The Free Market and Punishment

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


My guess is yes. I would think social norms that determine murder is very bad and serious crime would cause unaffiliated groups to seek justice against you, at the request of a large portio of the community, most likely. My advice; don't murder people.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is justice based on the request of a "large portion of the community" any different than coercion imposed upon the minority by a democracy?

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that murder is bad is a social norm based on man's reason and his desire to interact with others in the same manner he expects in return. This is why 99.9% of people believe that murder is bad.

Surely you can see the difference between this and majority rule? If you're a utilitarian who doesn't believe in ethics or morals, then there is no need to hijack this debate into that realm.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it is OK to punish someone if they do something that a "large portion of the community" thinks is wrong?

Who exactly has the right to mete out this punishment?
What determines what an appropriate punishment is?

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


My guess is yes. I would think social norms that determine murder is very bad and serious crime would cause unaffiliated groups to seek justice against you, at the request of a large portio of the community, most likely. My advice; don't murder people.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is justice based on the request of a "large portion of the community" any different than coercion imposed upon the minority by a democracy?

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that murder is bad is a social norm based on man's reason and his desire to interact with others in the same manner he expects in return. This is why 99.9% of people believe that murder is bad.

Surely you can see the difference between this and majority rule? If you're a utilitarian who doesn't believe in ethics or morals, then there is no need to hijack this debate into that realm.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it is OK to punish someone if they do something that a "large portion of the community" thinks is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're asking if it's ok to punish someone for rape or murder? Cause that's all I'm addressing here.

[ QUOTE ]
Who exactly has the right to mete out this punishment?
What determines what an appropriate punishment is?

[/ QUOTE ]

The market will decide I guess, based on what people think is a fitting and appropriate punishment, while also considering the desires of the victims.

Also note that in your example, democracy initiates the force, whereas in this thread, I am speaking only about punishing someone who has initiated a force transaction.

[GoodCallYouWin]

Justice Corp will have to go to Verdicts R 'Us before it can go kill Villian McNasty.

[bobman0330]

What about the rights of the accused? Could we expect private courts to respect limitations on searches or coerced confessions? Wouldn't their incentive be to close cases no matter what and show that they're "doing something"?

[GoodCallYouWin]

"Wouldn't their incentive be to close cases no matter what and show that they're "doing something"?"

Ultimately, the incentive will be to get more customers. I think 'the doing something' incentive appeals to bosses and voters, but I don't think it appeals to prospective clients for a court system.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


My guess is yes. I would think social norms that determine murder is very bad and serious crime would cause unaffiliated groups to seek justice against you, at the request of a large portio of the community, most likely. My advice; don't murder people.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is justice based on the request of a "large portion of the community" any different than coercion imposed upon the minority by a democracy?

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that murder is bad is a social norm based on man's reason and his desire to interact with others in the same manner he expects in return. This is why 99.9% of people believe that murder is bad.

Surely you can see the difference between this and majority rule? If you're a utilitarian who doesn't believe in ethics or morals, then there is no need to hijack this debate into that realm.

[/ QUOTE ]

99.9% believe X, and therefore inflict their beliefs upon the rest somehow isn't majority rule? Obviously it isn't simple majority rule, but how is it not "majority rule"?

Also: utilitarianism is an ethical system; utilitarians believe in ethics by definition.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


My guess is yes. I would think social norms that determine murder is very bad and serious crime would cause unaffiliated groups to seek justice against you, at the request of a large portio of the community, most likely. My advice; don't murder people.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is justice based on the request of a "large portion of the community" any different than coercion imposed upon the minority by a democracy?

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that murder is bad is a social norm based on man's reason and his desire to interact with others in the same manner he expects in return. This is why 99.9% of people believe that murder is bad.

Surely you can see the difference between this and majority rule? If you're a utilitarian who doesn't believe in ethics or morals, then there is no need to hijack this debate into that realm.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it is OK to punish someone if they do something that a "large portion of the community" thinks is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're asking if it's ok to punish someone for rape or murder? Cause that's all I'm addressing here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can't speak for the motives of the person who asked this questionk, but I'd like to know what sort of general principle leads you to believe that it's okay for society to engage in any behavior of the following structure:

"X percent of people think that action Y is wrong and should be punished. Person A does action Y. Society therefore punishes Person A." IE, when and why would this type of activity be morally right?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who exactly has the right to mete out this punishment?
What determines what an appropriate punishment is?

[/ QUOTE ]

The market will decide I guess, based on what people think is a fitting and appropriate punishment, while also considering the desires of the victims.

[/ QUOTE ]
So the majority will decide what they think is good and then inflict it upon a third party?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Justice Corp will have to go to Verdicts R 'Us before it can go kill Villian McNasty.

[/ QUOTE ]
So I'm subject to the whims of Verdicts R 'Us because "the market" (a bunch of individuals) decided Verdicts R 'Us is a good and wise leader?

Do you believe "the market" will exhibit better, worse, or the same quality of judgment as it did when it elected George W. Bush president and made McDonalds the number one restaurant in America?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Man do I just want to link a "the ethics of liberty" here. its in podcast form on mises.org.

To sum up the basic principle as it applies here- punishment and deterrence should not be cornerstones of a justice system. True justice is an attempt at restitution to the victims.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you only punish to the extent of restitution then all crime become +EV for the criminal if there is any possibility he won't get caught, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, see this is the problem I have. I believe that sometimes restitution and punishment can be one in the same. If someone brutally murders your family member, most people want swift punishment as a way to compensate for their loss.

[/ QUOTE ]

There will be a huge social stigma for 'getting caught'. How cozy and cordial and cooperative are you going to be with your neighbor once you found out he burglerized the house down the street? Before I would have anything to do with him he would have to make complete restitution to the family robbed, PLUS do an awful lot of general restitution to the neighborhood and community at large. Why would I ever want to interact with him in the same fashion I do to non thiefs if he didn't make up for his transgressions well over and above mere restituion to the robbed family?

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
So the majority will decide what they think is good and then inflict it upon a third party?

[/ QUOTE ]

How are they a "third party" when they're the ones who initiated the violent transaction?