The Free Market and Punishment

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who does a private defense association have the moral right to punish?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the Justice Corp would have the right to punish anyone directly, unless the "criminal" signed a contract agreeing to accept punishment as decided by Justice Corp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly in a society where everything derives from self-ownership, someone who takes another life will be dealt with. They have opened and initiated a violent transaction of the worst kind. Whether they signed a contract saying they won't murder people or not is, IMO, irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
The heroic property-holder didn't "open" the transaction, he closed it. The trespasser opened it.

[Copernicus]

So you

1. Agree that AC isnt a solution to the problems that exist under the current system. Meanwhile there are clearly increased costs and inefficiencies. So much for AC and the justice system.

2. I'll make point 4 clearer for you. If you think increased viglanteism is a benefit you're living in a different century.

3. Neigborhood criminal lists...can you not read or do you not know what "maximize" means?

4. [ QUOTE ]
Government grants monopoly for 50+ years. <font color="red">It was a natural monopoly supported by the very necessary patent system, it didnt need the government to achieve a dominant position. </font> Government breaks up monopoly via a different set of government regulations. <font color="red">How else would you propose to break it up? Wave a magic wand? </font> You call those new regulations "the free market". <font color="red">Post break up all regulations were designed to decrease the natural monopoly that had been built. </font> You then dismiss out of hand what the closest thing to a free market comes up with (cable and wireless, the former also soon thereafter being granted their own government monopoly) as being inevitable and therefore somehow they no longer count i guess? <font color="red"> I said the opposite, I said they were the cause for decline in wired telecom. How is that dismissing it? </font>
Lets see if you can find a single instance of electric utility "deregulation" which didn't include dozens of new regulations that the parties had to act under and have had more than 1/10th of the time not under monopoly control that the industry spent under monopoly control.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red">Was there net decreased regulation and increased ability to compete in local markets? did it do anything other than increase prices? </font>

Why dont you come up with some examples of monopolies that didnt become more efficient or regressed because of the lack of competition?

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I know the standard AC answer is always "the market will decide", but I don't understand how it works in this case. Who is in "the market"? As I understand it, you can't force someone to be in a market. Is the criminal in the market? How about the victim who has not signed a contract with a PDA?

Let's say person A, who is not part of a PDA, assaults person B, who is also not part of a PDA. It seems clear that B has a moral "right" to use self-help to seek restitution from A.

But now you are saying that some third-party PDA also has a right to punish A, based on what the majority of members of that PDA decide? What about person C, who is not a party to the crime, nor a member of a PDA. As I understand it, he is also basically a one-man PDA in AC society. Does he has a right to punish A?

Since there has been no voluntary action between A and C, or between A and the larger PDA, what is the basis for the "market" to determine the appropriate punishment?

[/ QUOTE ]

How come no one attempted to answer my questions here?

[GoodCallYouWin]

"1. Agree that AC isnt a solution to the problems that exist under the current system. Meanwhile there are clearly increased costs and inefficiencies. So much for AC and the justice system."

Actually, I don't see any argument for the free market being less efficient or more expensive than a government beaurocracy.

" I'll make point 4 clearer for you. If you think increased viglanteism is a benefit you're living in a different century."

Vigilatante justice is a bad thing, but even if a system has a slight increase in one bad thing hardly means the system is flawed as a whole, especially if other bad things (like the constant use of coercive forth by the government) is stopped.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
"1. Agree that AC isnt a solution to the problems that exist under the current system. Meanwhile there are clearly increased costs and inefficiencies. So much for AC and the justice system."

Actually, I don't see any argument for the free market being less efficient or more expensive than a government beaurocracy. <font color="red"> then you havent read the threads on territorial monopolies. There are plenty of arguments. </font>

" I'll make point 4 clearer for you. If you think increased viglanteism is a benefit you're living in a different century."

Vigilatante justice is a bad thing, but even if a system has a slight increase in one bad thing hardly means the system is flawed as a whole, especially if other bad things (like the constant use of coercive forth by the government) is stopped.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"> "Oh, Oh, Im being coerced." You are the perfect example for the thread on "Why people dont believe in libertarianism. Hint: taxation isnt theft, and cries of coercion is nothing more than being unwilling to stand up for your own convictions.</font>

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
"but I guarantee that if a rich wants someone dead for stealing his car, the thief will die. "

If someone wants someone dead in our society RIGHT NOW they will die. It's not that hard... if someone can put a bullet between JFK's eyes, you're probably not invincible.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I know the standard AC answer is always "the market will decide", but I don't understand how it works in this case. Who is in "the market"? As I understand it, you can't force someone to be in a market. Is the criminal in the market? How about the victim who has not signed a contract with a PDA?

Let's say person A, who is not part of a PDA, assaults person B, who is also not part of a PDA. It seems clear that B has a moral "right" to use self-help to seek restitution from A.

But now you are saying that some third-party PDA also has a right to punish A, based on what the majority of members of that PDA decide? What about person C, who is not a party to the crime, nor a member of a PDA. As I understand it, he is also basically a one-man PDA in AC society. Does he has a right to punish A?

Since there has been no voluntary action between A and C, or between A and the larger PDA, what is the basis for the "market" to determine the appropriate punishment?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see that any third party has a right to punish anyone without a prior agreement in place.

Consider international relations. There's no "social contract" between nations. There's no binding agreements that force nations to use a selected arbitrator. Look what happens with trade sanctions. They've been good for castro, but incredibly bad for everyone else in Cuba in the aggregate. If each individual is sovereign, and can decide for themselves whether risk economic ostracism, well, you can probably think of lots of ways to "punish" people without initiating any violence.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I know the standard AC answer is always "the market will decide", but I don't understand how it works in this case. Who is in "the market"? As I understand it, you can't force someone to be in a market. Is the criminal in the market? How about the victim who has not signed a contract with a PDA?

Let's say person A, who is not part of a PDA, assaults person B, who is also not part of a PDA. It seems clear that B has a moral "right" to use self-help to seek restitution from A.

But now you are saying that some third-party PDA also has a right to punish A, based on what the majority of members of that PDA decide? What about person C, who is not a party to the crime, nor a member of a PDA. As I understand it, he is also basically a one-man PDA in AC society. Does he has a right to punish A?

Since there has been no voluntary action between A and C, or between A and the larger PDA, what is the basis for the "market" to determine the appropriate punishment?

[/ QUOTE ]

How come no one attempted to answer my questions here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because some people don't monitor the forum 24/7. Sheesh.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
(retaliatory) punishment is bad

[/ QUOTE ]

+1

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right in general - I support the market far more than my posting on here would suggest - but
McDonalds is an especially awful example of a market-spawned abomination. The food (and the advertising) is tasteless, incredibly unhealthy, and expensive. Honestly the popularity is inexplicable... until you recognize that a lot of the time, people left to their own make wretchedly bad decisions. (And let's face it: most of us here found our way to 2+2's website because we recognized that truth, at least, with respect to gambling). If the market did as badly in every area as it has in its eating habits, I'd be chanting "[censored] the market" in the streets.

[/ QUOTE ]

How "badly" has it done? Are you somehow so deprived of options that you're left with no choice but to eat at mcdonalds? Or is this just another "someone has a different opinion than me = ZOMG MARKET FAILURE" complaint? Don't worry, someday you'll get the "right" people identified and installed as absolute (but enlightened, of course) autocrats and "bad" (or "suboptimal" as I think copernicus called them) market outcomes like the existence of McDonalds can be finally rectified.

I'll say a prayer before bed tonight.