The Free Market and Punishment

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guy walks onto Jogger's property. Jogger, believing that trespassing warrents murder, shoots man who is on his property.

I don't think this is what Jogger actually believes, just the example, but in that example, who, if anyone, can punish Jogger. He's acted in a way he deems fit, on his own property. The person wandered onto his land (that's the initiation) and Jogger corrected the problem (albeit harshly).

Again, who's to punish Jogger. Certainly that kind of cold-blooded murder should be punished, but by the "letter of AC" no one should be able to punish Jogger unless he's entered into a contract previous to that. If he's shooting people, it's unlikely he has, and regardless of the contract the other man signed with "Defense Corp.", Jogger isn't bound by the actions of another so long as he isn't unjustly influencing them right. And in this case his "influence" is just because the person came onto Jogger's land.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Jogger has violated someone's rights (and I would think murder would qualify), then he is liable regardless of who he has contracted with previously.
It's not as if natural law and basic self-ownership don't apply to someone because they don't have a contract with Defense Corp or whatever. So the family of the deceased would have a legitimate claim against Jogger, and are entitled to compensation.

[/ QUOTE ]

So who decides what Jogger can do on HIS property. Moreover, who gets to punish him.

Certainly you can see how this is the same as statism, except it's no longer 1 state, it's many DROs gunning for Jogger.

Cody