What about Prisons?

[Cam05050]

What is the deal with prisons? I have never heard a libertarian tackle this subject and have always wondered to what extent people support prisons at all, be it private or public. 

 

 

If we were to decommission all prisons tomorrow, what would be the process for existing and new criminals who commit harmful crimes toward others (murder, sexual assault, rape, etc). 

I can see an financial crime requiring the repayment of victims, and less violent crimes could result in community service etc, however what about rape, murder, etc?

[Guest Gee]

Stef has some work which might answer your question. I beleive it is in Pratical Anarchy: The Freedom of the Future.

 

Me? Just deport them. If they come back, shoot them. Prison is just removing them from society, deportation does the same job. But, I am not a libertarian.

[Tyler H]

I think transitioning overnight is impossible - a slow transition from "housing" to actual rehabilitation would be the goal. It's difficult (to say the least) to predict what the free market will produce to satisfy the needs of its customers but allowing for that possibility is the first step. Making sure the profits gained are the result of less criminals, not more, is the second; the best way I know of producing this effect is the insurance model. I would imagine the cost would be included in your DRO premiums. The DRO Is incentivized to prevent criminality because it costs them money in the form of restitution and correction. I don't think prisons would look anything like they do today. They would actually be interested in lowering recidivism.

[DaviesMa]

The chances are that to get protection or to participate in any kind of society you would have to sign a contract which laid out the rules with whcih your behaviour would be judged. It is unlikely anyone would want you on their property unless you consented to an agreement like this so to go anywhere or use any amenities including roads would require a contract.

 

In a free society different contracts providers and enforcers would compete for your business and if they convinced you that prison was the best way to control criminality, then this is what the contracts would specify - if they could provide something better, this would displace prison.

 

I don't see it as breaking the NAP because you will have signed a contract with actions and consequences. .

[aviet]

Similar to Graham's method, another option is The McInnes Method:

1) Abolish prisons
2) Everyone has guns, the more the merrier
3) Rapists and murders get shot

 

Since there is no data that I am aware of that provides insights into the results of alternatives, I'm not sure what would actually work. In the meantime I'd like to see prisoners doing jobs that otherwise would not be done: picking litter from road-sides, digitalising and transcribing historic documents or bringing backs jobs that have been shipped abroad.

 

But, I am not a libertarian.

 

What are your leanings?

[EclecticIdealist]

Similar to Graham's method, another option is The McInnes Method:

 

1) Abolish prisons

2) Everyone has guns, the more the merrier

3) Rapists and murders get shot

 

Since there is no data that I am aware of that provides insights into the results of alternatives, I'm not sure what would actually work. In the meantime I'd like to see prisoners doing jobs that otherwise would not be done: picking litter from road-sides, digitalising and transcribing historic documents or bringing back jobs that have been shipped abroad.

 

 

What are your leanings?

Already prisoners are doing many jobs that would otherwise be done by foreign workers.  Everything from making clothing to furniture, even agricultural work in State Parks and Forests, not to mention picking up trash.

 

What about the piece CBS News - 60 Minutes did last april on German prisons?

[Tyler H]

Similar to Graham's method, another option is The McInnes Method:

1) Abolish prisons

2) Everyone has guns, the more the merrier

3) Rapists and murders get shot

Is there any due process? What about thieves? What about people who actually want restitution which prisons and death penalties do not provide?

[aviet]

Is there any due process? What about thieves? What about people who actually want restitution which prisons and death penalties do not provide?

Probably not. He's from the let the chips land where they may school of thought.

[Guest Gee]

What are your leanings?

 

I don't know..... I want more social, economic and political freedom. I know libertarianism is supposed to be that, the wiki says libertarianism is the max freedom club and liber is latin for free etc., but I don't think libertarians actually, by and large, follow their own prescription.

 

I think there are great cases to be made that Trump is the max liberty choice (economics, smash the media, anti-PC, law and order, etc), if libertarianism is max liberty then they should be full bore Trump but, by and large, they are not. So either the arguments (Trump being max liberty) are wrong, and I don't think they are, or libertarianism isn't really the max freedom club.

 

I think that because libertarianism is so emmeshed with Austrian economics it has taken on the big problem that I think comes with Austrian economics, that there is a HUGE resistance to empiricism.

I think the resistance to empiricism goes back to Ludvig Von Mises because he said of his own theory...

 

 

They are, like those of logic of mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experiance or facts.

 

- Human Action, page 28.

 

So because of this rejection of empiricism seeping into the libertarians via the Austrians (who are libertarian thought leaders) I think libertarians get infected with this problem. Like, Ludvig Von Mises rejected empiricism out of hand so when empiricism brings us something we don't want to deal with, like race differences in crime etc, I think they have been sort of conditioned to be able to reject it, does that make sense? I think they have this get out of being called racist free card called "Von Mises said xyz". And if you want more freedom, you're going to be called racist alot!

 

I wouldn't be supprised if the numbers showed that of the FDR-ers voting Trump, STEM graduates were over represented, or, of the FDR-ers who are 'voting violates the NAP', none-STEM are over represented (because STEM trains you to put empiricism first).

 

If I had to put a hat on, I'd probably say I'm alt-right because demographics are destiny.

[aviet]

I don't know..... I want more social, economic and political freedom. I know libertarianism is supposed to be that, the wiki says libertarianism is the max freedom club and liber is latin for free etc., but I don't think libertarians actually, by and large, follow their own prescription.

 

I think there are great cases to be made that Trump is the max liberty choice (economics, smash the media, anti-PC, law and order, etc), if libertarianism is max liberty then they should be full bore Trump but, by and large, they are not. So either the arguments (Trump being max liberty) are wrong, and I don't think they are, or libertarianism isn't really the max freedom club.

 

I think that because libertarianism is so emmeshed with Austrian economics it has taken on the big problem that I think comes with Austrian economics, that there is a HUGE resistance to empiricism.

I think the resistance to empiricism goes back to Ludvig Von Mises because he said of his own theory...

 

 

So because of this rejection of empiricism seeping into the libertarians via the Austrians (who are libertarian thought leaders) I think libertarians get infected with this problem. Like, Ludvig Von Mises rejected empiricism out of hand so when empiricism brings us something we don't want to deal with, like race differences in crime etc, I think they have been sort of conditioned to be able to reject it, does that make sense? I think they have this get out of being called racist free card called "Von Mises said xyz". And if you want more freedom, you're going to be called racist alot!

 

I wouldn't be supprised if the numbers showed that of the FDR-ers voting Trump, STEM graduates were over represented, or, of the FDR-ers who are 'voting violates the NAP', none-STEM are over represented (because STEM trains you to put empiricism first).

 

If I had to put a hat on, I'd probably say I'm alt-right because demographics are destiny.

I'd also noticed the predilection of the von Mises set for liberal immigration or open borders, but was not sure why. I think some of this may have to do with their overly-economic world-view that pays little attention to social factors; and a belief that in more libertarian societies, migrants will have to perform or leave the society. But I don't think that is necessarily true as many migrated to the US and lived in poverty. That you don't have to associate with them is irrelevant if they are associating with you via crime, property devaluation, capital flight etc. As a modern example, you have the wave of mass migration to South Africa from elsewhere on the continent. They are not going for benefits, because there aren't any. This links to an argument, which it seems you might be invoking - that many libertarians fail to see the use of private force in the same light as the use of state force. Particularly with the state of the world as it is, there is no way you can catch and redress all non-frivolous uses of private force. And what use of private force is, is open to interpretation. You can argue that the government in Australia is slightly larger than the UK government, but given the choice I'd choose Australia, because the overall societal freedom provided by their tough immigration system seems freer to me, as I see some people as a bigger threat to freedom than Western governments.

 

There is a conflict that many on this board recognise and that conflict is between a desire for liberty and the knowledge that many people in their country/world cannot be entruseted with that liberty. Manipulative, emotional, low IQ, responsibility deferrers do not have the facilities to restrain themselves in a society with little restraint. A freer society needs to protect itself from incompatible outsiders and fortify its insiders from degenerating into people who cannot restrain themselves and turning the free society into Venezuela.

 

To borrow a term from social justice, I would go for libertarian-fluid. I want as much freedom as is sustainable long-term, but at the moment there is not the quality around to sustain leaps and bounds towards a libertarian utopia for all.

 

If I knew I could leave the world 10% more free in terms of idealogical, crime and state imposition, that would be a good result. I don't see the point of sitting on the sidelines saying, "NAP or nothing!"

[labmath2]

I don't know..... I want more social, economic and political freedom. I know libertarianism is supposed to be that, the wiki says libertarianism is the max freedom club and liber is latin for free etc., but I don't think libertarians actually, by and large, follow their own prescription.

 

I think there are great cases to be made that Trump is the max liberty choice (economics, smash the media, anti-PC, law and order, etc), if libertarianism is max liberty then they should be full bore Trump but, by and large, they are not. So either the arguments (Trump being max liberty) are wrong, and I don't think they are, or libertarianism isn't really the max freedom club.

 

I think that because libertarianism is so emmeshed with Austrian economics it has taken on the big problem that I think comes with Austrian economics, that there is a HUGE resistance to empiricism.

I think the resistance to empiricism goes back to Ludvig Von Mises because he said of his own theory...

 

 

So because of this rejection of empiricism seeping into the libertarians via the Austrians (who are libertarian thought leaders) I think libertarians get infected with this problem. Like, Ludvig Von Mises rejected empiricism out of hand so when empiricism brings us something we don't want to deal with, like race differences in crime etc, I think they have been sort of conditioned to be able to reject it, does that make sense? I think they have this get out of being called racist free card called "Von Mises said xyz". And if you want more freedom, you're going to be called racist alot!

 

I wouldn't be supprised if the numbers showed that of the FDR-ers voting Trump, STEM graduates were over represented, or, of the FDR-ers who are 'voting violates the NAP', none-STEM are over represented (because STEM trains you to put empiricism first).

 

If I had to put a hat on, I'd probably say I'm alt-right because demographics are destiny.

I think your stem comment was an attempt to point out a difference between empiricists and others which is interesting. On that note, you made a lot of assertions in your post that need empirical data to be accepted. When you say Trump is max liberty what do you mean? If you mean trump is the most libertarian cadidate of all the current cadidates, i will push back in twi ways. One, how many times have you voted the most libertarian cadidate since you started down this path? If you haven't voted, tell me what has chanhed empirically. If you have voted, tell me why do you think we ended up in the current situation despote those votes. Two, what empirical evidence do you have that trump is actually max freedom. He has changed a lot of his positions since he announced his candidacy. I am not familiar with his policy proposals (due to my political apathy), but i assume you are and they are liberty oriented policies. When i say liberty oriented, i mean in practice. In the case of the wall (as an example of scrutinizing Trumps policy), how much would it cost every year to maintain and man the wall? While the wall prevents Mexican immigrants, wouldn't it shift the focus from the welfare state which is the fundamental problem? Isn't this a classic case of using government to solve a problem created by government which produces less liberty?

[Guest Gee]

I think your stem comment was an attempt to point out a difference between empiricists and others which is interesting. On that note, you made a lot of assertions in your post that need empirical data to be accepted. When you say Trump is max liberty what do you mean? If you mean trump is the most libertarian cadidate of all the current cadidates, i will push back in twi ways. One, how many times have you voted the most libertarian cadidate since you started down this path? If you haven't voted, tell me what has chanhed empirically. If you have voted, tell me why do you think we ended up in the current situation despote those votes. Two, what empirical evidence do you have that trump is actually max freedom. He has changed a lot of his positions since he announced his candidacy. I am not familiar with his policy proposals (due to my political apathy), but i assume you are and they are liberty oriented policies. When i say liberty oriented, i mean in practice. In the case of the wall (as an example of scrutinizing Trumps policy), how much would it cost every year to maintain and man the wall? While the wall prevents Mexican immigrants, wouldn't it shift the focus from the welfare state which is the fundamental problem? Isn't this a classic case of using government to solve a problem created by government which produces less liberty?

 

That looks like alot of effort. I'll tell you what, lets figure out a reasonable standard of proof and if I meet that standard, you vote Trump. Deal?

[Guest Gee]

I'd also noticed the predilection of the von Mises set for liberal immigration or open borders, but was not sure why. I think some of this may have to do with their overly-economic world-view that pays little attention to social factors; and a belief that in more libertarian societies, migrants will have to perform or leave the society. But I don't think that is necessarily true as many migrated to the US and lived in poverty. That you don't have to associate with them is irrelevant if they are associating with you via crime, property devaluation, capital flight etc. As a modern example, you have the wave of mass migration to South Africa from elsewhere on the continent. They are not going for benefits, because there aren't any. This links to an argument, which it seems you might be invoking - that many libertarians fail to see the use of private force in the same light as the use of state force. Particularly with the state of the world as it is, there is no way you can catch and redress all non-frivolous uses of private force. And what use of private force is, is open to interpretation. You can argue that the government in Australia is slightly larger than the UK government, but given the choice I'd choose Australia, because the overall societal freedom provided by their tough immigration system seems freer to me, as I see some people as a bigger threat to freedom than Western governments.

 

There is a conflict that many on this board recognise and that conflict is between a desire for liberty and the knowledge that many people in their country/world cannot be entruseted with that liberty. Manipulative, emotional, low IQ, responsibility deferrers do not have the facilities to restrain themselves in a society with little restraint. A freer society needs to protect itself from incompatible outsiders and fortify its insiders from degenerating into people who cannot restrain themselves and turning the free society into Venezuela.

 

To borrow a term from social justice, I would go for libertarian-fluid. I want as much freedom as is sustainable long-term, but at the moment there is not the quality around to sustain leaps and bounds towards a libertarian utopia for all.

 

If I knew I could leave the world 10% more free in terms of idealogical, crime and state imposition, that would be a good result. I don't see the point of sitting on the sidelines saying, "NAP or nothing!"

 

Libertarian-fluid, I like that!

 

I think you're bang on about the use of force. Like, if we have a definition (say force) and this definition leads to an effect, then we should be able to define the force as per the effect right? Like, if f = ma then ma = f (Is this what Ayn Rand ment then she said A is A?). I think this is how Stef got to being ok-ish with the wall.

 

But yeah, libertarians confuse the hell out of me, check out the racial make up of their party!

 

Hey! 80% of libertarians voted Romney, I was wrong when I said they don't, by and large, go max liberty (heres to hoping >80% vote Trump!). I think I just proved I spend to much time on the internet!

[labmath2]

That looks like alot of effort. I'll tell you what, lets figure out a reasonable standard of proof and if I meet that standard, you vote Trump. Deal?

sure.

[Guest Gee]

sure.

 

Sweet as. You can kick off. What do I need to show to demonstrate Trump is the max liberty choice?

[ClearConscience]

What is the deal with prisons? I have never heard a libertarian tackle this subject and have always wondered to what extent people support prisons at all, be it private or public. 

 

 

If we were to decommission all prisons tomorrow, what would be the process for existing and new criminals who commit harmful crimes toward others (murder, sexual assault, rape, etc). 

I can see an financial crime requiring the repayment of victims, and less violent crimes could result in community service etc, however what about rape, murder, etc?

 

When it comes to repaying victims for harms caused, this is the relationship of civil law.  When you see one party sue another party for damages, this is a civil lawsuit.  The purpose of civil lawsuits is to repay the damages caused by one party, against another party.

 

When it comes to putting a person into a cage for a certain period of time, this is known as criminal law, as opposed to civil law.  This has NOTHING to do with the victim. The victim is TOTALLY irrelevant.  The victim isn't even necessary for the trial to proceed.  The victim could be wholeheartedly against the prosecutor.  In criminal court, it is THE GOVERNMENT against the alleged criminal.

 

This is not an opinion.  This is not some philosophical argument based on Stefan's words.  This is exactly what they teach you in law school, day one.

 

With regards to your last paragraph, Stefan is an advocate of social ostracism.  I can say with 100% certainty, that Stefan is in favor of STRICT AS FUCK borders, and when convicted of heinous crimes, social ostracism.  What this means is that a free society creates strict as hell borders and when a criminal is convicted, beyond reasonable doubt, of intentionally harming others in a sociopathic or psychopathic way, such as intentional murder or deliberate schemes to steal massive amounts of money from a huge pool of people, that they are sent elsewhere, out of society, and not allowed to purchase goods, or interact in any capacity with the society that they are ostracized from.

 

That is the solution that Stefan presents.  That is absolutely, the most clear and precise answer, to the question that you pose.

[labmath2]

Sweet as. You can kick off. What do I need to show to demonstrate Trump is the max liberty choice?

 

You have to address the two points I made in my original response.

 

1. How many time have you voted for candidates in the past? If you haven't, what changed? If you have, why did we still end up in the current situation despite your voting?

2. Go through Trump's policies and show how they are not just more government program to fix the negative effects of other government programs or an expansion of government. I gave you an example of how you should scrutinize those policies with the wall policy and how it's just an expansion of government.

[labmath2]

Sweet as. You can kick off. What do I need to show to demonstrate Trump is the max liberty choice?

 

I sent a response, but i think it got lost in moderation.

 

1. You have to make the general case for voting. How many times have you voted in the past for candidates? If never, why is this election different? If you have voted for the candidates who were for greater freedom, why did we still end up in this situation? 

 

2. You have to make the particular case for voting. Why is Donald Trump for max freedom? You have to go through his policies and show how they are for max freedom. I gave you the example how i would scrutinize any of his policies with the wall proposal in an earlier post. Use that as a standard for addressing his policies (starting with the wall proposal).

 

If you manage to make a good case for voting in general and voting in this particular case, i will be willing to sign up and show up at the election come November.