If we go AC who gets the governments stuff?

[iron81]

1. If forbidding someone from entering your property were an effective punishment, why is OJ Simpson pretty much not banned anywhere significant, including his favorite golf course?

2. The problem with the ban from property is that the people doing the banning would have to know you were a criminal. Even if you didn't move, a lot of crime is under the public's radar.

3. Would these inter-protection agency contracts involve any specified criteria, or would it simply be whatever they negotiated?

4. Anyone who says that prison isn't much of a punishment hasn't a. Been to prison and b. read much about them. No one chooses a 30 year sentence over, well, anything but a 40 year sentence.

5. Predictably, Shake's response makes a lot more sense that WW's. It doesn't make sense, just more sense than WW.

6. Someone has to watch the chain gang. Someone has to feed the members of the chain gang. Someone has to provide a place for the members of the chain gang to sleep.

7. The reason we don't let victims pick the sentence is because a. Victims are often so enraged that they don't think rationally b. The variance in the punishments would be so wide that the deterrence aspect of punishment would suffer c. The incapacitation function of prison would suffer if you ran into a lenient victim.

8. After reading the link, my objections are: a. If a security company had a big shot customer, they would likely be willing to bend their own rules. b. What if the perp or the victim chose not to hire a security company?

9. Security agencies have been tried in the present world: Paramilitaries in Colombia. They haven't done well

10. The reason I asked about rights of non-property owners is that it seems that the AC version of a functioning society depends on property. If I don't own property, I can't ban OJ Simpson, so I wouldn't have a criminal justice role.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
1. If forbidding someone from entering your property were an effective punishment, why is OJ Simpson pretty much not banned anywhere significant, including his favorite golf course?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your state justice system declared him not guilty.

Also, note that he still has plenty of money to not work and play golf all day because state laws sheild his NFL pension income from civil liability. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
9. Security agencies have been tried in the present world: Paramilitaries in Colombia. They haven't done well

[/ QUOTE ]

Columbia is the new Somalia?

[ QUOTE ]
10. The reason I asked about rights of non-property owners is that it seems that the AC version of a functioning society depends on property. If I don't own property, I can't ban OJ Simpson, so I wouldn't have a criminal justice role.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't mean you have *no* rights. You still have the right to own property, just no (real estate) property at that particular time to exercise property rights over. Among other things, you still own yourself, so you have a right to self-defense.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
1. If forbidding someone from entering your property were an effective punishment, why is OJ Simpson pretty much not banned anywhere significant, including his favorite golf course?


[/ QUOTE ]
Because he was found innocent?
[ QUOTE ]
2. The problem with the ban from property is that the people doing the banning would have to know you were a criminal. Even if you didn't move, a lot of crime is under the public's radar

[/ QUOTE ]
o rly?
[ QUOTE ]
3. Would these inter-protection agency contracts involve any specified criteria, or would it simply be whatever they negotiated?


[/ QUOTE ] What inter-protection agency contract?
[ QUOTE ]
4. Anyone who says that prison isn't much of a punishment hasn't a. Been to prison and b. read much about them. No one chooses a 30 year sentence over, well, anything but a 40 year sentence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well then if the party want to put them in a prison they may want to provided they pay up.
[ QUOTE ]
5. Predictably, Shake's response makes a lot more sense that WW's. It doesn't make sense, just more sense than WW.

[/ QUOTE ] Umm, thanks....I guess
[ QUOTE ]
10. The reason I asked about rights of non-property owners is that it seems that the AC version of a functioning society depends on property. If I don't own property, I can't ban OJ Simpson, so I wouldn't have a criminal justice role.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have a right to Ban OJ simpson from a place you don't own?

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
If we go AC who gets the governments stuff?

[/ QUOTE ] All the stuff goes to the same place if we go AC: