AC scenario!!!

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
I am guessing that a private security firm would offer provide people the opportunity to buy a service to keep them imprisioned, and if it was worth it to pay them rather than be put in danger, people would do it. If enough people have an interest in something and want it done, a possible solution be developed.

[/ QUOTE ]
This would be convenient. Like say you're a rich business owner and you have to deal with a troublesome union boss. You just pay for him to be imprisoned by the security firm.
Or say you're part of a large (but not majority) group of the population who is very strongly opposed to abortion. Pool your money together and start locking up abortion doctors. Or people who slaughter animals. Etc.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am guessing that a private security firm would offer provide people the opportunity to buy a service to keep them imprisioned, and if it was worth it to pay them rather than be put in danger, people would do it. If enough people have an interest in something and want it done, a possible solution be developed.

[/ QUOTE ]
This would be convenient. Like say you're a rich business owner and you have to deal with a troublesome union boss. You just pay for him to be imprisoned by the security firm.
Or say you're part of a large (but not majority) group of the population who is very strongly opposed to abortion. Pool your money together and start locking up abortion doctors. Or people who slaughter animals. Etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds a lot like what happens now, just with different groups, and with the bonus that now these large, but non-majority groups can make everyone else pay for this expensive imprisonment.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am guessing that a private security firm would offer provide people the opportunity to buy a service to keep them imprisioned, and if it was worth it to pay them rather than be put in danger, people would do it. If enough people have an interest in something and want it done, a possible solution be developed.

[/ QUOTE ]
This would be convenient. Like say you're a rich business owner and you have to deal with a troublesome union boss. You just pay for him to be imprisoned by the security firm.
Or say you're part of a large (but not majority) group of the population who is very strongly opposed to abortion. Pool your money together and start locking up abortion doctors. Or people who slaughter animals. Etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good thing the state is around to make sure that kind of nonsense doesn't happen! Oh, wait...

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd imagine there would be some transition where criminals with actual victims would have an arbitration hearing before being released, assuming their victim(s) were not already compensated.

[/ QUOTE ]
Much better than the status quo, where people who violate others' rights have a time out which is funded by the people they violated.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am guessing that a private security firm would offer provide people the opportunity to buy a service to keep them imprisioned, and if it was worth it to pay them rather than be put in danger, people would do it. If enough people have an interest in something and want it done, a possible solution be developed.

[/ QUOTE ]
This would be convenient. Like say you're a rich business owner and you have to deal with a troublesome union boss. You just pay for him to be imprisoned by the security firm.
Or say you're part of a large (but not majority) group of the population who is very strongly opposed to abortion. Pool your money together and start locking up abortion doctors. Or people who slaughter animals. Etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds a lot like what happens now, just with different groups, and with the bonus that now these large, but non-majority groups can make everyone else pay for this expensive imprisonment.

[/ QUOTE ]
True except what can land people in jail now is determined by law rather than by money directly (and yes I realize money has influence on law). I.e. one rich person can't just decide he wants someone imprisoned. Also it's a consistent (albeit not necessarily consistently enforced) set of rules that applies to everyone and that everyone is capable of knowing beforehand. You're a big fan of consistency right? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pool your money together and start locking up abortion doctors. Or people who slaughter animals. Etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good thing the state is around to make sure that kind of nonsense doesn't happen! Oh, wait...

[/ QUOTE ]
If you think I was saying that jail time for animal abuse is nonsense, then you misread me. I'm saying that everyone using their own standards for deciding who to lock up would be nonsense.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For all the drug users and other types of crimes that aren't actually crimes, I agree they would just flat out be released.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I used "victims" because I, like you and most others, agree that drug use is a victimless crime.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't disagreeing with you on drug users; I was just repeating you.

I was disagreeing that criminals with victims would be released with no further penalty, as your post implied. Maybe I misread you.

Obviously we don't get to AC overnight, so the OP is sort of goofy to answer. I was just pointing out that the criminals would probably be held subject to private arbitration, where some compensation would be determined. (And incidentally I would think there would need to be some compromise between what the perpetrator rightfully owes in a vacuum, and what he should owe considering he already spent X time in prison according to the state's method of justice. It isn't fair to the victim that they should get less compensation, but it also isn't fair to the perpetrator to make him pay the full amount when he already served a prison punishment. I would say the two parties would have to split the cost of the state injustice in some way that professional arbitrators determine is fair.)

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Like say you're a rich business owner and you have to deal with a troublesome union boss. You just pay for him to be imprisoned by the security firm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a security firm (in a competitive market) risk their reputation by imprisoning someone they know is innocent? That's suicide.

The instance of this happening is way more plausible in the world today. And it's not even close.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like say you're a rich business owner and you have to deal with a troublesome union boss. You just pay for him to be imprisoned by the security firm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a security firm (in a competitive market) risk their reputation by imprisoning someone they know is innocent? That's suicide.

[/ QUOTE ]
But does everybody else know it? Is there a trial? And how would that be fairly administered. Also I don't see why it's necessarily suicide if they have good PR, but it's possible.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like say you're a rich business owner and you have to deal with a troublesome union boss. You just pay for him to be imprisoned by the security firm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a security firm (in a competitive market) risk their reputation by imprisoning someone they know is innocent? That's suicide.

[/ QUOTE ]
But does everybody else know it? Is there a trial? And how would that be fairly administered. Also I don't see why it's necessarily suicide if they have good PR, but it's possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody else doesn't need to know it. The fact that people can find out is enough incentive for a security firm to not risk disaster for the sake of one client's business. If it did get out that the firm knowingly imprisoned an innocent man (!!!) then that would be all she wrote for that firm.

Here's where you say "Well what if the business man paid them an exorbitant amount of money? Enough money to make it worth it for the firm to take the risk!"

So then I'll ask you what problem the union boss could possibly be causing the business man that it would be worth it for him to pay a security firm this exorbitant amount of money? Why would he risk *his* reputation by paying for someone to be imprisoned? The hypothetical does not add up.