Tuesday, September 23, 2014

I'll hate whom I decide to hate

There are bad guys out there. Probably fewer than Rulers and their mouthpieces in the media want me to believe. They work really hard to make me fear or hate those they want me to fear or hate for their own purposes.

And, invariably, that purpose is to make me want to be protected, or to have government punish those bad guys on my behalf. Through more "laws", stricter enforcement of those "laws", or War.

I hate to tell them- it's not working.

I'm not inclined to fear freelance bad guys.

Even if I decide to hate ISIS/ISIL, or child molesters or dog abusers or whoever, the "solution" isn't "laws" or The State. In fact, those bad guys can be dealt with better, more justly, and more ethically without relying on the bad guys of The State, their enforcers, or the "laws" they wield. They need to just get out of the way and let the chips fall where they may. Anything else they do is just protecting the other bad guys out there.



  1. Are you suggesting vigilantism? That's not always a good thing. I'm concerned about bully cops and imperial government, but how would you fund private courts and investigators to try and get to the truth of a "criminal" matter. People have lied about rapes and murders and other nefarious deeds. "Bad" guys go to lengths to hide their criminal activities, some more than others, but quite often it takes forensic scientists and investigators to find the truth. That's an expensive proposition of a survivor of a murder, or even the whole family to take on.

    1. No, I hate vigilantism. Use force in defense of innocents and property at the time and place of the attack. Use shunning, ostracism, restitution, etc. after the fact.

      I think some form of "insurance" or other subscription service would fill that need. It could do the good stuff government investigators do, without being funded coercively, and without immunity for when it steps over the line and violated person or property. Even if it were a pay as you go type of service, I'll bet it would not fall on the victim or their survivors to pay the whole amount, since catching an aggressor or thief is in many people's ("the community's") interest.

  2. Surely any investigative costs incurred should logically fall on the guilty party?

    1. Eventually, and assuming the guilty party is discovered.

  3. Hmm? Murder insurance. Not sure you could sell that. After all there are only slightly over 16,000 homicides committed in the U.S. each year. But, when it does happen you need to hunt down the killer, if possible, and bring them to justice. So, under what authority would a privately hired investigator proceed in order to arrest/detain and bring a suspect to a specific place in order to question him or her? And then there would be the issue of where such authority would be applicable. In your city or town, the county, the state, all over the U.S.?

    And, yes, the survivors of such a deed could ask neighbors and community to help or go on social media and ask for donations, but most murderers are not serial killers and most of them know their victim. That is, it's not in the financial interest of others to contribute, except out of the goodness of their heart or the desire to see justice done, because their chances of being kill by the murderer is slim to none. And then if a solid suspect is found, you would still have to have some kind of court/justice procedure, because the suspect, unless he or she confesses, is innocent until proven guilty. And then, of course, there are cold cases that are now being solved because of new forensic techniques. It is unlikely that any person or group of people could or would continue to directly finance private investigators and courts after several weeks or months, if that long.

    I use murder as an example because that is the ultimate violation of one's rights. You can recover from assault, including rape, robbery, burglary, or fraud. You can't recover from being murdered.

    1. Murder insurance might be a niche product, but aggression insurance- possibly including theft or other violations of person or property- wouldn't be. Buy the coverage and your company reimburses you for the damage they can, pays you an agreed-upon amount for what they can't (in case of irreplaceable property, non-fixable bodily damage, or death), and goes after the bad guy to cover their expenses.

      There might still be a sort of court/justice procedure- at least in cases that were not open and shut- but that's another area for competition to offer choices. Not sure "innocent until proven guilty" would always be necessary in a free society, but even if it is, that doesn't put up any unsolvable barrier.

      I don't know about other people, but I would want to know if the guy I'm about to do business with is a murderer. If he is, how can I trust him to not get emotionally worked up if something doesn't go to his liking? Even if he "only" killed his girlfriend, I would want to know so I could avoid him. If other people don't care, that's their own business.

      I guess I still see possibilities for competition and the market to find better solutions than the one The State refuses to let us opt out of. I've had a couple of friends murdered and whether the State or a free market justice/crime solving (and I do think there's a difference) system takes on the case, both are still dead. I'd just like the option of choosing what to pay for, and opting out if I am dissatisfied with the results.

  4. "So, under what authority would a privately hired investigator proceed in order to arrest/detain and bring a suspect to a specific place in order to question him or her?"

    The issue of authority is less of a problem than you might think.

    Under the English common law system, historically the power of arrest was not something limited to government officials. Anyone (except the monarch, for some reason) could arrest someone else for the commission of a crime, to be held for presentation to a magistrate. Obviously in a private law scenario such as would be found in an ancap society, the magistrate would not be government appointed, but the same principle would apply. The present day police power of arrest was initially just the same power that any member of the public already had, although governments have twisted and warped the two in an attempt to separate them in the two centuries since Robert Peel created London's Metropolitan Police Force.

    In essence then, and in line with the US constitution, the police power of arrest only exists because of the pre-existing power of arrest held by the citizenry. In the philosophical framework that informed the writing of the constitution, government takes its legitimacy from the people, rather than some higher power, and can only have those powers which are delegated to it by the people.