Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdemaine
Then we shoot you. Which is perfectly moral by your own code of ethics.
This is basically the answer, but to answer in a more serious way:
What did the gangster supposedly do? If he bucked someone in the kneecap and refuses to agree to an arbitrator, the victim would be right to seek justice on his own. Under libertarian law, using proportionality theory, the victim would be right to shoot
both of the ganster's kneecaps. Additionally, he is right to seek "costs of capture". If the victim spent $15 in gas driving around for the guy and took off work missing $200, he would be in the right to take the gangster's bling and sell it off, returning the excess money. Of course, a private security firm would often take on these costs. Finally, there is what is called "a premium for scaring", or as I prefer to call it a "terror premium" (TP).
Before I explain the TP more, it should be clear why agreeing to an arbitrator is good even for the criminal already. He probably prefers not being shot in both kneecaps. Proportionality is based on the notion of making the victim whole again. Of course this is impossible in practice to owe someone "a life", but the theory compared to the positivist approach is sound if we examine it fully. I would prefer if we can stay on topic for now because I know that this will raise a lot of questions, but no big deal. I will catch up with responses and post more chapters.
Exacting justice on your own as the victim without an arbitrator poses its own risks. Likely a victim would refer to their own private defense and arbitrators of choice to collect evidence and decide how fully he wants to press for justice up to what may be found as a maximum. (A main point that differentiates proportionality from the positivist approach is that there is no supposed "crime against society", or optimal amount of punishment vs. crimes committed. Only a maximum is set, and the victim is allowed to forgive the aggressor in full or part. Deterrence is not part of the equation, just a side effect that can be expected.)
There is an example I have read of the Hatfield killing the McCoy. A McCoy then goes and kills the suspected Hatfield on his own with no evidence or arbitration. He then runs the risk of being punished for murder as well if it is shown that Hatfield #1 didn't do it but #2 did. In less severe cases, the criminal may become a partial victim. Maybe you sold his bling for $300 thinking only the silver was real. It turns out to have been proven real and you now owe the gangster $10,000 or something. Maybe you shoot him in the kneecap and leave him for dead, like he did to you, but you were 20 feet off a major street and 2 blocks away from the hospital. When you buck his kneecaps, he is 15 blocks from a hospital and nobody finds him for 3 hours almost having bled to death.
This brings us back to the obvious question: Why does he get shot in both kneecaps and that is fair? Well, why was anybody getting shot in the first place? Maybe it was senseless or maybe the 'original victim' owed a huge gambling debt and the gangster failed to seek proper recourse with arbitration. In either case he did wrong in some way, because we assume that this is the start of the chain of kneecap shooting. It goes back to the sole principle of libertarianism to not initiate aggression.
A 'transaction' of kneecap shooting was initiated against the victim's consent and must be returned to be consistent. In reality, people do stuff and realize they are wrong. They can find a way to rectify things. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" only if the society is so wholly unstable that agreements on arbitration and acceptable forgiveness can be made. Let's be honest that we would rather get something that can be used in a worthwhile way than just getting revenge. A victim can make voluntary mutual agreements with the gangster that he sells his bling to pay of the victim's medical costs, rehabilitation, and have some cash left over to enjoy.
Murray Rothbard advanced this theory, which is based on ancient law having been in use for many times the span of life any here may expect. He is wrong in some minor ways as I understand it, as some theories have been advanced. That deals with the terror premium or "defining a violent criminal". Until we can get down the basics, I am not even trying to explain that for now.