I've got Daniel D'Amico as my professor. Awesome awesome awesome. If you ever get the chance to have him, be thankful. Definitely the most fun, and real professor i have.
I think they're making a huge assumption regarding people who are imprisoned. I find little or no evidence that, if given the proper incentives, these people will become useful in our society.
You only need to look at Ted Williams (the voice actor, not the baseball player) who was given several chances to recover and still went back to alcohol and drugs.
While I admit some may become helpful, I am not willing to condemn our prison system based on that idea.
@Timasion Suppose that someone commits a serious crime. Further suppose that they get convicted and escape.
Fast forward thirty years. The person is discovered. Clearly, they have been acceptable members of society for thirty years, they have families and careers. That's how they avoided detection.
This is not hypothetical, it happens from time to time.
@Timasion I don't think the prison system would helps addicts simply by keeping them away from substances. They are still addicts. The "corrections" industry obviously didn't help correct William's problem.
Basically your argument is that since you see no evidence incentives such people become "useful to society" an incentives don't work, whereas prison does work...except that it doesn't and we have tons of addicts.
@Timasion In addition, I think the incentives of employment, education, and so on prove far more in *preventing* addiction in the first place, rather than as a corrective device, but prison seldom "corrects" anything at all. Had our economy not become "managed" there would be far more jobs than we see presently, to boot.
All in all, no amount of incentive will completely eradicate substance abuse, but we know for a fact prisons don't do so.
Thanks, I needed this. I’m exhausted after hours of trying to convince gun owners that they aren’t true defenders of Liberty, since most of them really only care about one Liberty and condone locking up citizens for anything and everything under the sun.
We put them in boxes because before, we used to exile them from town. Get them out of us. Only now there is no more out of town, we are so dense and own all land, you have no where to put them but on private property that someone is willing to sell. Prisons have become the dump site of the unwanted, and just like a landfill, is is harming us more than helping.
I'm not sure you understand just how ridiculous the situation has gotten.
Do you really think that every one of these "unwanted" really deserves to be there? Even people who got there through mutually voluntary exchanges of value, like prostitution or dealing drugs? What about people who only have a bunch of unpaid traffic tickets, or who miffed off a judge, or who failed to obey some arcane decree about the proper way to run their shop or tend to their lawn? -
- Even among those who do need it, do you think every one of them is completely incapable of contribution to the productive forces of society, even slightly? Do you think they will become less prone to commit crimes in the future by associating with and being abused by real, actual violent criminals, or more?
Why do you consider them unwanted? Because you've carefully thought through each of their situations, and concluded that there are no mutually agreeable exchanges to be made with them?
@PanzerDivisionBOM Please don't mistake my comment on history to mean that I approve it. By all means, I really don't. There are few criminals that should actually be in jail. But we live in a society that rewards people to punish others. Just like we pay prisons to keep prisoners, or pay for killing a fetus, or pay for killing terrorists, when you fund a destructive practice, you will only fuel more of it as the company doing it wants to make more profit.
Solitary confinement should be solitary, but give the man books! maybe some emerson, or maybe plato. Let the guy educate himself while in there, as we know that education leads to less crime.
At the core of D'Amico's thesis is simply a realization that government is an Evil. Our founders found, however, that it's a necessary one. I tend to agree with them.
More generally, the problem with libertarianism is it's a philosophy trying to parade about as a political ideology. The former has broad appeal. Unfortunately, that's led to the latter notion gaining acceptance as a viable alternative. It's not.
@MrPloppy1 Granted, but with libertarianism the two are synonymous. Libertarianism may one day evolve but presently it's entirely deficient as a political ideology.
Government without police powers has all the authority of a sorority.
And regardless of ideology and/or philosophy, if gov't cannot use violent force to fight back against violent criminals, then gov't has no police powers.
Examples of the libertarian's political manifestation would appear to be Liberia or Somalia at their worst.
So to you, Gadaffi's regime, with it's mass internment camps and perpetual, openly democidal war against its own host population constitutes a small government of strictly limited powers? Then I'd hate to see what a big government is by your definition. The US must seem outright anarchic to you then, and the regimes of Mao Zedong and Stalin small to moderate.
You answered your own question, but didn't realize it because you confused the meaning of "small" in the context you referenced.
Clearly, "small" regards the scope of government, especially regarding how much it infringes on individual liberties. A government that wars against its citizens is obviously not small. All your examples -- all totalitarian regimes -- fail the small-government-test, by the same metric, and as spectacularly.
I thought I did, but maybe I was negligent in just assuming implicitly that you and I both have the same understanding of the meaning of the term "Libertarianism."
Small or no government. A libertarian holds that anything which can be provided from within the marketplace, is better provided from within the marketplace than from an organization which is institutionally insulated to consumer preference data. This usually stems philosophically -
- either from a Misesian conception of social cooperation, from a Smithian conception of efficient management of society, from some form of Neo-Lockeanism or from semi-modern American Constitutionalism, and opinions vary accordingly on how big the state should be.
The thing that everyone agrees that Libertarianism is not, is a state with the power to do anything like what any of those states we mentioned. Those states are Libertarian like the Eurasian Bullfinch is a type of neutron star.
Both Somalia and Liberia, at their worst, had NO GOVERNMENT. So they fit your own explicit definition for libertarianism, i.e., "Small or no government.".
Ah, I misread Liberia as Libya. Stupid mistake on my part.
Speaking for the moment then on Somalia, with which I am more familiar:
If you look at Somalia as it was after the collapse of its state but before the UN invasion, you'll actually find it was doing a lot better than its statist neigbors, and certainly better than it was under its former state, despite the sudden collapse of Somalian communism being a far cry from the gradual, planned deconstruction advocated -
-by most anarchic Libertarians. While I do not personally agree with the content of Xeer law, as it reflects cultural values different than my own, its form does provide further proof of working, polycentric law.
It was market anarchism, formed by chance rather than purpose, under the worst imaginable circumstances. It didn't instantly transform a war-ravaged, tribal, post-communist third-world society into a utopia. But it did better than its neighbors, and better than what came before it.
Better from the point of view of the individual members of its society, as evidenced by the rapidly rising standards of living. The only metric in which they did not surpass their neighbors during this period was education, which is naturally in low demand in the beginning stages of capital- and empathy accumulation and which the UN funded lavishly in neighboring territories but not in Somalia.
Neighboring territories patrolled and plundered their lands and waters, as well. -
- It's just that those pirates were successful enough to be termed "armies" and "navies" by modern political theory, rather than pirates and warlords.
Again, I'm not pointing to Somalia as the shining city on the hill. I'm saying that, for being situated in the most statist, war-ravaged region of the world, for being a tribal society with little to no capital and empathy and for having recently suffered a collapsing communist state, it did very well.
Somalia's "rapidly rising standards of living" included a famine with about 300,000 dead -- during the period with no government, just prior to the arrival of the US military. Roving bands of disparate Muslims were stealing from and waging war against each other, and against civilian populations.
Even if such a libertarian ideal could be rationalized as "better" than its neighbors, I'll pass. It's not even "better" than most totalitarian government nightmares. Nor is it a stable condition.
Again, there is nothing small of your examples you used for such.
And your post didn't address THE issue of police powers and my observations of the matter with respect to libertarianism. Further, your confusion regarding "small" bleeds over into your notions of libertarianism, so your line of reasoning failed there. Beyond that, your latest post muddles philosophy with an explicit government authority, e.g., police powers, which was my broadest point.
@TylerNull Well, I think the crux of the problem is the checks and balances. The idea being that you needed the other branches are to keep each other in check. When they start trading favors, such as voting a certain way because the president put you there, is when we get corruption. Each branch should be self contained, and any ties to other branches should be a conflict of interests. Same with congress and ties to big corps.
I have this idea about how to punish people and prevent them from committing violent crimes without taking them out of the community or incarcerating them. Have them serve their sentence in a wheel chair.
In order for government to expand you need an ever growing problem. Sometimes government will manufacture the problem to increase its power base. How many people were let out of prison in California due to economic trouble? My question is if they were let out strictly because of fund constriction why were they there in the first place?
Civil courts. Real crimes are never against "the state." Real crimes are against real identifiable people who deserve restitution proportionate to the harm done. Criminal courts are the problem. The criminal justice system is the problem. I'm glad to finally hear someone else saying essentially what I've been saying for decades.
Yes the state is the dominant mafia, and it's main function has always been to protect property, to protect property in a certain geographical area. When states were from it were the kings and the nobility that ran it, because they owned all the property, today it is being shared among more people.
If you remove jail from the equation, what do you replace it with? What did the Greeks do prior to jail? Chop hands? What are the alternatives? Many people don't like the idea of 1 in 100 people being in jail, but you need to give me an alternative.
People commit an act against another person, should we leave government out if it, and let people enact their own form of justice? That would not work for me.
It's an interesting topic but it only raises a question. Guess I need to read the paper.
@CurtHowland Restitution how? Hypothetically, I am poor, so I rob a bank, and am caught. I have to pay back the damages, but I am poor, so what do you do? Indentured Servitude? What if I run away from that? Slavery? You can't force someone who has nothing to give something they don't have to someone else.
Since Smith's example covers that contingency, I am left to conclude that you didn't even read the citation I put a URL to in the post to which you are replying.
What you're leaving out is that without the monopoly court system, cases are handled one at a time. No "one size fits all" benefits the thief as well as the victim, because the restitution must be agreed to by all parties.
@CurtHowland Hypothetical exercises do not work so well in reality. And yes I read the cartoon after I sent the response. I didn't realize it was a URL at first, but I still say it's not viable.
example: I shoot my neighbor and rape his wife to death. Theye has no kin, so I just take over his house, I win, no one left to complain.
example 2: I cut you off on the highway, and have no license plate. Even if you find me later on, and get mad I caused a wreck I just say "wasn't me".
@CurtHowland without a court or an enforcement group, you can not force me to pay anything to anyone, or do anything for anyone. The options are mob rule, or courts and cops.
@Brantoc "..founders tried to create a constitutional republic.." Yes, Your right, although it obviously isn't worth much. It never prevented usa being turned into a police state. I guess the illusion is that most people believe that their lives can be made better by having other people control them, or "gov is the means by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else" (LS). We have to ask - Why would elitists favour a democracy? Ta for reply.
@Brantoc but the courts and cops are corrupt and don't do their jobs properly. They prosecute innocents or get the wrong suspects. Or are corrupt themselves and get off the hook. The courts and cops will also only selectively pick the crimes they want to prosecute. They will not usually chase corrupt government officials since they know which side their bread is buttered. Finally, courts and cops never PREVENT CRIMES. They can only catch the suspect. In MOST cases, the crime IS ALREADY DONE.
@Brantoc FREE MARKETS give us REAL security, like home alarms, locks, guns, and cameras! Your example of killing your neighbour is silly. That's what guns, home alarm systems, locks, cameras, and booby traps are for! All made by the market. The MARKET, PREVENTS CRIME, the police, ALMOST NEVER PREVENT crime from happening! The damage is already done by the time they arrive. They are nothing but smoke and mirrors, pretending that they "protect" us! PREVENTION is key and only the market does it!
@lonewolf1369 I agree with you in principle, but not practice. Without a police force, what good is an alarm? Who would respond? Locks are useless, unless you make your house like a fort. The idea of no police, but hiring private security with the powers to arrest is a good one, and works every where it is tried. I do not believe it would work large scale.
My original question still stands. FACT - Incarceration does not work. QUESTION - What is the alternative for criminals?
@Brantoc an alarm is very good, it tells you to get your gun and pepper spray, or it sends a signal to the hired security force to get to your house. There's no such thing as "large scale" you're thinking like a Centralizer. Everything would be decentralized. Community associations would have their own security, individuals would be members of law societies and be bound by their laws, the market can handle it.
@Brantoc everything has to be privatized so that technically, "criminals" would not even exist in private areas, and would be relegated to the outskirts and rural territories, banished effectively from most civilized life. Petty crime would be identified, and its culprits would be named so that no one will deal with them. Criminals will have to excommunicate themselves and survive on their own in rural areas because no one would do business with them.
@Brantoc the market and private property is more than adequate in reducing crime. Furthermore, government police are corrupt and don't do their jobs properly many times. False accusations, false arrest, false imprisonment, false conviction, prosecutorial misconduct, false charges and having your name smeared, are all regular occurrences, and police want the privilege of "regulating" themselves. Police themselves go on DUIs, beat innocents, and get off scot free. Why perform if you keep your pay?
privatised prisons is like doin' somethin' wrong and the neighbor punishin' you, as oppossed to your parents.. society punishes, society is structured as a gov't, a State, a County, a City/Town.. a gov't, a State, a County and a City/Town punishes those who break the laws of their society.. can ya tell I'm anti-privatization..? there is NO public and private.. if it's done outside your house, it's public.. here's a tip, bring our jobs back or suffer the consequences Uncle Sam..
amazing interview, GREAT topic, i would really like to see more Jeffery Tucker videos, you are my favorite speaker from mises.org, i also feel rather disapointed when i realize that you do not read your own written articles when it comes to the daily mises, anyways, keep up the good work (everyone at mises) and hope to see more great videos like this in the very near future
When there is spontaneous order, then imprisonment is not required.
Nonetheless once crime or violence develops in an anarchy there needs to be some form of use of force to punish the breaking of law.
What I want to know is: What is the Austrian alternative to state monopoly on the use of force to enforce law? How would anarchy society enforce its laws if anyone can do whatever one wants?
Answer to this question is crucial to a successful anarchistic society.
I would recommend "An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not-So Wild, Wild West" to see how private security/punishment works without monopoly
@infinummjb "How would anarchy society enforce its laws if anyone can do whatever one wants?"
This isn't the type of anarchy we support. We support private property, and all things should be private property. The owner of property gets to set the rules, and to ensure s/he doesn't change them in a way we don't like, we can contract with people, and then the contracts become like law.
To protect property(your body is property) and enforce contracts we have private defense, courts and police.
@infinummjb There are at least 5 hours of videos discussing the various types of punishment and how rival courts would interact, I recommend you spend some time and look at them.
I particularly like Walter Block, Robert Murphy and Hans Hoppe's versions. Stefan Molyneux provides a softer version which I think would work with non-violent crimes only, even though he implies it can be used for all crime.
Basically we all pay for defense through voluntary contracts, with private courts and police.
even with something as small as a parking ticket, will require either refusal or compliance. a series of refusals WILL end in death. dont pay and they will suspend your license. comply and dont drive? if you drive you will be arrested. comply with arrest? if not, you will be imprisioned. comply with imprisonment? if not, you will be shot.
@knowthingman I know a guy whose license was taken away for traffic fines. The fines got so high, and the license issue caused more fines, that it's now impossible for him to get his license back. Last I heard they were up to $12,000. So he just accepts the fact that every so often he will be stopped and kidnapped and thrown in jail for a couple of months, and plans his life around that.
i second panzer's comment. if he feels up to it, this guy should submit a detailed report of his situation and experiences to various libertarian outlets on the internet. we'll plaster that shit everywhere.
@richardcadbury "except when the state is shrunk by the people..."
This has almost exclusivel happend only when "the people" rise up in violent rebellion and overthrow their current government. You will be hard pressed to find 3 examples of peaceful reduction of government that is anything more then fluff and propaganda. Ronald Reagan was all talk about shrinking gov, he actually increased it overall.
Isnt He the Daniel D amico who locked in the film "Gotcha" himeself out starknaked in the age of twelve
DerFoxelhuber 1 month ago
Daniel D'Amico is Gary Becker of the first decade of 21st century
grizlero 1 month ago
I've got Daniel D'Amico as my professor. Awesome awesome awesome. If you ever get the chance to have him, be thankful. Definitely the most fun, and real professor i have.
themagicalone00 5 months ago 5
The prison population in the United States is greater than the cities of Los Angeles and Miami combined. Prison is the health of the state.
psergioserrato 7 months ago
Bruce Willis?
crazyncoolfool 7 months ago
Bow tie guy could easily have played the satan in a movie..
Pandy2k 7 months ago
I think they're making a huge assumption regarding people who are imprisoned. I find little or no evidence that, if given the proper incentives, these people will become useful in our society.
You only need to look at Ted Williams (the voice actor, not the baseball player) who was given several chances to recover and still went back to alcohol and drugs.
While I admit some may become helpful, I am not willing to condemn our prison system based on that idea.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion Suppose that someone commits a serious crime. Further suppose that they get convicted and escape.
Fast forward thirty years. The person is discovered. Clearly, they have been acceptable members of society for thirty years, they have families and careers. That's how they avoided detection.
This is not hypothetical, it happens from time to time.
What is the purpose of imprisoning them?
Just some food for thought.
jeffiek 8 months ago
@jeffiek The purpose would be for them to pay for their crimes.
But you must recognize your scenario is relatively rare and my supposition is much more common.
Timasion 8 months ago
@Timasion I don't think the prison system would helps addicts simply by keeping them away from substances. They are still addicts. The "corrections" industry obviously didn't help correct William's problem.
Basically your argument is that since you see no evidence incentives such people become "useful to society" an incentives don't work, whereas prison does work...except that it doesn't and we have tons of addicts.
hartforest 7 months ago
@Timasion In addition, I think the incentives of employment, education, and so on prove far more in *preventing* addiction in the first place, rather than as a corrective device, but prison seldom "corrects" anything at all. Had our economy not become "managed" there would be far more jobs than we see presently, to boot.
All in all, no amount of incentive will completely eradicate substance abuse, but we know for a fact prisons don't do so.
hartforest 7 months ago
Wow, Dan's lost a ton of weight!
KagarBeardtooth 9 months ago
Why does D'Amico always look perplexed and dismayed as he talks?
He sure contracts his brows far more than necessary!
nakedscrewmonkey 10 months ago
Thanks, I needed this. I’m exhausted after hours of trying to convince gun owners that they aren’t true defenders of Liberty, since most of them really only care about one Liberty and condone locking up citizens for anything and everything under the sun.
HappyBruiser 11 months ago
@HappyBruiser What does this have to do with gun ownership? /watch?v=6azcULuObdU
thespacialone 10 months ago
@thespacialone
It doesn't, I was speaking about a group of people (gun owners) and how I viewed many them as being hypocritical when it comes to Individual Liberty.
HappyBruiser 10 months ago
@HappyBruiser I know, I was being difficult :) Peace
thespacialone 10 months ago
J.Tucker looks like Bruce Willis:).
bojanbogevski1 11 months ago 3
watch?v=gzSAjNlOfaI -- Proper Roll of Government
Brantoc 11 months ago
War is money jail is money jail is a criminal convention. and the police know this!
they know what crime all that throw are most likely to do.
lorddarthstar 11 months ago
watch?v=Z_q1fX4cyZ0 - The Essence of American Power
watch?v=Z0maPJgcoFg - The goal of an economy is to eliminate all jobs.
nationalelitism 11 months ago
We put them in boxes because before, we used to exile them from town. Get them out of us. Only now there is no more out of town, we are so dense and own all land, you have no where to put them but on private property that someone is willing to sell. Prisons have become the dump site of the unwanted, and just like a landfill, is is harming us more than helping.
bluefootedpig 11 months ago
@bluefootedpig
I'm not sure you understand just how ridiculous the situation has gotten.
Do you really think that every one of these "unwanted" really deserves to be there? Even people who got there through mutually voluntary exchanges of value, like prostitution or dealing drugs? What about people who only have a bunch of unpaid traffic tickets, or who miffed off a judge, or who failed to obey some arcane decree about the proper way to run their shop or tend to their lawn? -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 11 months ago
-
- Even among those who do need it, do you think every one of them is completely incapable of contribution to the productive forces of society, even slightly? Do you think they will become less prone to commit crimes in the future by associating with and being abused by real, actual violent criminals, or more?
Why do you consider them unwanted? Because you've carefully thought through each of their situations, and concluded that there are no mutually agreeable exchanges to be made with them?
PanzerDivisionBOM 11 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM Please don't mistake my comment on history to mean that I approve it. By all means, I really don't. There are few criminals that should actually be in jail. But we live in a society that rewards people to punish others. Just like we pay prisons to keep prisoners, or pay for killing a fetus, or pay for killing terrorists, when you fund a destructive practice, you will only fuel more of it as the company doing it wants to make more profit.
bluefootedpig 11 months ago
Solitary confinement should be solitary, but give the man books! maybe some emerson, or maybe plato. Let the guy educate himself while in there, as we know that education leads to less crime.
bluefootedpig 11 months ago
10:41 - Fuck tha police!
kulza23 11 months ago
At the core of D'Amico's thesis is simply a realization that government is an Evil. Our founders found, however, that it's a necessary one. I tend to agree with them.
More generally, the problem with libertarianism is it's a philosophy trying to parade about as a political ideology. The former has broad appeal. Unfortunately, that's led to the latter notion gaining acceptance as a viable alternative. It's not.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull ?????
Every political ideology has a philosophical base. Without it no ideology would exist.
MrPloppy1 11 months ago
@MrPloppy1 Granted, but with libertarianism the two are synonymous. Libertarianism may one day evolve but presently it's entirely deficient as a political ideology.
Government without police powers has all the authority of a sorority.
And regardless of ideology and/or philosophy, if gov't cannot use violent force to fight back against violent criminals, then gov't has no police powers.
Examples of the libertarian's political manifestation would appear to be Liberia or Somalia at their worst.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
So to you, Gadaffi's regime, with it's mass internment camps and perpetual, openly democidal war against its own host population constitutes a small government of strictly limited powers? Then I'd hate to see what a big government is by your definition. The US must seem outright anarchic to you then, and the regimes of Mao Zedong and Stalin small to moderate.
PanzerDivisionBOM 11 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
You answered your own question, but didn't realize it because you confused the meaning of "small" in the context you referenced.
Clearly, "small" regards the scope of government, especially regarding how much it infringes on individual liberties. A government that wars against its citizens is obviously not small. All your examples -- all totalitarian regimes -- fail the small-government-test, by the same metric, and as spectacularly.
And you didn't address my point.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
"And you didn't address my point."
I thought I did, but maybe I was negligent in just assuming implicitly that you and I both have the same understanding of the meaning of the term "Libertarianism."
Small or no government. A libertarian holds that anything which can be provided from within the marketplace, is better provided from within the marketplace than from an organization which is institutionally insulated to consumer preference data. This usually stems philosophically -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 11 months ago
-
- either from a Misesian conception of social cooperation, from a Smithian conception of efficient management of society, from some form of Neo-Lockeanism or from semi-modern American Constitutionalism, and opinions vary accordingly on how big the state should be.
The thing that everyone agrees that Libertarianism is not, is a state with the power to do anything like what any of those states we mentioned. Those states are Libertarian like the Eurasian Bullfinch is a type of neutron star.
PanzerDivisionBOM 11 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
Wrong.
Both Somalia and Liberia, at their worst, had NO GOVERNMENT. So they fit your own explicit definition for libertarianism, i.e., "Small or no government.".
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
Ah, I misread Liberia as Libya. Stupid mistake on my part.
Speaking for the moment then on Somalia, with which I am more familiar:
If you look at Somalia as it was after the collapse of its state but before the UN invasion, you'll actually find it was doing a lot better than its statist neigbors, and certainly better than it was under its former state, despite the sudden collapse of Somalian communism being a far cry from the gradual, planned deconstruction advocated -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 11 months ago
-
-by most anarchic Libertarians. While I do not personally agree with the content of Xeer law, as it reflects cultural values different than my own, its form does provide further proof of working, polycentric law.
It was market anarchism, formed by chance rather than purpose, under the worst imaginable circumstances. It didn't instantly transform a war-ravaged, tribal, post-communist third-world society into a utopia. But it did better than its neighbors, and better than what came before it.
PanzerDivisionBOM 11 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
Better?
Better for Muslim clergy-warlords?
Better for Muslim pirates?
Better how?
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull
Better from the point of view of the individual members of its society, as evidenced by the rapidly rising standards of living. The only metric in which they did not surpass their neighbors during this period was education, which is naturally in low demand in the beginning stages of capital- and empathy accumulation and which the UN funded lavishly in neighboring territories but not in Somalia.
Neighboring territories patrolled and plundered their lands and waters, as well. -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 11 months ago
-
- It's just that those pirates were successful enough to be termed "armies" and "navies" by modern political theory, rather than pirates and warlords.
Again, I'm not pointing to Somalia as the shining city on the hill. I'm saying that, for being situated in the most statist, war-ravaged region of the world, for being a tribal society with little to no capital and empathy and for having recently suffered a collapsing communist state, it did very well.
PanzerDivisionBOM 11 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM LMFAO @ "Somalia did very well." You're a moron.
worldnewsbbc1 11 months ago
@TylerNull & worldnewsbbc1
Bringing on the strawmen eh? Right, I'm done here.
PanzerDivisionBOM 11 months ago
@P
Somalia's "rapidly rising standards of living" included a famine with about 300,000 dead -- during the period with no government, just prior to the arrival of the US military. Roving bands of disparate Muslims were stealing from and waging war against each other, and against civilian populations.
Even if such a libertarian ideal could be rationalized as "better" than its neighbors, I'll pass. It's not even "better" than most totalitarian government nightmares. Nor is it a stable condition.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
Again, there is nothing small of your examples you used for such.
And your post didn't address THE issue of police powers and my observations of the matter with respect to libertarianism. Further, your confusion regarding "small" bleeds over into your notions of libertarianism, so your line of reasoning failed there. Beyond that, your latest post muddles philosophy with an explicit government authority, e.g., police powers, which was my broadest point.
TylerNull 11 months ago
@TylerNull Well, I think the crux of the problem is the checks and balances. The idea being that you needed the other branches are to keep each other in check. When they start trading favors, such as voting a certain way because the president put you there, is when we get corruption. Each branch should be self contained, and any ties to other branches should be a conflict of interests. Same with congress and ties to big corps.
bluefootedpig 11 months ago
I'm guessing that Jeff didn't fair very well in the slammer, what with the bowtie and the speech peculiarities.
032125 11 months ago
I have this idea about how to punish people and prevent them from committing violent crimes without taking them out of the community or incarcerating them. Have them serve their sentence in a wheel chair.
cynthiaall 11 months ago
In order for government to expand you need an ever growing problem. Sometimes government will manufacture the problem to increase its power base. How many people were let out of prison in California due to economic trouble? My question is if they were let out strictly because of fund constriction why were they there in the first place?
pdxeddie1111 11 months ago
Civil courts. Real crimes are never against "the state." Real crimes are against real identifiable people who deserve restitution proportionate to the harm done. Criminal courts are the problem. The criminal justice system is the problem. I'm glad to finally hear someone else saying essentially what I've been saying for decades.
j1a2r34 11 months ago 3
Wow. Him and Walter Block on the same faculty.
It might inspire me to go back to school!
But seriously, who needs universities when there's Mises. org?
CurtHowland 11 months ago 42
@CurtHowland i hate paying for it, but school can be awesome go for it!
M80313 4 months ago
Government is merely the dominant 'mafia'
ostralopithicus 11 months ago 31
@ostralopithicus Mafia has more dignity.
rumco 11 months ago
@ostralopithicus
democrat + republican = Gambino + Gotti
holidayhouse03 11 months ago
@ostralopithicus
Yes the state is the dominant mafia, and it's main function has always been to protect property, to protect property in a certain geographical area. When states were from it were the kings and the nobility that ran it, because they owned all the property, today it is being shared among more people.
Dutchguy74 1 week ago
J.T. - "it's astonishing!" - no disrespect J.T., but it seems pretty dam obvious.
ostralopithicus 11 months ago
If you remove jail from the equation, what do you replace it with? What did the Greeks do prior to jail? Chop hands? What are the alternatives? Many people don't like the idea of 1 in 100 people being in jail, but you need to give me an alternative.
People commit an act against another person, should we leave government out if it, and let people enact their own form of justice? That would not work for me.
It's an interesting topic but it only raises a question. Guess I need to read the paper.
Brantoc 11 months ago
@Brantoc "what do you replace it with?"
Restitution.
Rothbard, "For A New Liberty"
Tanhill, "The Market For Liberty"
It's been discussed to death. L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach" even has a full sequence on it, starting on page 67,
bigheadpress. com/tpbtgn?page=67
CurtHowland 11 months ago 3
@CurtHowland Restitution how? Hypothetically, I am poor, so I rob a bank, and am caught. I have to pay back the damages, but I am poor, so what do you do? Indentured Servitude? What if I run away from that? Slavery? You can't force someone who has nothing to give something they don't have to someone else.
Brantoc 11 months ago
@Brantoc "What if I run away from that?"
Since Smith's example covers that contingency, I am left to conclude that you didn't even read the citation I put a URL to in the post to which you are replying.
What you're leaving out is that without the monopoly court system, cases are handled one at a time. No "one size fits all" benefits the thief as well as the victim, because the restitution must be agreed to by all parties.
CurtHowland 11 months ago
@CurtHowland Hypothetical exercises do not work so well in reality. And yes I read the cartoon after I sent the response. I didn't realize it was a URL at first, but I still say it's not viable.
example: I shoot my neighbor and rape his wife to death. Theye has no kin, so I just take over his house, I win, no one left to complain.
example 2: I cut you off on the highway, and have no license plate. Even if you find me later on, and get mad I caused a wreck I just say "wasn't me".
Brantoc 11 months ago
@CurtHowland without a court or an enforcement group, you can not force me to pay anything to anyone, or do anything for anyone. The options are mob rule, or courts and cops.
Brantoc 11 months ago
@Brantoc ".....The options are mob rule, or courts and cops...." Or you could have all 3 if you choose democracy.
zalida100 11 months ago
@zalida100 Democracy is mod rule.
That is why our founders tried to create a constitutional republic. The democracy spend the last 100 years or so destroying the constitution.
Brantoc 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Brantoc "..founders tried to create a constitutional republic.." Yes, Your right, although it obviously isn't worth much. It never prevented usa being turned into a police state. I guess the illusion is that most people believe that their lives can be made better by having other people control them, or "gov is the means by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else" (LS). We have to ask - Why would elitists favour a democracy? Ta for reply.
zalida100 11 months ago
@Brantoc but the courts and cops are corrupt and don't do their jobs properly. They prosecute innocents or get the wrong suspects. Or are corrupt themselves and get off the hook. The courts and cops will also only selectively pick the crimes they want to prosecute. They will not usually chase corrupt government officials since they know which side their bread is buttered. Finally, courts and cops never PREVENT CRIMES. They can only catch the suspect. In MOST cases, the crime IS ALREADY DONE.
lonewolf1369 11 months ago
@Brantoc FREE MARKETS give us REAL security, like home alarms, locks, guns, and cameras! Your example of killing your neighbour is silly. That's what guns, home alarm systems, locks, cameras, and booby traps are for! All made by the market. The MARKET, PREVENTS CRIME, the police, ALMOST NEVER PREVENT crime from happening! The damage is already done by the time they arrive. They are nothing but smoke and mirrors, pretending that they "protect" us! PREVENTION is key and only the market does it!
lonewolf1369 11 months ago
@lonewolf1369 I agree with you in principle, but not practice. Without a police force, what good is an alarm? Who would respond? Locks are useless, unless you make your house like a fort. The idea of no police, but hiring private security with the powers to arrest is a good one, and works every where it is tried. I do not believe it would work large scale.
My original question still stands. FACT - Incarceration does not work. QUESTION - What is the alternative for criminals?
Brantoc 11 months ago
@Brantoc Can't you just send them to some island, like Australia?
bluefootedpig 11 months ago
@Brantoc an alarm is very good, it tells you to get your gun and pepper spray, or it sends a signal to the hired security force to get to your house. There's no such thing as "large scale" you're thinking like a Centralizer. Everything would be decentralized. Community associations would have their own security, individuals would be members of law societies and be bound by their laws, the market can handle it.
lonewolf1369 10 months ago
@Brantoc everything has to be privatized so that technically, "criminals" would not even exist in private areas, and would be relegated to the outskirts and rural territories, banished effectively from most civilized life. Petty crime would be identified, and its culprits would be named so that no one will deal with them. Criminals will have to excommunicate themselves and survive on their own in rural areas because no one would do business with them.
lonewolf1369 10 months ago
@Brantoc the market and private property is more than adequate in reducing crime. Furthermore, government police are corrupt and don't do their jobs properly many times. False accusations, false arrest, false imprisonment, false conviction, prosecutorial misconduct, false charges and having your name smeared, are all regular occurrences, and police want the privilege of "regulating" themselves. Police themselves go on DUIs, beat innocents, and get off scot free. Why perform if you keep your pay?
lonewolf1369 10 months ago
@Brantoc Another thing you can do is stop making freedom a crime. Basically, no victim, no crime.
dyne313 11 months ago 2
Very interesting.
Daniel44125 11 months ago
privatised prisons is like doin' somethin' wrong and the neighbor punishin' you, as oppossed to your parents.. society punishes, society is structured as a gov't, a State, a County, a City/Town.. a gov't, a State, a County and a City/Town punishes those who break the laws of their society.. can ya tell I'm anti-privatization..? there is NO public and private.. if it's done outside your house, it's public.. here's a tip, bring our jobs back or suffer the consequences Uncle Sam..
Dewdaahman 11 months ago
@Dewdaahman What an eccentric performance.
032125 11 months ago
What a fresh breathe of cool breeze.
TheGodofAtheists 11 months ago
Is it just me or does Jeff Tucker sound/look drunk?
sgalt1981 11 months ago
@sgalt1981 I did eat a big sandwich for lunch just before this interview. Does ham do that too?
jatucker321 11 months ago
@jatucker321 LOL I can't believe you responded. Ham induced intoxication sounds like the most likely culprit to me. Thanks for you work with Mises!!!
sgalt1981 11 months ago
@sgalt1981 Maybe he had a little too much burbon for breakfast
Launchapproval 11 months ago 2
@sgalt1981 probably all that Bourbon for Breakfast
Jakomancer 11 months ago
amazing interview, GREAT topic, i would really like to see more Jeffery Tucker videos, you are my favorite speaker from mises.org, i also feel rather disapointed when i realize that you do not read your own written articles when it comes to the daily mises, anyways, keep up the good work (everyone at mises) and hope to see more great videos like this in the very near future
changeupthesystem 11 months ago
Very interesting discussion and rather shocking.
JInks232 11 months ago
When there is spontaneous order, then imprisonment is not required.
Nonetheless once crime or violence develops in an anarchy there needs to be some form of use of force to punish the breaking of law.
What I want to know is: What is the Austrian alternative to state monopoly on the use of force to enforce law? How would anarchy society enforce its laws if anyone can do whatever one wants?
Answer to this question is crucial to a successful anarchistic society.
So, what is it?
infinummjb 11 months ago
@infinummjb
I would recommend "An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not-So Wild, Wild West" to see how private security/punishment works without monopoly
TayoftheDead 11 months ago
@infinummjb "How would anarchy society enforce its laws if anyone can do whatever one wants?"
This isn't the type of anarchy we support. We support private property, and all things should be private property. The owner of property gets to set the rules, and to ensure s/he doesn't change them in a way we don't like, we can contract with people, and then the contracts become like law.
To protect property(your body is property) and enforce contracts we have private defense, courts and police.
Hashishin13 11 months ago
@infinummjb There are at least 5 hours of videos discussing the various types of punishment and how rival courts would interact, I recommend you spend some time and look at them.
I particularly like Walter Block, Robert Murphy and Hans Hoppe's versions. Stefan Molyneux provides a softer version which I think would work with non-violent crimes only, even though he implies it can be used for all crime.
Basically we all pay for defense through voluntary contracts, with private courts and police.
Hashishin13 11 months ago
even with something as small as a parking ticket, will require either refusal or compliance. a series of refusals WILL end in death. dont pay and they will suspend your license. comply and dont drive? if you drive you will be arrested. comply with arrest? if not, you will be imprisioned. comply with imprisonment? if not, you will be shot.
knowthingman 11 months ago
@knowthingman I know a guy whose license was taken away for traffic fines. The fines got so high, and the license issue caused more fines, that it's now impossible for him to get his license back. Last I heard they were up to $12,000. So he just accepts the fact that every so often he will be stopped and kidnapped and thrown in jail for a couple of months, and plans his life around that.
TreachMarkets 11 months ago 4
@TreachMarkets
Seriously? Where can I get a hold of this guy? Has he written something about his experiences?
PanzerDivisionBOM 11 months ago 3
@TreachMarkets
i second panzer's comment. if he feels up to it, this guy should submit a detailed report of his situation and experiences to various libertarian outlets on the internet. we'll plaster that shit everywhere.
junior00bacon00chee 11 months ago 3
They talk about the inevitability of state expansion. Well yeah, state expansion is inevitable, except when the state is shrunk by the people...
richardcadbury 11 months ago
@richardcadbury That's the dilemma, how do you do that?
TreachMarkets 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@richardcadbury "except when the state is shrunk by the people..."
This has almost exclusivel happend only when "the people" rise up in violent rebellion and overthrow their current government. You will be hard pressed to find 3 examples of peaceful reduction of government that is anything more then fluff and propaganda. Ronald Reagan was all talk about shrinking gov, he actually increased it overall.
Hashishin13 11 months ago