lawyer who has a PI force that can investigate a wrongful death suit. Can't afford one? Then who's fault is that, you fucking pleb? Are you really going to ask me to pay for your negligence in being poor? This is America, not fascist Germany.

RON PAUL 2012

--

I'm being flippant, but the above is an argument that people make. The idea being that it would be cheaper, mostly. Also, the concept of libertarian police has been used as a clumsy metaphor for why the Confederacy was awesome.

[Eran]

Speaking too as an anarchist, I only partially agree with acvar.

Where we agree is that the distinction between criminal and civil law would disappear. There are no victimless crimes. Hence each crime has a victim (or multiple victims). The right for restitution belongs to those victims.

The amount of restitution would be determined based on an accumulating body of common law cases. Importantly, only the loss to the victim, not the status of the criminal, his intentions or state-of-mind would determine the amount of restitution.

Victims are most likely to either be insured - in which case they are immediately paid the full restitution, in exchange for transferring restitution rights to their insurance companies, or sell their restitution rights to professional restitution collectors (which may incidentally be insurance companies as well) in a competitive market, in return for an amount that might be lower than the full restitution value, taking into account the expected restitution collectable from the criminal.

Due to the risk associated with accidentally harming others, most members of society would also carry liability insurance that would protect them from unaffordable liability claim generated accidentally. Terms mutually-agreed upon between the accused and his insurance company will govern whether and how restitution is assessed and collected. Likely outcome is that intentional crimes and gross negligence will result in the accused (now criminal) having to pay the restitution, while accidental damage will be born by the insurance company.

If an insured victim encounters an insured accused, the full mechanisms of the familiar criminal-justice system can be put into play based entirely on previously-agreed upon procedures. The accused, as part of his contract with his liability insurance company, has already agreed to have his property searched for evidence, and to submit himself to certain legal proceedings.

In the unlikely event that the accused is uninsured (or insured by a company which refuses to cooperate), the owners of the restitution rights (the victim or whomever the victim sold his rights to) could initiate force to apprehend the accused. However, since neither they nor any court they use enjoys a position of privilege, they would have to be very careful to avoid counter-suit. This care would manifest itself through an appeal to highly-reputable, independent (private) courts who would sanction any such action. The opinion of such reputable court, while not technically exempting those engaged in enforcement, would carry substantial weight in any counter-claim against them. In all likelihood, any enforcement organization would insure itself and its members against counter-suits, and the insurance company, as a condition of coverage, would insist on strictly following rules and instructions issued by a reputable court.

Naturally, enforcement against an uninsured would be expensive, with the convicted criminal expected to pay the additional costs. That threat would help motivate both fairly-comprehensive liability coverage and cooperation with an enforcement action by reputable agencies.

All of the above describes the formal criminal-justice system, a system in which the use of force is legitimized for the collection of restitution.

However, a full understanding of how criminal justice would be handled requires an additional, informal system. Specifically, people with criminal tendencies (most likely assessed through past criminal activities) will be undesirable in "civil society". Consequently, many if not most landlords would condition entry into their land (and all improved land is privately-held) on the person carrying liability insurance. An ex-convict, even one who discharged his restitution (say by virtue of being very rich) could still be barred from contact with most of society without any recourse to coercion, simply through the refusal of landlords to allow him onto their territory.

That solves the problem of the "criminal millionaire", supposedly going on murderous rampages while using his pocket-money to pay restitution.

Since land ownership is dispersed, there is no need for a monolithic treatment of each person. While most people would be considered low risk, carry unconditional liability insurance and welcome to all "public" areas, others may carry only limited or conditional insurance. For example, a repeat sex-offender might only be able to secure conditional liability insurance which doesn't cover crimes against children. He would be allowed in remote industrial or agricultural areas, but not anywhere near children.

In extreme cases, ex-convicts may be completely unable to obtain insurance which would cover them in areas frequented by the general population. Such people, until they are able to persuade a credible insurance company of their reform, would be restricted to high-security areas, effectively voluntarily committing themselves to working colonies frequented mainly by other ex-convicts.


A combination of very limited and bounded coercive components (limited to restitution + costs), together with non-coercive sanctions against repeat offenders would be, in my opinion, the best possible system for deterring crime.

[Rainbow Crow]

So would there be prisons or a means of detaining physically dangerous criminals? Or would it be either monetary payments or immediate execution? Who will pay for the prisons necessary to hold people awaiting trial, or would you not have trials? Who is paying for the judges etc. for that matter? How to handle an appeals process would raise a similar issue.

[lucky]

Just to provide a saner viewpoint, to balance the anarchists, since you didn't explicitly ask about anarchism:

How would criminal justice be handled by Libertarians?

Same as it is now everywhere: using courts, penalties and jails.

Would all crimes be based upon the economic loss one causes to another? If so, wouldn't those with little or no contribution to the economy have weaker rights under criminal law? If a more traditional legal system is followed, how can traditional laws be reconciled with a completely free market, in circumstances where powerful companies or rich individuals cause injuries to people who have no contribution to the economy? If you allow injured parties with no contribution to the economy to collect from companies when they become injured, isn't that regulation by the judiciary and no longer a free market?

I don't see what you mean by "reconciling criminal law with a free market". If you kill me, you go to jail, it has nothing to do with markets. Markets are about peacefully trading goods and services. Crimes are non-market activities.

Who will pay for the prisons necessary to hold people awaiting trial, or would you not have trials? Who is paying for the judges etc. for that matter?

The government. On the other hand, fines provide a source of revenue.

[Rainbow Crow]

It's the theory of judicial regulation. Libertarians don't like regulation, when courts start giving out damage awards based upon certain sets of rules, the courts can act as regulators of the market. The question is how you reconcile a desire not to regulate the market with people filing lawsuits against a market entity that injured them.

[lucky]

dlt

[lucky]

Libertarians don't like regulation

Well, I am a libertarian, and I don't dislike all regulation. In particular, I like the criminal law regulation, such as "thou shalt not kill".

how you reconcile a desire not to regulate the market with people filing lawsuits against a market entity that injured them.

I don't see a contradiction. As I said, criminal lawsuits against people injuring other people are not regulating any market, since beating people up is not a market transaction.

[Rainbow Crow]

I feel as if you're evading the question. As well as criminal law (I understand what you're saying there), I'm also referring to things like strict product liability when a company makes a defective product, damages for oil spills and other forms of poisoning, etc. Fear of lawsuits from injured parties definitely acts as a source of regulation upon markets. I'm wondering if Libertarians have a stance on that or if they just don't go there.

[lucky]

I feel as if you're evading the question. As well as criminal law (I understand what you're saying there), I'm also referring to things like strict product liability when a company makes a defective product, damages for oil spills and other forms of poisoning, etc. Fear of lawsuits from injured parties definitely acts as a source of regulation upon markets.

The topic of the thread is criminal justice while this is mostly civil liability. I also have no problem with most of existing regulation about civil liability for damages.

Edit: The desire to reduce regulation doesn't mean the desire to have no laws whatsoever. I'm all in favor of many laws that regulate markets, for example "if you sign a contract to pay money, thou shalt pay the damn money". When people talk about reducing regulations, that's mostly things like monopolies, licensing, etc. It doesn't mean "we want to scratch all laws".

[Rainbow Crow]

Well, there's a fine line between criminal justice and civil liability in this case, since a business' negligence or other activities is capable of rising to the criminal level. But I could have described the topic better I suppose.

My stance on this is that if Libertarians did somehow institute a free market system, we would probably see an increase in judicial regulation, which seems to me as something most Libertarians would not like to see, but I could be wrong there.

I say that Libertarians would not like to see it because the costs of judicial regulation can sometimes significantly outweigh the costs of legislative regulation.

[lucky]

See my added paragraph above. I think you misinterpret the "desire to not regulate the market". It does not typically mean that people want to get rid of all laws that have any relation to markets whatsoever. In particular, it would be hard to find people who would want to eliminate civil liability for damages, I would certainly not want to do that.

if Libertarians did somehow institute a free market system

We already did (to a large extent). We're just quibbling about the details. For the most part, you can trade freely, especially if you look at it in contrast to socialist countries.

[Rainbow Crow]

So Libertarianism isn't about getting rid of all market regulations by government, just the regulations that they argue are harmful?
I don't understand where the line is drawn, between acceptable and unacceptable regulation in a Libertarian economy. And there seem to be a large number of self-described Libertarians who appear to want all government regulations removed...

[lucky]

So Libertarianism isn't about getting rid of all market regulations by government, just the regulations that they argue are harmful?

Yes. Just like everybody else. The difference is that libertarians consider more regulations harmful than other people. They prefer a limited government. That doesn't necessarily mean zero laws.

I don't understand where the line is drawn, between acceptable and unacceptable regulation in a Libertarian economy.

That's because there is no "line", just like there is no line that demarcates, say, policies that social democrats approve of from those that they disapprove of.

Libertarianism is a term for people who advocate limited government. They don't necessarily agree about all the details.

Additionally, even if you look at views of a single person, there won't typically be a "line drawn" that can be described in a few words and will unambiguously tell you that person's political views on every topic.

And there seem to be a large number of self-described Libertarians who appear to want all government regulations removed...

Well yes, especially in this forum for some reason. The more proper, descriptive term for them is "anarcho-capitalists". I've never quite understood their views, although I've read David Friedman's book about this. They claim to want to remove all regulations, but then talk at length about some regulations they consider important to enforce on everybody (such as rules of private property). I consider it self-contradictory.

[Dr House]

Non-anarchist libertarians leave law enforcement to the state, so little different from criminal justice today. The major difference would be that a libertarian state would have laxer self-defense laws, and would encourage (or fail to discourage) citizens to take the law into heir own hands (e.g. castle doctrine and such).

[Eran]

First, let me clarify that my answer refers to a purely anarchist society. Most libertarians are not anarchist, and tend to leave criminal-justice to state monopoly. The main difference between libertarian and current society is a great reduction in the range of activities currently considered criminal, with the elimination of victimless crimes.

Not only would directly-victimless crimes such as drug consumption, prostitution or gambling (not to mention many forms of regulatory and bureaucratic violations) go away, but, with them, many violent crimes associated with conducting profitable activities "outside the law".

As for punishing criminals in an anarchic society:

So would there be prisons or a means of detaining physically dangerous criminals?

There would certainly be prisons, fulfilling several purposes:
1. Detaining physically dangerous criminals
2. Detaining people from fleeing their responsibility to pay restitution
3. Providing uninsurable people with a secure environment within which to be productive

Or would it be either monetary payments or immediate execution?

Opinions on capital punishment vary. The preference is always to resolve criminal punishment through immediate monetary payment (together with subsequent non-coercive consequences, as discussed above), but in many cases, that wouldn't be possible. In those cases, extraction of monetary compensation would have to be prolonged, and, in a subset of those cases, require incarceration.

Who will pay for the prisons necessary to hold people awaiting trial, or would you not have trials?

Normally people awaiting trial, being considered innocent, cannot be held against their will. A broad exception to the rule is people carrying liability insurance, part of which may entitle their own insurance company to order them held before trial upon sufficient prima-facia evidence. Another exception involves uninsured people against which compelling evidence is immediately available (e.g. those caught in the act of a violent criminal action). In most cases, however, suspects would be summoned to defend themselves, even while those non-coercive measures (e.g. notification of their landlord, insurance company and employer, as well as dissemination of warnings to the local community) are taking place.

The cost of prisons used to hold people prior to trial will be born by the owners of restitution rights (normally insurance company), later recouped from the criminal (if convicted).

Who is paying for the judges etc. for that matter? How to handle an appeals process would raise a similar issue.

There can be various models for payments. Ultimately, the cost of criminal proceedings is born by the criminal if convicted, but the accuser (normally an insurance company) otherwise.

[Phred]

First, let me clarify that my answer refers to a purely anarchist society. Most libertarians are not anarchist...

Not "most" Libertarians, but no Libertarians - as defined by the forum description - are anarchists.

The administrators when setting up the various forums were well aware that the word "Libertarian" has been used over the years by everyone from the likes of Proudhon and other Communalists to Rothbard and other Anarcho-Capitalists. This is why they were explicit in their forum description that the kind of Libertarianism this subforum was designed for is that championed by the American Libertarian Party - Classical Liberalism/Laissez-faire Capitalism/Minarchism. Not the "Left-Libertarianism" of Proudhon and his ilk nor the Anarcho-Capitalism of Rothbard and his ilk, but the kind envisioned by the Enlightenment political philosophers and concretized by the Founding Fathers in their Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

Eran has many cogent points and explains them well. I agree with much of his writing. But don't ever mistake him for a Libertarian as defined by the forum description. He isn't, and cheerfully admits he isn't. He is, rather, an Anarchist in the true sense of the word. An Anarcho-Capitalist, if you prefer.



Phred

[Nunt]

The forum description: "Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society." is open to interpretation and is applicable to Anarcho-Capitalism as well. Nothing in that description is actually in contradiction with ancap.

[Phred]

The forum description: "Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society." is open to interpretation and is applicable to Anarcho-Capitalism as well. Nothing in that description is actually in contradiction with ancap.

We've been through this before. You are wrong.

Classical Liberalism advocates a limited government as protector of the rights of its constituents. Government is an essential prerequisite of Classical Liberalism. Anarcho-Capitalism advocates no government at all. Absence of government is an essential prerequisite of Anarcho-Capitalism. This is an enormous and fundamental difference. While Classical Liberalism says "individual before state", Anarcho-Capitalism says "individual instead of state". Again, a profound and fundamental difference.



Phred