An eye for an eye?

Yes

No

[thomasjack]

they can't make amends for the harm they have caused.

Yeah, I'd much rather have the dude locked up in a work camp sending me a paycheck every month than have him dead.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

they can't make amends for the harm they have caused.

Yeah, I'd much rather have the dude locked up in a work camp sending me a paycheck every month than have him dead.

Well that opinion is compatible with an eye for an eye.

[Taors]

they can't make amends for the harm they have caused.

Yeah, I'd much rather have the dude locked up in a work camp sending me a paycheck every month than have him dead.

Well that opinion is compatible with an eye for an eye.

Unless the crime is murder...which there is no justifiable payment for.

[DogOn]

they can't make amends for the harm they have caused.

Yeah, I'd much rather have the dude locked up in a work camp sending me a paycheck every month than have him dead.

Well that opinion is compatible with an eye for an eye.

Unless the crime is murder...which there is no justifiable payment for.

Whys that then?

If you can get restitution for being paralyzed, or being infected with HIV, surely a few of those extremely damaging actions will near the value of a human life.

Restitution isn't about getting a pay out cause someone fucked your shit up, its about repairing the harm done to you. You in no way need the permission from the aggressor to be restituted, this DOESN'T mean you are free to do whatever you want to the aggressor.

I believe under a free market justice system, most people would be reasonable and agree to a 3rd party arbitration, but if they don't agree to arbitration you still retain your right to restitution. Someone burnt your house down? Arm yourself, go track them down, and take back wealth till what you lost was restored + what it cost ya. If someone violently resists restitution then they're STILL the aggressor, so you can still pull self defense if they use force in order to prevent your restitution.

Also in the case of murder, the restitutional damages are so huge, that I believe most people would arrange to exchange some of the vast amounts of wealth equal to a mans life in the form of jail time or torture.

I'm still undecided whether restitution can encompass the right to imprison people against their will, although even if it didn't then I do think alot of people would do jail time. However there is a case to be made for imprisonment in the sense of, if a person who is threatening your life, they don't actually have to be in the process of killing you in order for you to defend yourself, likewise if someone is a constant threat, i.e. violent murderer, it may be within the rights of the victim + associates to keep the person in confinement, and this would still combo with the right to restitution.

I pump out alot of bullshit in threads like these, and by no means do I think I've cracked anything. Fuck, I'm still struggling to find basis real rock fucking solid backing for the idea of ownership (not self ownership), and a lot of this shit relies on other assumptions that I haven't proved 100%, but I would go so far to say that at least some of my beliefs are provably better than others, whether they are completely true I could not make that claim.

I still haven't had a decent rebuttal on it being okay to aggress on anyone. Anyone just reading this jump back a few pages if you want to debate me on it. Short version : Initiating force = never okay. Self defense = always okay. restitution = always okay. revenge violence = initiation of force.

I mean, some people here are so off base its hard to know whether they're being serious. If you think its okay to kill someone for rape, then you don't even have the pretense of reciprocal rights anymore. You're violating MORE rights than the aggressor did. If its okay to kill for rape, then is it okay to rape for assault? how about assault for theft?

This shit seems completely arbitrary and mostly based on the violent emotions of the people involved, and the lack of debate above "you're wrong, I'm right, try and stop me" backs this way up.

[Taors]

Come up with something as equally valuable as a human life, and I may listen.

Protip: you won't be able to do it.

[thomasjack]

Many values which can be destroyed or damaged by aggression are not only irreplaceable, they are also non-exchangeable—that is, they can't be exchanged in the market, so no monetary value can be placed on them. Examples of non-exchangeable values are life, a hand or eye, the life of a loved one, the safety of a kidnapped child, etc. When confronted with the problem of fixing the amount of reparations for a non-exchangeable value, many people immediately ask, "But how can you set a price on a human life?" The answer is that when an arbitration agency sets the reparations for a loss of life it isn't trying to put a monetary price on that life, any more than is an insurance company when it sells a $20,000 life insurance policy. It is merely trying to compensate the victim (or his survivors) to the fullest extent possible under the circumstances.

The problem in fixing reparations for loss of life or limb is that the loss occured in one kind of value (non-exchangeable) and repayment must be made in another kind (money). These two kinds of values are incommensurable—neither can be measured in terms of the other. The value which has been destroyed not only can't be replaced with a similar value, it can't even be replaced with an equivalent sum of money, since there is no way to determine what is equivalent. And yet, monetary payment is the practical way to make reparations.

It is useful to remember here that justice consists of requiring the aggressor to compensate his victims for their losses insofar as is humanly possible, since no one can be expected to do the impossible. Even a destroyed item which has a market value can't always be replaced (e.g., the Mona Lisa). To demand that justice require the impossible is to make justice impossible. To reject the reparations system because it can't always replace the destroyed value with an equivalent value is like rejecting medicine because the patient can't always be restored to as good a state of health as he enjoyed before his illness. Justice, like medicine, must be contextual—it must not demand what is impossible in any given context. The question, then, is not how arbiters can set a price on life and limb; it is, rather, "How can they see that the victim is fairly compensated, insofar as is humanly possible, without doing injustice to the aggressor by requiring overcompensation?"

Also, I agree that there is no sufficient payment for murder. But, by itself, the fact that full reparations cannot be made in this case is not a justification for killing the murderer. Suppose someone destroys an item of great sentimental value to me. No monetary payment is sufficient in this case. For no amount of money could I replace the object—even an exact replica would not be suitable. But of course it's crazy to say that capital punishment is then justified (or maybe in this case 'an eye for an eye' would dictate that an object of great sentimental value to the criminal be found and destroyed? lol..). I can see how the fact that life is non-exchangable might suggest intuitively that something else be done besides reparations, but I don't think it's a good justification per se.

[Taors]

Many values which can be destroyed or damaged by aggression are not only irreplaceable, they are also non-exchangeable—that is, they can't be exchanged in the market, so no monetary value can be placed on them. Examples of non-exchangeable values are life, a hand or eye, the life of a loved one, the safety of a kidnapped child, etc. When confronted with the problem of fixing the amount of reparations for a non-exchangeable value, many people immediately ask, "But how can you set a price on a human life?" The answer is that when an arbitration agency sets the reparations for a loss of life it isn't trying to put a monetary price on that life, any more than is an insurance company when it sells a $20,000 life insurance policy. It is merely trying to compensate the victim (or his survivors) to the fullest extent possible under the circumstances.

The problem in fixing reparations for loss of life or limb is that the loss occured in one kind of value (non-exchangeable) and repayment must be made in another kind (money). These two kinds of values are incommensurable—neither can be measured in terms of the other. The value which has been destroyed not only can't be replaced with a similar value, it can't even be replaced with an equivalent sum of money, since there is no way to determine what is equivalent. And yet, monetary payment is the practical way to make reparations.

It is useful to remember here that justice consists of requiring the aggressor to compensate his victims for their losses insofar as is humanly possible, since no one can be expected to do the impossible. Even a destroyed item which has a market value can't always be replaced (e.g., the Mona Lisa). To demand that justice require the impossible is to make justice impossible. To reject the reparations system because it can't always replace the destroyed value with an equivalent value is like rejecting medicine because the patient can't always be restored to as good a state of health as he enjoyed before his illness. Justice, like medicine, must be contextual—it must not demand what is impossible in any given context. The question, then, is not how arbiters can set a price on life and limb; it is, rather, "How can they see that the victim is fairly compensated, insofar as is humanly possible, without doing injustice to the aggressor by requiring overcompensation?"

Also, I agree that there is no sufficient payment for murder. But, by itself, the fact that full reparations cannot be made in this case is not a justification for killing the murderer. Suppose someone destroys an item of great sentimental value to me. No monetary payment is sufficient in this case. For no amount of money could I replace the object—even an exact replica would not be suitable. But of course it's crazy to say that capital punishment is then justified (or maybe in this case 'an eye for an eye' would dictate that an object of great sentimental value to the criminal be found and destroyed? lol..). I can see how the fact that life is non-exchangable might suggest intuitively that something else be done besides reparations, but I don't think it's a good justification per se.

You're talking about the destruction of an inanimate object. I'm talking about the destruction of consciousness.

[thomasjack]

Also, I agree that there is no sufficient payment for murder. But, by itself, the fact that full reparations cannot be made in this case is not a justification for killing the murderer. Suppose someone destroys an item of great sentimental value to me. No monetary payment is sufficient in this case. For no amount of money could I replace the object—even an exact replica would not be suitable. But of course it's crazy to say that capital punishment is then justified (or maybe in this case 'an eye for an eye' would dictate that an object of great sentimental value to the criminal be found and destroyed? lol..). I can see how the fact that life is non-exchangable might suggest intuitively that something else be done besides reparations, but I don't think it's a good justification per se.

You're talking about the destruction of an inanimate object. I'm talking about the destruction of consciousness.

Yeah, and I probably agree that consciousness is infinitely more valuable than any inanimate object, but I don't see how that justifies revenge. I can see how that could be an argument against restitution (though not a valid argument in my opinion), but not an argument for revenge.

[Taors]

Also, I agree that there is no sufficient payment for murder. But, by itself, the fact that full reparations cannot be made in this case is not a justification for killing the murderer. Suppose someone destroys an item of great sentimental value to me. No monetary payment is sufficient in this case. For no amount of money could I replace the object—even an exact replica would not be suitable. But of course it's crazy to say that capital punishment is then justified (or maybe in this case 'an eye for an eye' would dictate that an object of great sentimental value to the criminal be found and destroyed? lol..). I can see how the fact that life is non-exchangable might suggest intuitively that something else be done besides reparations, but I don't think it's a good justification per se.

You're talking about the destruction of an inanimate object. I'm talking about the destruction of consciousness.

Yeah, and I probably agree that consciousness is infinitely more valuable than any inanimate object, but I don't see how that justifies revenge. I can see how that could be an argument against restitution (though not a valid argument in my opinion), but not an argument for revenge.

But we're talking restitution here, correct? How can a murderer pay RESTITUTION for a crime that has no set value or punishment? There's only one solution necessary in the case of cold-blooded, no-holds-barred murder - and that's the liquidation of the person who committed the act(s), and their possessions and property sold to the highest bidders, and that money given to the victim or the victim's family.

[hellbilly]

I don't understand not doing something out of revenge, for serious offenses. Money isn't shit- it comes, it goes, I personally don't care much for it.

To those who disagree with "an eye for an eye" (which I do not take in the "literal" sense), what is it that is acceptable? Money, jail?

How much money would cover murder?
How many years would cover murder?

How about rape?

Assault.. maybe I'd take some cash in exchange for having been beaten, I dunno. But for rape, let me cut the balls from the offender, and then the penis. Murder? I could do it, take the life of the person who took the life of one of my loved ones, especially on the spot as the offense took place.

[thomasjack]

Also, I agree that there is no sufficient payment for murder. But, by itself, the fact that full reparations cannot be made in this case is not a justification for killing the murderer. Suppose someone destroys an item of great sentimental value to me. No monetary payment is sufficient in this case. For no amount of money could I replace the object—even an exact replica would not be suitable. But of course it's crazy to say that capital punishment is then justified (or maybe in this case 'an eye for an eye' would dictate that an object of great sentimental value to the criminal be found and destroyed? lol..). I can see how the fact that life is non-exchangable might suggest intuitively that something else be done besides reparations, but I don't think it's a good justification per se.

You're talking about the destruction of an inanimate object. I'm talking about the destruction of consciousness.

Yeah, and I probably agree that consciousness is infinitely more valuable than any inanimate object, but I don't see how that justifies revenge. I can see how that could be an argument against restitution (though not a valid argument in my opinion), but not an argument for revenge.

But we're talking restitution here, correct? How can a murderer pay RESTITUTION for a crime that has no set value or punishment? There's only one solution necessary in the case of cold-blooded, no-holds-barred murder - and that's the liquidation of the person who committed the act(s), and their possessions and property sold to the highest bidders, and that money given to the victim or the victim's family.

I thought we were talking about justifying revenge murder. I agree with the excerpt from The Market for Liberty on why restitution is a good solution even though actual complete restitution is not always possible.

But let's say I accept that restitution doesn't work. Are you saying that this is a justification for revenge murder because there are no other options?

I'm all for having the criminal sell off his possessions and giving the proceeds to the victims, I just don't see why we should kill him. In other words, I can understand transferring the criminal's property to the victims, but I don't understand why we should destroy any of the criminal's property (e.g. his life). I think he should either voluntarily enter a work camp, where a fixed amount of his earnings goes to the living victims (so if he doesn't work, he doesn't eat), or, if he refuses, be forced into hermitage by ostracism.

I guess what I don't understand is: what's the purpose of revenge? The purpose of restitution is to try to make the victims whole again as nearly as is possible and reasonable. This I can understand. I'm now somewhat open to the idea of proportional punishment (I don't think it's totally crazy), but I just can't figure out why we should do it. Rothbard sort of sneaks it in without really justifying it.

[Taors]

Also, I agree that there is no sufficient payment for murder. But, by itself, the fact that full reparations cannot be made in this case is not a justification for killing the murderer. Suppose someone destroys an item of great sentimental value to me. No monetary payment is sufficient in this case. For no amount of money could I replace the object—even an exact replica would not be suitable. But of course it's crazy to say that capital punishment is then justified (or maybe in this case 'an eye for an eye' would dictate that an object of great sentimental value to the criminal be found and destroyed? lol..). I can see how the fact that life is non-exchangable might suggest intuitively that something else be done besides reparations, but I don't think it's a good justification per se.

You're talking about the destruction of an inanimate object. I'm talking about the destruction of consciousness.

Yeah, and I probably agree that consciousness is infinitely more valuable than any inanimate object, but I don't see how that justifies revenge. I can see how that could be an argument against restitution (though not a valid argument in my opinion), but not an argument for revenge.

But we're talking restitution here, correct? How can a murderer pay RESTITUTION for a crime that has no set value or punishment? There's only one solution necessary in the case of cold-blooded, no-holds-barred murder - and that's the liquidation of the person who committed the act(s), and their possessions and property sold to the highest bidders, and that money given to the victim or the victim's family.

But let's say I accept that restitution doesn't work. Are you saying that this is a justification for revenge murder because there are no other options?

Yes. This is EXACTLY what I am saying.

[hellbilly]

Thinking from the perspective of an habitual offender...
"Gee, I can rape as long as I sell my stuff! Let me go rob some people to get some stuff to sell!"

Or from a wealthy offender...
"Gee, I have lots of cash! Let me kill some people!"

[Taors]

Thinking from the perspective of an habitual offender...
"Gee, I can rape as long as I sell my stuff! Let me go rob some people to get some stuff to sell!"

Or from a wealthy offender...
"Gee, I have lots of cash! Let me kill some people!"

Exactly. This is one of my many problems with a completely free market justice system. People NEED to be punished for wrongdoing.

[thomasjack]

Thinking from the perspective of an habitual offender...
"Gee, I can rape as long as I sell my stuff! Let me go rob some people to get some stuff to sell!"

Or from a wealthy offender...
"Gee, I have lots of cash! Let me kill some people!"

Exactly. This is one of my many problems with a completely free market justice system. People NEED to be punished for wrongdoing.

Though I know neither of you care, this doesn't help Rothbard at all since he argues that deterrent is not a valid justification (by itself) for a punishment system.

Now, rape is no small crime. The amount of restitution demanded would be very great. He'd have to steal a whole lot of stuff to have enough to pay off a rape. If he didn't get killed while robbing dozens (or more?) of people of all their possessions (which is unlikely), and then committed the rape, he'd still be fucked. He couldn't pay off the rape with the stolen wealth, since he'd have to pay all of that back and more (for inconvenience, threat to safety, psychological trauma, etc.) to those robbed. Robbing to fund rape would just get him into far more debt. Sure, some people will not understand this and will act irrationally. But people will act irrationally under any system of punishment.

For those that are ridiculously rich and can somehow afford to pay off murders and rapes, they still suffer a terrible reputation loss. Someone who spends his amassed wealth on a crime hobby would be quickly recognized for what he was and ostracized. Anyone who saw him would be on their guard and ready to shoot him. He wouldn't have the services of a protection agency. He wouldn't have the services of any insurance companies. He wouldn't even be able to go to the grocery store. He'd have to live on his own property as a hermit, with no business dealings with anyone.