Marmites11 Posted August 11, 2013 Posted August 11, 2013 If a person attacked me, what would happen to him in a free society? Is there a podcast ep or video that explains this?
RestoringGuy Posted August 11, 2013 Posted August 11, 2013 It is a pretty open question. Depends on what kind of attack, what kind of free society, and even depends on who you are (what prior arrangements you made).
LovePrevails Posted August 11, 2013 Posted August 11, 2013 chances are preventative measures would be taken, if you had anything like health insurance, or a DRO, or paid someone to insure against you being attaked - all those organisations would have a financial incentive to take whatever preventative measures were in evidence to help. If that was not sufficient, then it's very likely that if someone attacked you it would void the contracts he needed to live (he'd possibly lose his job contract, his contract with his landlord or for his mortgage, he might no longer be entitled to engage in collective buying to get his garbage picked up or his electricity or water for cheaper, etc. until he attended arbitration.) so that would also serve as a deterrant
Carter1984 Posted August 11, 2013 Posted August 11, 2013 Mall Cops and Security Agencies as they currently exist might be a good place to look to understand how things might operate in a free society. Insurance is another place. The important thing to remember is that nobody really knows for sure how things will play out in a free society and what services will look like. We can only speculate. No one would have predicted automated machines taking the place of slavery as a means to pick cotton, yet that is precisely what happened. Stef has done some good videos on the subject of security. Hans Herman Hoppe has also done quite a bit of extensive research and explanation on the subject as well. Recently there has opened a business called Shield Mutual which provides some measure of security service in the form of an organization designed for protecting people after the fact of violence has occurred. Stef: http://shieldmutual.com/ Hoppe: http://youtu.be/zmSCh_w0B3A Just searching: DRO, Protection Agency, Free Market Security will yield many results.
carlip Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 I think it would also be highly variable on the reason for the attack. If it was because he thought your hair was stupid, I'm sure a selfdefense claim would be upheld by almost any arbiter. If he attacked you because you said you were going to kill his kids next time they walked on your lawn, you might be going about things the wrong way and while that would not excuse a physical encounter, it seems that you are some what culpable in the altercation. As far as punishment goes I feel that it must be administered by the "victim" as soon as the attack is launched. There can logically be no down time in punishment between action and reaction. Otherwise this could open a Pandora's box into a very gray area in which people might just attack one another at anytime if they were previously wronged. I feel that we have plenty of non-lethal self defense mechanisms these days to repeal most attacks regardless of size/power disparities.
st434u Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 My view is that if you wanted, you could sue him for damages, and if found guilty, he would be forced to provide restitution, and to cover all legal costs. If the damage inflicted was large enough, such as in cases of murder, rape or torture, you (or your heirs if you were killed) could ask the court to also pass an execution sentence, which would likely be carried out by a separate entity (the type that would enforce the courts's rulings in cases of noncompliance). The court would be agreed upon by both parties, but if the defendant refused to agree to any court with a good reputation, you could still go ahead and sue and he would be tried in his absence. After the trial, appeals to other courts could be made, but they would have to be recognized by the first court, or by the enforcing agency, to be considered valid. Because courts and enforcing agencies would want to minimize conflict, they would tend to be honest, as being corrupt would not only yield them a bad reputation and loss of customers, but potentially put them at risk of having to wage war against all other competing agencies. A war which they would almost surely lose. Many writers think that legal execution is going too far. I don't think it is. I think it's perfectly reasonable in most of the abovementioned cases, and would be more effective at deterring and preventing crime than any of the alternatives (prison, banishment, etc) Some writers even believe that in forcing the guilty to provide restitution, only negative enforcement should be used (i.e. withdrawing services), but that threats of violence for noncompliance should not be used. I disagree. I think that would severely restrict the ability of the victims (or their heirs) to seek justice. Some other writers also suggest that debt slavery would be a possibility in certain cases where the guilty is otherwise unable/unwilling to pay restitution, and the crimes are very severe. There are arguments for and against that. I'm not convinced either way.
JamesP Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 Asking what happens if you are attacked is jumping ahead of many many steps in the exploration of personal safety. Even in today's statist world, the best defense is self-knowledge and orchestrating your life so as to avoid attack as much as possible. A free society would have so much less predation with the absence of a state that you would be able to see danger coming from a long way away.
LovePrevails Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 In a free society it would be up to your insurance company, your DRO, or some other body to ensure your safety, and they would have financial incentives which the police do not have, so they would maybe give you a pepper spray or whatever, or offer you a self defense class to reduce your premium, in addition to taking preventative measures socially such as encouraging peaceful parenting to their clients, or making agreements with other organisations that if their clients were violent to anyone that they would incur penalties that were agree upon contractually, which may include financial fines, exclusion from collectiv buying (no garbage collection for example), cutting off of electricity and/or water, incarceration, exclusion, sending to rehabilittion centre, etc. these are just examples of measures that could be taken, there would be lots of people coming up with solutions so it would optimise over time
Kevin Beal Posted August 25, 2013 Posted August 25, 2013 FDR#2 Caging the Devils: The Stateless Society and Violent Crime This is, I think, a great introduction to alternatives to the police.
Marmites11 Posted August 25, 2013 Author Posted August 25, 2013 Hey thanks everybody, I understand now. The ep Kevin linked makes this DRO world seem seriously utopic. Bummed about this world but excited for maybe having freedom some day.
Kevin Beal Posted August 26, 2013 Posted August 26, 2013 Hey thanks everybody, I understand now. The ep Kevin linked makes this DRO world seem seriously utopic. Bummed about this world but excited for maybe having freedom some day. Utopic as compared to a system that is inherently violent, thieving and sadistic. It's not like we're comparing different DRO approaches to violent crime. The current approach is a clearly evil system that does everything in it's power to prevent justice. I would hope that a peaceful alternative was utopic by comparison.
FreeThought150 Posted August 26, 2013 Posted August 26, 2013 I know what would happen if a person attacked me, but not what would happen if a person attacked you. If a person attacked me, they would be shot.
Recommended Posts