Next time, think of this, instead:
 |
| Found here |
Now, consider the "Red market"- immoral/unethical and "illegal"- for a minute.
A murderer might kill a kid who would grow up to be the next Chairman Mao, and therefore save millions of innocent future lives.
A thief might steal a family's TV thereby freeing up a kid's mind to discover reading or experiencing life first-hand.
A rapist might discover a lump in his victim's breast, and might make her aware of it with a crude comment, saving her life in the process.
A slave owner might have prevented a person from starving to death by enslaving him.
You still don't argue that the above people are good or necessary. Any "benefit" to their "red market" activities would be better done without violating people or property. The bad guys are still bad, even if they accidentally do something good.
In the same way, looking at the "pink market" examples...
War might save a culture and particular individuals by killing other individuals.
Taxation might fund a family's food and housing- either through welfare or a government job (but I repeat myself).
State torture might get information that saves some lives- either innocent lives or government employees' lives.
Imprisonment might remove some violent and thieving people from society.
Compulsory education might force some kids to learn, and might give some a damaged sort of socialization.
I would also add that a cop might stop a bad guy from victimizing an innocent person, and an FBI profiler might stop a serial murderer.
But to argue that the above activities (and the people who commit them) are good or necessary ignores the fact that they are all funded through theft (which is enforced with the threat of death), and the harm they do to society (by harming individuals) is greater than any benefit. And, any "system" that doesn't allow you to opt out is aggressive by nature, rather than peaceful and voluntary.
Sometimes I think I can be a miserable b**tard. Such as when I express my hatred of government schools in the presence of someone who worships that pink market monstrosity. I don't bring it up on my own, because I don't like to dwell on the negative. But when I am exposed to praise and support of such a vile institution, over and over, without end, I am going to speak up, and the Believers aren't going to like it.
It's hard since most of my relatives work in government schools in one capacity or another, leading the rest to praise those child abuse institutions. But, they know if they keep pushing, I'm going to speak up.
.
.
I've never thought of it that way before and I wonder if anyone else has before. There is one question I have regarding crime. How do you prevent someone from being falsely punished for a crime he or she is falsely accused of but did not commit? This happened often during the days of lynching. Professional law enforcement exists partly to protect innocent people from mob "justice."
ReplyDeleteMob justice is pretty close to what exists now- only instead of lynching, the suspect is tortured and caged for years- based on "majority" opinion, and "laws" supported (or at least tolerated) by the majority. The real bad guys get off easy- or take it all in stride. The innocent are the ones who get ground up in the machinery.
DeleteI have a relative who has worked in a prison, and is enthusiastic in support of them, but from what he has told me... well, it has made me despise prisons and punishment and the "justice system" pretty severely.
A free society wouldn't see punishment as going along with justice- punishment is often the opposite of justice. The goal should be to return the victim to the condition that existed before they were violated- or as close to that as possible. Punishment can't be taken back when your get the wrong person- justice can be.
So, in my view, the way to keep an innocent person from being punished it to stop confusing punishment for justice, and let self defense keep things in order.
As an exercise of "will of a majority" a lynch mob falls into the same despicable and indefensible category as both political democracy and gang rape.
DeleteThe deeply flawed (and evil) central assumption in each of those, is that the opinion of a majority allows them to aggress against a lesser number (might makes right).
The Old Testament; eye for eye, tooth for tooth, is a call to limit violent retribution for torts, to being proportionate
(eg, I catch your seven year old daughter picking my strawberries, a proportionate response would be for me to eject her from my strawberry patch (I have a moral obligation to ensure the minor's safety, so I'd likely take her to your home) and for me to pick some of your strawberries - rather than all of the disproportionate responses which we could think up in that case - and which statists just love to straw man anarchists with (eg shooting or enslaving the seven year old over the aggression of stolen strawberries).
With all customary law systems that I can think of, everyone was insured against any tort that they might commit, even minors, the insane and those who flee their responsibilities.
so lets say that a disturbed seven year old burns down my hay barn - the responsibility for keeping that child from causing damage lay with the child's family and their insurance group.
It is in their interest (for the continued good standing of their group and its members), to compensate me for my loss.
how insurance groups are constituted has varied. Present day Somali groups are based on common great grandfathers - although any who wish to (and who are in good standing) can seek to join different groups, or to set up their own new ones.
In Pre Cromwell Ireland, Insurance was organized amongst people who cooked and ate together.
In Anglo Saxon England, it was organized on a neighbourhood basis.
In a modern economy, a variety of means would probably exist; for profit commercial, mutuals, also church groups and fraternal societies all spring to mind.
What happens when my strawberries get stolen or my hay barn gets burned down?
I call on my insurer who sends their investigator (who - unlike statist cops, has real incentives to find the miscreant), and my insurer compensates me.
With the miscreant identified, my insurer calls upon their insurer for a hearing.
The miscreant's insurer brings the miscreant, and their judge / defender.
my insurer brings the investigator with his dossier of evidence and their judge / litigator
a mutually acceptable independant arbitration service chairs the hearing, examines the evidence and if the case is considered proven, the miscreant's insurer pays my insurer.
An insurer which cheated in such circumstances would soon find all of its customers being shunned, and unable to do business.
whatever recompense the miscreant has to do, is between them and their insurer - the insurer has a vested interest in keeping the miscreant from causing more claims. The miscreant has a vested interest in having insurance - as without insurance he cannot operate in society and is un protected.
What if I ignored my insurer and simply searched out the miscreant and did something very nasty to them?
I'm then on my own - I may have to try to strike a bargain with the miscreant's friends, family and insurer to persuade them not to follow through with a vendetta, or we may end up going to our insurers for them to assess who owes whom what recompense
and what I owe my insurer for breaking their rules.
Nice to see that graphic again, good find Kent! I remember seeing it back before I considered myself an anarchist. When I finally made the intellectual leap I went searching for it again and saved it to my computer so I wouldn't lose it. It's a simple way of tying together / visualizing several libertarian arguments. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDelete