The Free Market and Punishment

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's strange to see a self-proclaimed minarchist libertarian slam against the free market at every possible juncture, even in regards to the restaurant business.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he's talking ill of the free market, just a 100% unregulated one. A market can still be pretty effective at 99% free, or even 98%, but I hear there's a pretty big drop off at 97%.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ 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 ]

This is directly from chapter 13 of "ethics of liberty"

[ QUOTE ]
We have advanced the view that the criminal loses his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights:

[/ QUOTE ]

So a person who caught stealing $1,000 must return the $1,000 and he loses the rights to $1,000 of his own property (which goes as part of the restitution). Rothbard puts this forward as the maximum penalty allowed for a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

And are we to approximate sentimental value and things like that. Also, what if I steal a car, which apprasial system do we use to get the value I need to pay back.

Note: I don't expect you to answer here, these are far to specific, but they are symtompatic of what will be larger problems with that system.

Cody

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Recently was discussing the free market and specifically violent crimes with a friend of mine. He asked about my position on the death penalty.

The death penalty has always been a tricky one for me. Even when I was a minarchist libertarian, I was still fairly supportive of the death penalty. I have heard Ron Paul mention he supports the death penalty. For me, it was about proper punishment for taking another human life and sticking someone in jail just didn't cut it for me.

I basically told my friend that while I don't condone the state executing an individual, I find it hard to believe the same punishment would not be exercised in a society living in market anarchy. I am fairly sure prisons would not be desired in a free market, as the communities would be so decentralized, that people simply wouldn't want to stick violent offenders in a facility in their towns (that they had to pay for). On the other hand, I fail to see how murderers, serial killers and rapists would simply be exiled from the community. The people would just cry out for a more severe punishment I think. I think there might be a lot of vigilente justice, but keep in mind, I'm only referring to the very worst crimes.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Link to an article that I pretty much agree with concerning punishment.

Cliff notes: (retaliatory) punishment is bad, which would of course include the death penalty.

[jogger08152]

[ 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 ]

This is directly from chapter 13 of "ethics of liberty"

[ QUOTE ]
We have advanced the view that the criminal loses his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights:

[/ QUOTE ]

So a person who caught stealing $1,000 must return the $1,000 and he loses the rights to $1,000 of his own property (which goes as part of the restitution). Rothbard puts this forward as the maximum penalty allowed for a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]
So if I steal $1,000 worth of stuff with a 90% chance I won't get caught, but I'm unlucky and get caught - and the maximum Rothbard thinks I should repay is $2,000?

[GoodCallYouWin]

Yes but there's no reason to think you have a 90% chance of getting away with it.

[Copernicus]

This thread is a veritable "What's Wrong with this Picture", with AC "solutions" that are patently absurd.

Without going through the effort of pointing out each one individually, I'll just highlight the biggies:

1. The AC answers amount to "markets (ie critical masses of buyers) set up their own standards" instead of "majority rules". Do you really think that multiple standards of justice can survive in a single society.

2. GCYW takes it on faith that private courts (in criminal matters) won't market based on closed cases to attract customers, implying they can market based on "just results"...that can only be true if defendants have a say in what private court will be used. That suffers from the same problem that the current arbitration system has. Arbitrators must balance their decisions between opposing groups of customers, or they wont be on the short list the sides choose from.

3. BKh says there is a huge societal stigma in "getting caught" that reduces the EV of a crime in a "restitution based system". So we need to get a criminal profile of everyone who moves into our neighborhood to make crimes -EV.

4. Bkh posits that many cases will result in viglante justice. Wow, just wow.

5. The thread once again ignores the inherent cost inefficiencies built into competition for "societal" services (ie police, fire, military, streets and roads, utilities).

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes but there's no reason to think you have a 90% chance of getting away with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there some reason to think there will always be precisely a 50% of being caught - no matter the crime?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

This is directly from chapter 13 of "ethics of liberty"

[ QUOTE ]
We have advanced the view that the criminal loses his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights:

[/ QUOTE ]

So a person who caught stealing $1,000 must return the $1,000 and he loses the rights to $1,000 of his own property (which goes as part of the restitution). Rothbard puts this forward as the maximum penalty allowed for a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]
So if I steal $1,000 worth of stuff with a 90% chance I won't get caught, but I'm unlucky and get caught - and the maximum Rothbard thinks I should repay is $2,000?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does the likelihood of being caught have to do with anything? Are you trying to punish people based upon actions that they might do in the future, or might have done (but you have no real proof of) in the past? If you, personally, don't want to do business with a convicted thief then by all means feel free to not trade your property with him. It is well within your rights to do so, and try to convince others to do so. But when talking about justice we are essentially talking about what rights a person gives up of their own by violating the rights of another.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

This is directly from chapter 13 of "ethics of liberty"

[ QUOTE ]
We have advanced the view that the criminal loses his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights:

[/ QUOTE ]

So a person who caught stealing $1,000 must return the $1,000 and he loses the rights to $1,000 of his own property (which goes as part of the restitution). Rothbard puts this forward as the maximum penalty allowed for a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]
So if I steal $1,000 worth of stuff with a 90% chance I won't get caught, but I'm unlucky and get caught - and the maximum Rothbard thinks I should repay is $2,000?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does the likelihood of being caught have to do with anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

The subthread is about the EV of crime based on the amount of restitution. P[getting caught..and convicted] is critical to EV.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

This is directly from chapter 13 of "ethics of liberty"

[ QUOTE ]
We have advanced the view that the criminal loses his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights:

[/ QUOTE ]

So a person who caught stealing $1,000 must return the $1,000 and he loses the rights to $1,000 of his own property (which goes as part of the restitution). Rothbard puts this forward as the maximum penalty allowed for a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]
So if I steal $1,000 worth of stuff with a 90% chance I won't get caught, but I'm unlucky and get caught - and the maximum Rothbard thinks I should repay is $2,000?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does the likelihood of being caught have to do with anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

The subthread is about the EV of crime based on the amount of restitution. P[getting caught..and convicted] is critical to EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand where he wants to take the discussion, I don't understand why I would want to take it there. Why am I interested, if I am talking about a system of justice, with the possible future actions of an individual? When a crime is committed there is an injured party and a party that is the aggressor. Justice is about setting that wrong right, or as right as possible, not about setting other wrongs which may or may not have happened, or may or may not happen right.