Oct
1
How Anarchy Would Work
Insurance companies would either sell defense or maintain proximity with Defense Companies. If we both are customers of Reliance Defense Company, and a dispute between us occurs, the dispute would be submitted to the court of Reliance Defense company, or a court patronized by Reliance Defense Company. The decision of the court would be respected. If you are found guilty, the Reliance Defense Company, or its Insurance Company would compensate me for the damages done by you. It will be then the task of Reliance Defense Company to get back their money by putting you in a debtor workhouse (prison) or by garnishing your wages. I, the Defense Company, and the Insurance Company would be in a position of inconvenience due to the damages caused by you. So, it would be in the rational self interest of Defense and Insurance companies to not deal with (Insurance companies might rate their insurance premiums up in some cases) you, or other people with criminal tendencies. If a person doesn’t have insurance, no sane person would deal with him in any manner, as they won’t be able to claim compensation in case a dispute occurs. Almost every one would have Insurance under anarchy, as without Insurance, one can’t get a job, rent a house, buy a car, travel through a private road or get into any other contractual situation.
In the case mentioned above, If I am a customer of Reliance Defense Company, and you are a customer of Tata Defense company, our dispute would first be set for arbitration in the court of the plaintiff (I)-which means: a court of, or patronized by Reliance Defense company. If the defendant (You) is found innocent, the matter has come to an end. If you are found guilty, then the arbitration would run in the Court of Tata Defense Company. If that court too finds you guilty, you would be punished. If it finds you innocent, the arbitration would move to an appeals court. The decision of the appeals court would be respected. If a person (defendant) refuses arbitration, the arbitration would be held in the court of the plaintiff, and the decision would be binding. So, a person who didn’t commit a crime will not refuse arbitration in normal cases. If he disagrees with the decision, he can take the case to his court, or a mutually consented appeals court. It is rational to assume that if the defendant and the plaintiff are customers of different Defense Companies, these Companies together might decide the court in which the arbitration would run. The courts would try to be as honest and objective as possible, as their profits depend on the number of cases they receive for arbitration. People won’t deal with dishonest Insurance companies, or their customers, as no sane person would want to be taken advantage of. So, a dishonest Insurance company would soon find it deserted by almost all its customers. An Insurance company which patronizes poor courts too would be soon deserted by its customers.
Wouldn’t Defense Companies battle?
Battles could be ruled out for two reasons.
1) Wars are costly and would result in high Insurance premiums. Most customers would desert Insurance Companies with high premiums.
2) People won’t deal with the customers of warring defense agencies as they would lose in any case. As of it, the customers of the warring agency would be forced to patronize another Insurance company, if they want to get into contracts with other people.
A court too should be honest if they want more cases handed over to them. What if a rich person bribes the court of Insurance company? If that is the case, most people won’t use those courts and Insurance companies. Nothing like that happens in the case of Government courts. People are forced to use them, even if they don’t trust them.
Fraud under Anarchy
Fraud would be kept at minimum as Defense Companies would lose their profits if they don’t. If a defense company engages in fraud, most of its customers would desert it, as people won’t deal with the customers of such a defense company, as they don’t have a legal recourse in case of crimes.
Poor under Anarchy
It is often argued that poor will be defenseless under Anarcho-Capitalism. However, the argument completely lacks sense-For several reasons.
1 ) It is very unlikely-nearly impossible that there would be extreme poverty as of now under anarchy.
2 ) Under the present system, a rich person can easily bribe a bureaucrat or a judge and get his things done as bureaucrats and judges are not risking their own funds. A private judge is risking his own funds and profits, and he would lose his income or profits if he isn’t honest or objective. It is very unlikely that bribery is going to work.
3 ) Customers would desert courts which have a poor reputation.
4 ) Insurance companies selling defense wouldn’t patronize corrupt courts as, if they do, their customers would patronize another Insurance company. Such a court would be soon out of business. Nothing like this happens under statism.
5 ) One might argue that public courts can work with proper regulation. It will inevitably founder upon these questions-Who regulates the regulators? What is the incentive? How does such a system make profit and loss calculations? Without profit-loss calculations, how does one know whether job is being performed well or not?
6 ) As Roderick Long has pointed out, “any court that got the reputation of discriminating in favor of millionaires against poor people would also presumably have the reputation of discriminating for billionaires against millionaires. So, the millionaires would not want to deal with it all of the time.”
7 ) Under anarchy, the media won’t have to spend most of its space on politics. They would divert more of their energy to exposing corrupt institutions and extraordinary achievements of men. People won’t deal with customers of dishonest defense companies, and these customers will be forced to move to another Defense company.
8 ) A rich person who commits a crime would suffer from boycott by his clients and customers when insurance companies reject him. Such a boycott affects the rich more than the poor.
9 ) Even if a poor person can’t afford to file a case, he can sell that claim, or part of that claim to a rich person. Such a system existed in Iceland. That would make sure that eventually, all sorts of criminals are punished. One can’t commit a crime against a poor person and go unpunished. If someone murders a poor person, the person who has homesteaded the estate of that poor person can file a case and get compensation.
Do Anarchists assume a change in human nature?
No change in human nature is assumed here. We, libertarians don’t take a rosy view of human nature. We see human nature rightly, and admit all its flaws. Three things have to be pointed out
1) If you believe human nature is flawed, you have to admit that the politicians and bureaucrats chosen by these flawed creatures too would be of that sort, and there would be no excuse for state action.
2) A change in human nature is not necessary for libertarian anarchy to work.
3) People with power lust are more likely to rise to the top under statism. The state attracts all kinds of rascals.
What libertarian anarchy does is that it leads to a system in which criminal acts are hard to perform. It also punishes those who resort to such acts in a just manner. Under the present system, a judge has no financial incentive to be honest and objective. He has only a moral incentive. Under anarchy, he would have both financial and moral incentive. Ask yourself which system will deal with criminals better.
Why Anarchy?
Almost every major problem mankind faces can be traced back to the state. The state drags innocent people into war. Involuntary unemployment results when a minimum wage law is passed and labor union coercion is sanctioned. Price controls result in shortages. Protectionism leads to poverty and wars. High prices and poor quality products result when Government monopolizes certain industries. Taxation prevents capital accumulation. Credit expansion leads to inflations and bubbles. Some estimates say that there were nearly 262 million deaths caused by the Government in the twentieth century. In the light of all this, I see no reason for a person who loves humanity to support the state. It should be obvious that in any sector, monopoly is bad. How do statists get around this fact? In any monopoly, there is an incentive problem. There is no incentive to provide better service at a low cost. It is not just that. There is no way to know whether the service is provided in the best possible manner in the absence of competition.
Isn’t voluntary taxation better?
Voluntary taxation is a contradiction in terms. Taxation implies that money is collected at the muzzle of a gun. How could it be voluntary? Lets forget the definitions for a moment. Voluntary taxation is defined by minarchists as, people are not coerced to pay their taxes. People are free to pay their taxes. But this sheer aspect doesn’t make the taxation voluntary. If an area milkman forces every other milkman to stop selling milk in your neighborhood, and then says ‘you are free to buy milk from him, by your own volition’, is that really voluntary, or are you forced to buy milk from him because he has eliminated all the possible options using force. Lets say you say ‘I want to raise my own cow and make my own milk’, to which the milkman forces you to do it. Although he is allowing you to pay him voluntarily, he is forcing you to seek anybody else’s services thereby making it involuntary taxation. The problem with minarchy isn’t just that state collects its revenues using coercion. State prevents anyone from competing with it.
Why do minarchists make an exception for defense, law and police? Some minarchists believe in the Non Aggression Principle. Why don’t they apply it to the case of Security? How monstrous is it to forcefully extort money from a person maintaining the pretense of protecting him? It could be argued that these are public goods and can’t be provided privately. But, this argument was refuted several times. In the past, most of the roads and lighthouses (Public goods theorists usually point out the case of light house. Ronald Coase has pointed out the fallacy. Light house owners charge people for using the harbor) were privately owned. By 1800 there were over 60 private road companies in the United States and by 1830 they had built over 400 private “turnpikes” (highways). Out of 46 Lighthouses in England in 1820, 34 were privately owned. There was privately produced law in the ancient Ireland and medieval Iceland, for instance. And several thinkers have envisioned how libertarian anarchy would work- and it sounds perfect.
Why do I want to impose anarchy on people against it?
Some argue if people don’t want Anarcho-Capitalism, imposing it over them would be violating their freedom. If you tell a thief to not rob from your house, will you be imposing your views on him? If someone takes your money by force, gives you stale food, forbidding you from buying food from anyone else, is that right or wrong? If you tell that person to not do it, will you be imposing your views on him? Will you be violating his freedom? That precisely is what Government does. It forcefully takes money, gives poor quality defense, and forbid us from buying the service from private organizations.
Is human nature consistent with anarchy?
State is a relatively new institution. Mankind has lived hundreds of thousands of years without a state. If so, is it true that human nature is not inclined to live under a state? How come we are living under a state then? Slavery and serfdom existed for a long time. Doesn’t that mean slavery is consonant with human nature? If so, how men got out of it? Obviously, when people realized the advantages of co-operation, people shifted to the present system. When people realize the advantages of anarchy, they would move into such a system. No change in human nature is required. Blaming human nature for being flawed doesn’t make any sense. People are mostly corrupt under the present system as people respond to incentives. Under statism, men have every incentive to be corrupt. To say that anarchy won’t work as human nature is flawed is tantamount to saying that capitalism won’t work as most people are poor. A person who makes such an argument fails to understand that it is precisely the lack of Capitalism which made the people poor.
Minarchy isn’t sustainable
There is no empirical or theoretical evidence to prove that a constitutionally limited government is sustainable. Government power has increased steadily in countries like United States and Britain. Tax experts like Irwin Schiff has pointed out that according to the law and constitution of United States, taxation is illegal. He is in jail now, and his book “Federal Mafia” is banned. That’s not an aberration, but the result of a limited Government. I admit that Anarcho-Capitalism was not the dominant form of social organization for the large part of human existence. But so wasn’t democracy or a limited Government. These are recent developments. The limited Government in United States broke down after 8 decades as of a civil war-But it took 1000 years for the near Anarcho-capitalistic system to break down in Celtic Ireland, and 290 years in Iceland. Who do minarchists support democracy and a limited Government then, when it is obvious that anarchy is far more workable?
How can one support Anarcho-Capitalism when it was never practiced anywhere?
It is true that pure Anarcho-Capitalism was never put into practice anywhere. However, that can’t be an argument against anarchy. A person who invents an electric bulb doesn’t have to prove that there were electric bulbs in the past. A new invention, innovation or theory is something which crushes all existing conceptions. It is unprecedented. I think this should be obvious and it makes no sense to argue against it.
Empirical Evidence for Anarcho Capitalism
Anarcho capitalism was not practiced in most parts of the world for most of the human history. However, there were societies which were really close to Anarcho-Capitalism. There was the law merchant in the past, as Bruce Benson has pointed out. Such a system has worked in Iceland, Celtic Ireland, American old west, British colonies in North America, Rhode Island, Albemarle, and Pennsylvania. There is a lot of historical evidence to prove that these societies worked really well and had sophisticated legal codes. Crime rates were strikingly low. In Celtic Ireland, it lasted for nearly thousand years. It was a civilized, advanced society as there was no Government administered justice. Even when these societies collapsed, it was not due to extreme anarchy, but due to contradictions in the anarchistic structure. Iceland is a classic example, where chieftains were granted more power, and religious issues led to a civil war.
Further Empirical Evidence: Present day Somalia
Related Posts
1 views22 Responses to “Defending Anarchy”
Leave a Reply
Gopi Krishnan Says:
October 1st, 2009 at 8:35 pmthe role of the insurance companies is a bit dubious. let me see if i understand what u r trying to say : insurance companies charge premium to all those who use their service. they compensate the victim (or their heir) and they collect the compensation (same amount) from the guilty through work done at prison (or part of their wages). Now, if i were to live in that society, I’d be an insurance provider - there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY i can incur loss!!! what i mean to say is - the insurance company doesnt lose any money whichever way the court decides.. and they get their premiums!! what a great way to make money!!
Is that true or is there something I still haven’t understood?
what is the need for an insurance company anyway? can’t the appeals courts order the guilty to compensate the victim? (i’m assuming most cases would go to appeals court).. and dont tell me “Noone will deal with you without insurance” because that will mean noone trusts the appeals court. If someone breaks a contract, the court can decide and take the necessary steps.In short, can’t the appeals court do the same job as that of insurance companies without burdening everyone with a premium?
deadmanoncampus Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 amGopi Krishnan,
Insurance companies would make profits and losses just like any other company does. It is not true that it can’t make losses. There might be cases in which the criminal dies before he makes the restitution. There would be cases in which the criminal is not in a position to compensate the victim-If the amount of restitution is too high. In such cases, the Insurance company would find that it has made a bad decision by Insuring the contract, and it will make it a policy to not insure the contracts of bad risks.
The appeals court can of course, decide the compensation-But it can’t make sure that the victim is compensated immediately.This is what the Insurance company does-It compensates the victim immediately. In the case in which the person has no Insurance, the victim will be compensated fully only when the criminal is capable of doing so.
deadmanoncampus´s last blog ..Threadless Tshirt Giveaway at jaypeeonline.net
Gopi Krishnan Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:42 amso i’m guessing the premium charged by the insurance companies would not only be dependent on the probability of the insured doing a wrong; but also on how rich (or poor) he is.. ie. his capability of paying the restitution. (This is because each premium would be directly proportional to the risk of loss & amount of loss for the insurance company). If that is true, the premium would be lesser for a rich person than for a poor person even if the criminal tendencies of both are same, am i right?
You said:”The appeals court can of course, decide the compensation”
How will the appeals court decide compensation in case of murder or rape? Any monetary compensation would mean you are putting a price tag on a person’s life / right over her body. And by the one to one discussions we had earlier, you’ll be putting a higher price tag on a rich person’s life than on a poor person’s. Most of the common people (like me) thinks there are certain things that are priceless. PS : that was not an ad for Mastercard :P
Karma Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:44 pmInsurance, defense and jurisdiction(third party arbitration) are different jobs. An Insurance company may think of providing defense and arbitration services and they will, but it won’t stop independent people to start their own ventures in defense and third party arbitration system without any contract with any of Insurance companies. An insurance company in no way can force its couistomers to opt for only their biased arbitration system, as in that case, insurance provision would become a bane, so there will obviously be space for neutral third arbitration parties in order to solve the issues between insurance providers and the customers.
the victim will be compensated fully only when the criminal is capable of doing so
Yes that is true, but not all crimes involves monetary compensation, neither all victims demands or desires monetary compensations, many crimes deserves physical punishments including death warrants. Now if a victim /or his representatives are not interested in monetary compensation and simply want justice on the basis of a Brick for a Brick, Then insurance of the criminal is not an issue.
Also, I have a doubt about the death penalty, In an anrcho-capitalist system, both the victim and the culprit should agree for the sentence provided by thwe neutral judge (is it a necessity?) Now if the representatives of the victim (who was killed) demand death of the murderer, and neutral judge issues such a sentence too (after judging the inhuman act of murder above any doubts) while the murderer doesn’t conceive to that decision and demand to move further to another neutral court, won’t it delay the matters? may be the criminal will never be killed just because he will keep moving from one court to another.
I guess in such cases, their would be a Market price system control, that is, if a case is appearing in neutral court (not necessary reliance court system or TATA court system, but say in Common poorest man of the city’s personal neutral court services) than the cost of the neutral court will be normal, if the same case is to be forcibly reappeared in another court, because either victim or the culprit doesn’t agrere with the results provided by the previous court, than the price will be much higher, and if it is to go again to third neutral court system, then the price will be much higher, tening to make the two parties involved to agree at some point as soon as possible.
And the last point, life of all citizens would be equal, but the cost of security won’t be equal it would depend on the personal property of individuals. A person living in a two bedroom flat certainly doesn’t need a security arrangement required by another person living in a kingsize “Havelli”. Since he doesn’t need that much security provisions, he won’t be paying that much price too, and his total insurance(life plus total unmovable property) insurance will also be lesser.
renegade_division Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:27 pm@Gopi said:
You are confusing everything up. Consider it this way, there are lawyer fees(cost to fight your case) and there is prison fees(cost to keep a prisoners). In real world we pay lawyer fees in most cases, prison fee is paid by taxpayers.
In anarchist society, the lawyer fee would be covered by Justice insurance(like doctor’s fee is covered by health insurance) and then there is no direct relationship between insurance agency and the prison company. Insurance companies might own courts and jails to cut costs(like medical insurance company might hire doctors and maintain hospitals), but its not DIRECTLY implied.
IF insurance companies DO own the prisons then that cost is generally the maintenance cost(to keep a prisoner in a building), or its the restitution cost(that is majority of the money earned is going to the victims), or if the prisoner is someone who can be quite productive to the society(that is say Warren buffet who can invest from prison) then he may choose to go to a leisure prison, that is he lives more lavishly and pays for it. In either case the victim’s family is never forced to pay for prisoner’s upkeep like we have it right now.
And that prison money is a bare minimum profit for running the prison.
Second problem with your argument is the amount of premium. In your arguments against a new system you are forgetting basic economics principles, and not realizing that if insurance companies are making 25% profit then other companies will enter the market and start bringing premiums down reducing profit to 5% or something. In simple words, if an insurance company is really making prisoner work and get compensation, then they will cut down the premiums a lot. But the truth is that prisoner cost isn’t always recoverable. What if the accusation your client made on the accused was wrong? You only charged $5 per month from him(instead of $500) thinking you will recover the costs from criminal but now there is no crime but there is a huge cost.
Also insurance company will also have to cover the protection cost, that is what if their own client is guilty of a crime, they will have to defend their client which means more costs.
So the truth is there is a lot of uncertainty involved with a client so no company would really rely on prisoner giving them returns that will rarely happen, and that would be a windfall profit that’s it.
Everytime you are buying a gift for a loved one you are putting a price on how much you love them. Just because you can gift your gf a $100 worth gold watch doesn’t mean her love now has a price, and that anyone offering her a $100 gold watch she will walk away with him(or maybe she will who knows Gopi, lol).
IF you buy your gf a $100 worth of gift, she doesn’t really think you are trying to evaluate her love, rather you are showing the amount of sacrifice you are willing to give for her(in this case you are giving your 5 hour worth salary to her, you earn $20 per hour). At the same time if you earned $200 per hour, you wouldn’t be expected to pay $100 but somewhere around thousands. Because buying a $100 watch would be showing too little sacrifice. So yes her love has no price, but here the price is determined by the ability of the buyer and will of the seller. The WILL would be lot less if a Hollywood star is buying his gf $200 watches. The WILL(of her loving you) would be a lot more if you bought her $200 watches.
The point is, we are making the criminal pay, $50,000 for a rape from a poor homeless handicapped criminal and $1 million from a wall street investor are the same and not a price of the rape, but a proportional punishment(the above is just an example, there is no way of knowing if Libertarian courts really are going to accept differential payments for different people, but if a poor homeless man in no way can do a job to earn $1 million then he will have no incentive to pay that stuff, he will commit even more crimes, so the courts would go for less cost to poor people and more to rich people).
deadmanoncampus Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 pmGopi Krishnan,
Are you putting a price on your life when you buy a 1 Million Dollar Insurance policy? Obviously not. What about a person who buys a 10 million dollar Insurance policy? Is the value of his life greater than yours? Obviously not. These arguments would be illogical. We are not putting a price on our life when we take an Insurance policy. The same applies to restitution. No one is putting a price on life here. All we want is the victims to be compensated. The amount of compensation in different cases, obviously, can’t be decided apriori. The circumstances of the cases would be a significant factor.
deadmanoncampus´s last blog ..Threadless Tshirt Giveaway at jaypeeonline.net
Gopi Krishnan Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 7:40 pm@ renegade : $100 or 5 hrs worth of my salary is the cost of the gold watch.. not of my love. but when the judge declares guilty will have to pay $ 50,000 to the heir of the murdered (and if the guilty does, he need not stay in prison), then it IS the price of the victim’s life. is the difference so difficult to see?
okay.. in this differential pricing system, the guilty gets a “proportional punishment”. but what of the person raped? do you think her loss would have been different if she were 1) raped by a rich person & 2) raped by a poor person? if it is the same, don’t u she should get the same compensation in both cases?
another point : accepting monetary compensation to rape would make her no less than a prostitute (i am NOT saying that prostitution is a bad proffession, but there might be girls out there who wouldn’t want to seen as prostitutes).. since the monetary compensation charged by a court for rape would be much higher than those charged by regular prostitutes, it would get make her an expensive pro; but a pro all the same.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:17 pmWho are you or renegade or deadmanoncampus or the would be third party arbitrary judge to decide whether the loss of the girl would be different or not?
Why are you so anti-freedom of that girl to decide for herself?
Now consider this, an unfortunate girl is raped by a rickshaw driver who earns Rs200/- daily.
On same day, her unfortunate sister is also raped by another man who actually is the owner of an automobile company that makes those rikshaws that the first rapist was driving. His daily income is Rs2 crores per day.
Judge look out for evidences and held both of them guilty.
The girl raped by rickshaw driver thinks (she may think otherwise too) that its futile to force imprisonment on the driver as it would help nothing for her, so lets settle the matter out of jail, and demands monetary compensation, will she use her mind or won’t she while demanding a definite amount?
If she will use mind, she will realize that a person earning Rs200 per day, may give her say Rs20 lakh from his saved accounts at maximum (or his insurance) as that is all he has. Can she demand Rs 2 million from that rikshaw driver? While her sister actually demanded and even got Rs 2 million from the automobile company owner.
And even if she demand it, how will she get it? Rickshaw driver doesn’t have that amount, nor any policy equaling that amount.
Would you pay for the crime of rickshaw driver and give that girl her demanded price?
Yes you may agree to pay for the crime of rickshaw driver, But I won’t and no judge (except the corrupt government;s further corrupt judges) can force me to pay for the crime I never committed nor I had any information of such crime.
So since the girl has mind and she knows that the only genuine price which she can collect from rickshaw driver is Rs 20 lakhs, would she deny taking Rs 20 lakh, just because her younger sister who was raped by Automobile company’s owner is actually demanding Rs 20 million just because the Automobile company owner can afford to pay it?
If she get that mad and absence minded, than sure she may decide to loose Rs 20 lakh too while demanding Rs 2 million. Since the rickshaw driver cannot pay that much price, it would be a case where in absence of monetary compensation, the driver would be forced to be jailed.
Now who will pay for the prices of jail? Would you agree to pay for keeping the driver in jail just because he raped the girl?
You may agree, you are the Lord and helper of that girl, I won’t. I neither care for rickshaw driver, nor for that girl. What I care for is, Nobody should rob me of my Honestly earned money in favour of that rape victim or against that rapist. I don’t care for any one of them, I only care for my earned money which is constantly being robbed by the government in current system.
So who will pay for the jail term of that driver? it would be that girl, and you her benefactor.
Now let’s say the total cost of putting that rapist in jail for say 14 years is about Rs2 millions. You and that girl will pay that amount to the private jail authorities.
Now its upto you to decide, what would be more beneficial for the girl? Taking Rs 20 lakh as compensation, or forcing jail to that man and paying Rs 1 million for his jail term, other 1 million will be paid by you as you are the girl’s social benefactor.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:20 pmAgain coming back to the irrelevant question of Gopi
I am a girl, I know that if someone rapes me, no compensation can provide any help for me. But further, I know that if I force jail on that man, even that won’t help me in any way nor it would help any other body.
Now it is my freedom, either to push jail on that man or not to push. I certainly would like to push that man in jail and punish him as Hard as Possible.
But I am an honest person not a moocher nor a beggar. I don’t want to beg to Gopi to pay for the costs that would incur for keeping the rapist in jail, nor I want other honest people of the society to be punished monetarily just because some one raped me (If I force jail on that man, and demand whole society to pay for his jail term, that would mean that I held whole society as criminal, as my rapist and want whole society to pay me money by which, the rapist would be kept in jail). In this case too, I am demanding money from whole society, so it will also be tantamount to be prostitution, as I was raped, and I demanded money from society to jail/punish the criminal.
So i think a little more, and decide to take compensation directly from the rapist rather than punishing all innocent individuals of society for the rape he committed.
Now I know that he cannot pay me Rs 2 million.
If I force him to pay me Rs 2 million, it would again mean that I want to punish whole society and every individual, and hence want all of them to gather money and pay me rs 2 million on behalf of that rapist. But I am not a beggar, nor a moocher, so instead of forcing punishment on whole society and helding every individual of the society being culprit of my rape, I apply a little more mind, and find out that the Efforts that driver put up for earning Rs20 lakhs, is actually much more than the efforts Bill Gates puts up to earn Rs20 billions, hence if I demand Rs 20 lakh from the driver, it would be exactly equal to demanding rs 20 billion in case if Bill Gates had raped me.
That is, while I will get only Rs 20 lakh from the driver, it would be certainly equal to Rs20 billions in case, if the rapist was Bill Gates.
The real problem of all this is, COLLECTIVISM of present system per say.
Currently we all are forced to pay for the various government law bodies, including police, prosecutors, judges, jails, jailors, and the criminals too(when they are in jails) So we all collectively feed those criminals, and police and bureucrats and judges and all other involved.
Since we all pay, hence we feel amount is negligible, but in fact, the amount is TOO BIG and keep us poor and forces unjust and dishonesty on us.
Gopi Krishnan Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:44 pmi totally agree with all 3 of you that the cost of imprisoning the guilty should not be shared among the people. i guess what diva wants to say in short is that “let the judge decide on the innocence / guilt of the accused & let the victim (or heir in case of murder) decide on the monetary compensation” - which is perfectly fine by me.
Another question at the post : The jails in this system would also be privately run,right? How would they make profits? Will the insurance company of the guilty pay them for keeping their customers(and guilty pay the insurance company back through part of his wage)?
@ all 3 libertarians : Lets assume a situation here. A got murdered by B and C is A’s heir/associate. By murdering A, B gets additional Rs.1 crore (A was the only stumbling block between B and Rs. 1 cr). The monetary loss to C due to A’s death is Rs. 30 lakh. In this case,B can murder A, get Rs.70 lakhs and not go to jail. Is this fine with you?
deadmanoncampus Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:55 pmGopi Krishnan,
Jails would be run like any other business. Insurance companies would find it in their own interest to send the prisoners to the best jails, as it would make the process of restitution easier. If the employees of a jail beat up the prisoners, he would be able to sue them and switch to another jail. Jails will compete to attract prisoners. A person won’t be productive under force, and hence jails would be devoid of force-So, that the prisoners can pay back the amount fast. And I don’t think Jails are necessary in most cases, at least.(Libertarians are divided on this issue) It is only necessary to garnish the wages. Employers are expected to co-operate with Defense Agencies and Insurance companies.
The example you mentioned is a hypothetical case. I don’t think a person, A who is capable of being a stumbling block to B in the case of earning 1 Crore, will be worth less than that. Secondly, the person B loses his reputation-which is more important. Otherwise any rich person can kill a poor person he would like to kill. That’s not going to happen.
deadmanoncampus´s last blog ..Threadless Tshirt Giveaway at jaypeeonline.net
Gopi Krishnan Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:11 pm@ deadmanoncampus: i’ve heard u say all that before also. but my question in the previous post was simple: “How would jails make profit? From whom would they get their revenues from? If running the jail is a business, who would be their customers?”
Another question arises from your previous post : If the sole purpose of a jail is to increase productivity of the inmates to garnish wages faster, there might even by A/C cells for criminals who are good at computers!! (assuming A/C rooms boost productivity of software engineers)
As for the hypothetical situation : Firstly, I don’t think a criminal (rich or poor) would care much for his reputation if it’s going to give him Rs. 70 lakh and be scott free.( He can even buy reputation with Rs. 50 lakhs!!) Secondly, as for A being worth less than Rs. 1 crore.. Assume both A & B are golf players and are the top 2 contenders for the upcoming golf tournament which has a prize money of Rs. 1 crore. Even if A’s net worth is only Rs.30 lacs, he is a stumbling block to B for getting that 1 crore prize money. Possible or not?
Failure of Democracy | Reason for Liberty Says:
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:41 am[…] Defending Anarchy […]
deadmanoncampus Says:
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:12 amThe Insurance companies-directly or indirectly (Through the defense agency) would pay for jails, as it is their task to get back their money. Maybe jails will have Air conditioners. Maybe not. It depends on which would make the prisoners more productive and the process more profitable-So that they will be able to pay back the money soon.Restitution, not retribution, is the aim. So, Air Conditioned Jails would be Okay.
In the situation you mentioned, if that person is likely to win 1 Crore in the Golf Tournament, how come he is worth less than that? It is very likely that he will be worth much, much more than that. Moreover, murdering him would put him out of the tournament. No Insurance company would Insure his contracts. Insurance companies would make arrangements with their customers to not deal with him. They might insist that if someone deals with him, their Insurance would be cut off. How would such a person survive? He can’t buy reputation with that money, even if he wins. The Insurance company which would Insure him would lose its reputation. No one would deal with that company.
deadmanoncampus´s last blog ..Threadless Tshirt Giveaway at jaypeeonline.net
Gopi Krishnan Says:
October 6th, 2009 at 1:42 pmyeah and I’m sure jails will have waiters serving cocktails too if it boosts the productivity of the prisoner..and maybe prisoners will be allowed to go abroad too (with bodyguards of course); in order to make money to pay their retribution.. after all, a talented person (like a CEO of a company) could also become a criminal.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
October 6th, 2009 at 3:02 pmI don’t know what will happen in the private jails in those conditions, But I do know that the current Indian jails do provide all such facilities, when politicians (most of them are criminals), politician supported goons, and also the politicians supported corporate leaders like Mr Raju enters a government jail, they do get all red-carpetting you can even dream off.
Recently, I heard the news about how the Jailer of the imprisonment where Mr Raju has been admitted had revamped the tennis and badminton courts for providing entertainment for Mr Raju.
By the way, why should the Tax-Payers money be wasted on imprisoning Mr Raju?
He already has been punished too much severely by the free market.
He stole millions or billions of Rs from his customers. People who aren’t even his victims are furious, and nearly everyone enjoyed the sense of vengeance when he was sent behind the bars.
Would anybody (including you) trust in Mr. Raju after the debacle of Satyam? He probably fail in even getting a job, he certainly cannot start or restart any business as he won’t get any investors, and if anyone invested for him, then also, the consumers won’t accept him.
His life is already ruined. He is a pauper. He will never again do business.
He won’t be able to be seen in public for the rest of his life without encountering scorn and derision from everyone around him.
Why should government waste our money on Raju then?
Maybe the idea is to impose on him a feeling of remorse. But does he not already feel regret, extreme sorrow? This man who was widely considered to be a historic phenom for Indian market is now disgraced, forever. We all have one life to live, and his is now a complete wreck, going down in history as the worst Indian financial criminal of all time. Even Harshad mehta or Telgi didn’t get that much defame as he got as a punishment.
What, then, precisely, is the point of jailing him? He is no direct threat to anyone. Society would not be safer because he is in the Jail. He is not going to rob people or beat people up. He might write a book and donate the funds to charity or make some restitution to his victims. Would you read his book? I surely will.
With him being in jail, taxpayers will be forced to pick up the tab for his living expenses. Victims get nothing. That’s not justice. That’s inhumane and unproductive/unprofitable for both sides of the transaction: Raju and Taxpayers.
Actually it is fraud of no less degrees than what Raju did.
Gopi Krishnan Says:
October 6th, 2009 at 6:38 pm@ diva : firstly, such a situation in jail is not permissible at present and would draw flak from public & media in the current system (it ought to, at least).. but in the libertarian setup, that would be “Okay”, as Shanu said.
secondly, i have never compared the present system to the libertarian system of jails. i just wanted to understand how it would work out in that system. A flaw in the current system is no justification for a flaw (shanu however doesn’t think it’s a flaw) in your system.
@ diva’s earlier posts : is rape the only crime where the victim can ask for ANY amount (ie. not fixed) of money as retribution? (it’s a simple question.. a lenghty post for it is unnecessary) does the other two libertarians support diva’s view in this regard?
Unpretentious Diva Says:
October 6th, 2009 at 7:50 pmYou are totally wrong, it is actually in practice in current system of jails whole round the world.
In India although the system is corrupt and hence only influential criminals/accused (like Mayawati, lau prasad, raju, harshad mehta etc) get such five star hotel facilities, while the common men if commit a crime gets extreme positions.
On the other hand, in european and american jails, almost every criminal/accused enjoys good services, TV sets, newspapers, recreational ways, entertainment, good quality food and all services alongwith security free of charge.
IF you do not know or remember, Michael Jackson sang the song “all I want to say is that, they don’t really care about us” only for improving the status and conditions of prisoners of jails.
Also, Bhagat Singh systematically announced Bhookh Hadtaal for better services in jails, good food, newspaper, library and other facilities, and he won his battle too, before the execution of his death penalty, he was reading Lenin’s book and socialist literature in Jail.
I never said you compared them, But I certainly compared them, to show you what happens now, won’t happen than, and no matters the criminals get better services or not, the tax-payers won’t be robbed for serving criminals, like they are being robbed in current system, I even gave you example of Ramlingam Raju, that is a fact.
its not the flaw that criminals are getting human response, the flaw is, they are getting it at the expense of tax-payers. This flaw will be removed in libertarian system.
neither the nature of crime, nor the nature of retribution regarding it can be fixed, because it is seldom objectival and is pertinent for a change in various situations. Furthermore, even the victims or their heirs remain of different view points, and almost all viewpoints get libertarian support. As for example, it is objective libertarian law to announce death penalty for a murderer, but then not all support that, and want abolition of death penalty, and pro-life decisions are also libertarian point of view.
Furthermore, the only objective principle which remains unchangeable in such cases is the will of the victim and his right to be agreed upon the compensation.
So, a judge can only prove whether the accused is criminal or not on the basis of evidences and facts, he can also decide the maximum possible punishment or various sets of retributions, (as in case of murder, maximum possible penalty is death and confiscation of all property of criminal for the support of victim’s family and charges of court and security services) but he cannot force the punishment and retribution on the victim/his heirs and the accused. Although the accused(who is proven guilty now hence criminal) has no say in arguing about the punishment, the victim surely have all rights to demand for his approval about the punishment. hence it will be prerogative of victim whether to be pro-life and deny capital punishment to the murderer or to accept capital punishment and demand death penalty for the murderer. In a libertarian society, there won’t be dharna’s and hadtaal for the demand of abolition of death penalty, because it will directly be in hands of the citizens. if they are pro-life they should never demand death penalty “If” they face the situation of victim/heirs. if they support death penalty, then no problem. Same is case for rape.
it is not you but me, who will decide which question requires an elaborated answer and which should be neglected.
Not only those two but libertarians whole round the world, will either agree to my point of view or they will improve my point of view, because basically it is not my point of view, it is libertarian point of view.
TC!
deadmanoncampus Says:
October 6th, 2009 at 9:52 pmGopi,
The aim of the Insurance company would be to get back their money as fast as possible. If providing good facilities in Jail would improve the productivity of workers, they would do so. But, it is not at all evident that Air conditioned jails and similar facilities would improve their productivity. It would be similar to the working conditions a company would provide in order to make its workers most productive. They would make profit loss calculations, and if it seems that the expense of air conditioning is high, and the returns they get is low, they won’t do it. It is very likely that the prisoner would have a say on the issue. He may prefer an arrangement which allows him to pay back the debt as fast as possible. The fact is that no libertarian knows the exact state of jails in our ideal society. It is impossible to know. On a free market , people innovate at an amazing pace. Other people might have better ideas than I have. No one can predict the future with certainty other than in the essentials.
Mahesh Says:
October 9th, 2009 at 3:06 amjust One point
I have a fundamental issue with the premise of this article. My understanding of the premise is that there is an ‘ideal type’ ( a technical word: for reference please check works of Weber where he even talks about ideal type of a prostitute) of anarcho-capitalism, in the sense of how exactly ‘MUST’ anarcho capitalistic society be ideally like. For example, the way you are describing the role of insurance companies and defense companies assumes that such agencies are essential in a society given the nature of people. For me this premise defeats the very notion of anarcho-capitalism, the association of free individuals and evolution of structures which they choose as the best given the context.
To qualify my case let me put just one counter question. If, free individuals join together and go on to develop system similar to caste system in India, of course with the absolute consent of all concerned, would you be opposing it saying this does not follow the model that anarcho capitalists like us have in our mind
pathfinder Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 8:29 am1) It is very unlikely-nearly impossible that there would be extreme poverty as of now under anarchy.
> why … by giving the opportunity to be rich you don’t make poverty to go away . Thats just wishful thinking.
2) If you believe human nature is flawed, you have to admit that the politicians and bureaucrats chosen by these flawed creatures too would be of that sort, and there would be no excuse for state action.
> wrong . ‘flawed’ does not mean bad . it as much possible to get a flawed judge as it is to get a flawed leader .
3) People with power lust are more likely to rise to the top under statism. The state attracts all kinds of rascals.
> prejudice . There is nothing which attracts just rascals and not good men . our leaders like Nehru , Shastri were conscentious leaders . The problem is with our democratic set-up and a uneducated , divided vote base due to which we get poor leaders .
Shanu Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 9:51 amPathfinder,
It is not just wishful thinking. The so called developed countries have nearly achieved it. It is stupid to think that a free society would not deal with the issue in a better manner.
To get to positions of power, politicians should promise so many policies which have huge costs and would hurt the society in the long run. Only a rascal would do that. This is not a prejudice. No one has done more harm to India than your hero Nehru.