Isn't the non-aggression principle violated when we punish?

[Truth Warrior]

Well I fully support justice. Some may call justice vengeance, that is their choice. If justice violates the NAP, well I side with justice.

You murder, the victims have the right to kill you.
You steal, the victims have the right to take everything you have.
You rape, the victims have the right to castrate you.

I prefer leaving it up to the victims with consent of all, rather than leaving it up to the state. Although if the victims refuse to act, then I can see the state stepping it to prevent further action by these criminals.

Wouldn't a much stronger FOCUS on protection from crime and prevention, be a superior and more reasonable course of thought and action to pursue? Or is after the fact BARBARISM superior, in you opinion? And if so, how is that working out for YOU? Which is LESS expensive?

Thanks!

 

[tremendoustie]

I can simply say that it is a good thing that the minutemen at Lexington Green did not believe in an absolute non-agression policy.

I think there had been plenty of aggression prior to Lexington green.

If you mean the idea that you don't defend yourself no matter what, I don't think that's the NAP, that's pacifism.

And they still weren't supposed to fire the first shot ...

 

[sailor]

If somebody steals your goat and gets caught he must return two goats to you. The first goat is compensation for your goat and the second goat is compensation for your hassle and so forth.

There is no "punishment" involved. You don`t lock him up for a year as punishment, no more than you whip him accross his back for punishment.

All the "punishment" comes from ostracization and is socialy enforced. For example a known felon will not be able to do legitimate buisiness normally, but will have to accept additiona clauses that disadvantage him, else people will be reluctant to enter contracts with him. Then as he reforms and convinces people around him of the fact that he has come around, they will slowly drop such requirements.

The most simple example is you would probably not hire a known thief to work for you. But if he is willing to work at half the wages then you may take a chance. So his punishment is taking a giant pay cutt for a long time. This works great because it is a great incentive for the perpetrator to reform.


Now if somebody is repeatedly commits crime no one will allow him access to his land and there being no "public property", he will become a virtual prisoner in his home, without anybody aggressing against him.

 

[tremendoustie]

If somebody steals your goat and gets caught he must return two goats to you. The first goat is compensation for your goat and the second goat is compensation for your hassle and so forth.

There is no "punishment" involved. You don`t lock him up for a year as punishment, no more than you whip him accross his back for punishment.

All the "punishment" comes from ostracization and is socialy enforced. For example a known felon will not be able to do legitimate buisiness normally, but will have to accept additiona clauses that disadvantage him, else people will be reluctant to enter contracts with him. Then as he reforms and convinces people around him of the fact, they may drop such requirements.

The most simple example is you would probably not hire a known thief to work for you. But if he is willing to work at half the wages then you may take a chance. So his punishment is taking a giant pay cutt for a long time. This works great because it is a great incentive for the perpetrator to reform.


Now if somebody is repeatedly commits crime no one will allow him access to his land and there being no "public property", he will become a virtual prisoner in his home, without anybody aggressing against him.

Getting him to give up those goats may very well require force, and I don't have a problem with a forced work program either, which might have to happen in prison if the guy's dangerous enough.

It's not aggression to defend yourself, or seek compensation, or lock up a continually violent person.

 

[Elwar]

WTF, the NAP principle states that you cannot initiate force against another.

When one person initiates force, and someone else responds to that force...THEY ARE NOT INITIATING FORCE!

 

[tremendoustie]

WTF, the NAP principle states that you cannot initiate force against another.

When one person initiates force, and someone else responds to that force...THEY ARE NOT INITIATING FORCE!

Exactly!! +1

 

[sailor]

WTF, the NAP principle states that you cannot initiate force against another.

When one person initiates force, and someone else responds to that force...THEY ARE NOT INITIATING FORCE!

Yea, but read what the OP is asking about. He is asking about PUNISHMENT and DETERRENCE.

 

[LibertyEagle]

WTF, the NAP principle states that you cannot initiate force against another.

When one person initiates force, and someone else responds to that force...THEY ARE NOT INITIATING FORCE!

Please explain that to TW, because I don't think he gets it.

 

[apropos]

All the "punishment" comes from ostracization and is socialy enforced. For example a known felon will not be able to do legitimate buisiness normally, but will have to accept additiona clauses that disadvantage him, else people will be reluctant to enter contracts with him.

Or perhaps he will merely decide that he must become more adept at theft so as not to get caught next time, or perhaps to leave no witnesses alive to his crime.

Now if somebody is repeatedly commits crime no one will allow him access to his land and there being no "public property", he will become a virtual prisoner in his home, without anybody aggressing against him.

What if I can convince other members of the community that we just take your goods and land and divide the spoils among ourselves? It sure beats working.

 

[sailor]

Getting him to give up those goats may very well require force, and I don't have a problem with a forced work program either, which might have to happen in prison if the guy's dangerous enough.

It's not aggression to defend yourself, or seek compensation, or lock up a continually violent person.

The OP is asking about punishment, not about self-defense and compensation. Locking someone up to make him return what he stole is different from locking someone up to "punish him".

The OP is right, you don`t get to use force for punishment. (Unless you`re a parent. )


Consider vices. Obviously in a free society engaging in vices, taking hard drugs, whoring or binge drinking every other day would entail some sort of punishment.

Jet this punishment can never be in the manner of force else rights are getting violated. Instead the punishment would come about as ostracation and would be socially enforced.

The punishment for your crime after you have compensated the victim sufficiently would be no different.

 

[Elwar]

Yea, but read what the OP is asking about. He is asking about PUNISHMENT and DETERRENCE.

I read the OP, it is asking about "how can we throw a criminal in jail without violating the NAP".

The criminal initiated force, jail is the response.

 

[Kludge]

WTF, the NAP principle states that you cannot initiate force against another.

Initiating force in response to force is still the initiation of force.

 

[Elwar]

Initiating force in response to force is still the initiation of force.

You can't initiate in response to something.

 

[sailor]

I read the OP, it is asking about "how can we throw a criminal in jail without violating the NAP".

The criminal initiated force, jail is the response.

How much jail for stealing 1 goat?

Who gets to decide?

 

[Kludge]

You can't initiate in response to something.

You are punched. As of yet, you have not initiated force. You can choose either to initiate force against that person or not.

 

[sailor]

After the criminal has compensated the victim for the damages, the crime has been for practical purposes rendered into a non-crime. There is no victim anymore. Thus it should from now on be treated the same as other non-crimes like prostitution. People don`t understand you can not legislate morality. Esspecialy not with arbitrary jail sentances. Morality is socially enforced.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Initiating force in response to force is still the initiation of force.

In more detail, “Do not initiate force or fraud against anyone else’s person or property. In other words, except for self-defense, don’t harm others, don’t harm or steal their property, don’t break your word, don’t try to coerce anyone by threatening to do any of these things, and don’t delegate or encourage anyone to do any of these things.”

 

[Elwar]

How much jail for stealing 1 goat?

Who gets to decide?

If it were me, I'd let the victim decide the punishment with the limitation that the punishment does not go beyond the crime.

In our society punishment has been delegated to "jail time".

Jesus came up with "an eye for an eye" not as a punishment, but as a delimeter. He saw that if one neighbor killed someone's goat, the other neighbor would kill two of his goats as punishment, which would result in four of the other neighbor's goats, and so on and so on..."an eye for an eye" would set the punishment as one goat to one goat.

 

[Kludge]

You are punched. As of yet, you have not initiated force. You can choose either to initiate force against that person or not.

Another example...

Someone chose to initiate the growth of a flower. You can choose to initiate growth of another flower or not.

 

[Elwar]

You are punched. As of yet, you have not initiated force. You can choose either to initiate force against that person or not.

Don't you mean, what am I going to do in response to that initation of force?