Edlyn:
In the time-honored manner of your fiance, I will provide a link to material that answers your questions. Here.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Well Spiritus, I have now read this discussion three times; the third time following your link.
It’s a shame that a good topic such as this has taken the turns that it has. Do you think it might be possible to get it back on track? That’s what I was attempting to do with my questions to you.
If you are willing to do so, you may choose which aspect (from this mess) to discuss.
You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims. -Harriet Woods-
I was asked what her libertarian government would do if she committed a crime OUTSIDE ITS JURISDICTION. Well, what the heck would your present government do, other than wring its hands and play your family a soothing violin melody?
Yet, she says
Huh? What safeguards? There are no safeguards for you if you go abroad and steal.
You would think a man who enjoys sniping at informal logic would have jumped on this. Funny that he didn’t.
Like all sentencing guidelines, it removes the quality of judgment from justice. I view this as a bad thing. Motivations, mitigating or extenuating circumstances, prior record of conduct by both parties, these are all things that I feel need to be factored when determining what punishment is suitable for a crime.
Libertarian stated that in his ideal system of justice any crime for which the victim did not agree to property reimbursment would result in the perpetrator losing his right to life and/or liberty.
BTW: Lib, when pulling a C&P for this post I noticed a post of yours directed at me (03-02-2000 01:59 PM). I had not seen this post before. I believe it was during one of the periods of boards instability. If you wish, I will happily go back and address your points.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
As you wish, Spiritus.
Incidentally, I didn’t state what you stated I stated, unless by “victim” you meant to say “criminal”. Do you view the two as ethically equivalent?
Ok Spiritus.
First of all, the court system need not be much different in basic structure than it is now. Depending upon the aggrieved action it may be decided in a “Small Claims Court” or a higher court for a jury trial. The major difference would be on the focus of determining who initiated force abridging the right(s) of another.
It would not only be reasonable, but fair, that the individual who initiated force would bear all court costs and attorneys fees. In addition, restitution made to the plaintiff. If an individual is a threat to the lives and safety of others, prison sentences should be given. In addition, the cost of his/her upkeep is at the prisoner’s expense.
As far as excuses… nope, nadda, forget it. Responsibility lies with the individual or the parent(s).
I view this as justice being served.
You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims. -Harriet Woods-
I view denying your own words to be a lie. I view denying your own words in teh same thread in which they originally apeared to be a stupid lie.
Edlyn:
What if nobody is convicted?
Since a prisoner is unlikely to be able to earn much money while incarcerated, who pays the tab then?
As I said, simplistic and potentially cruel. Ignoring context when making decisions rarely results in the best result.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Um, Spiritus, before you haul off calling me a liar — and a stupid one at that — perhaps you ought to take a second look at what you quoted: when a victim cannot be restored and cannot restore your photograph versus what you paraphrased the victim did not agree.
I talked about what the criminal would or would not do (restore the victim). You talked about what the victim would or would not do (agree to be restored).
The hits just keep coming. You words, Lib. Live with them.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Or had you meant to state clearly that the victim, who exercises unilateral authority in determining punishment, has absolutely no input into the decision of whether a proposed restitution is satisfactory?
I have no problem living with my words, despite your bottomless inability to comprehend them. It is your paraphrases and interpretations of them that are, well, to use your word, stupid.
Get someone to explain to you the difference between something a criminal refuses to replace and something that is not replaceable.
Or had you meant to state clearly that the victim, who exercises unilateral authority in determining punishment, has absolutely no input into the decision of whether a proposed restitution is satisfactory?
[quote]
Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi:
**
Then the determination of who bears the court cost and attorney’s fees should be decided by the judge. In such cases, it may be the Plaintiff who bears the cost.
Our current state owned prisons run like that, but that need not be so, Spiritus. Why not expand further on prisoners being productive? At least in Minnesota, some prisoners (did or do) produce licence plates or other goods. They are paid a wage for doing so.
To tax peaceful honest citizens (including victims) to pay for criminals living expenses, etc., is unethical. The assets and wages of those convicted should be used for compensation.
There is nothing inherently wrong with something being basic, therefore easy to understand and apply.
With what I have presented to you, how could this be potentially cruel? To whom?
If you would clarify your last sentence, it would be appreciated.
You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims. -Harriet Woods-
Edlyn:
A court in which a plaintif might need to pay for bringing charges acts as a sever disincentive for poor people to seek justice. A court in which the judge is paid by either party is an invitation to corruption. A court independent of such economic bias must be funded by everyone, which of course is coersive in the “Libertarian” scheme.
A punitive system based upon remuneration or loss of liberty is biased toward teh wealthy. A man capable of reparations need not fear jail, and thus is punished less severely than a poor man. A wealthy man may defraud with some impunity, so long as he is careful that his total liability never exceed his total assets.
A man who has been mugged wakes bleeding. He grabs a cloth from a line to staunch the bleeding while he stumbles to the hospital. A child shoplifts a scarf from a store because it is pretty and she hasn’t hte money to pay for it. A woman steals linens from a laundry and sells them at a pawn shop to buy liquor. A system without awareness of context treats all of these situations as identical. Property is the only value. Do you really see no potential for cruelty?
You accidentally destroy the property of a sadist. The particular property in question was an irreplaceble heirloom. As the victim, he is given your life to enact what retibution he feels will balance his loss. Do you still see no potential for cruelty?
A madman fires a gun at you 6 times, but misses with every shot. The only property damaged was his own. With what crime an you charge him?
These are just a few thoughts spun rapidly from the top of my head. Have you, who has had more time and reson to consider these issues deeply, never considered anything along these lines?
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Yeah, and it shows. do you ever proofread anything you post?
Parties under contract with libertarian governments of any form have already paid for arbitration.
To abridge liberty is to forfeit liberty. Period. Wealth in that regard is irrelevant. There are many things the poor cannot afford to take on. Why would you recommend that they take on crime? The point you keep missing again and again and again and again is this: if you are free to give your consent to whatever government you believe can best secure your safety and happiness, then you may choose a government that YOU like best. Want one where the plaintiff pays? Then, choose it. Want one where everybody pays an equal share? Then, choose it. Edlyn is tossing out ideas to you, that you sling off like pearls you do not recognize. She is attempting to appease you, explaining that if you don’t like it this way, then you can have it that way.
Oh, now context matters. In another thread, you had said there is no context, only organization.
A statement like “property is the only value” shows a contempt and an ignorance about what property is.
You would select a government that punishes people for accidents? Unbelievable.
Well, assault comes to mind.
You and edlyn are apparently not in agreement on this issue. Perhaps if you spent less time fuming about typographical errors and more time reading for comprehension you would make fewer such mistakes.
Do you believe that the poor and the wealthy are equally able to make reparation?
I would ask you to make up your mind, but I have learned better.
that thread dealt with the characteristics of “gestalt”. This thread deals with hypothetical legal systems and their potential consequences. The elements which are apropos to a discussion are dependent upon the topic of discussion.
You post dishonestly. That context has become quite clear.
My contempt is not for intellectual concepts of property.
No, I would select a system of justice in which contextual factors, intent is one example, are considered. Reducing all questions to terms of property loss removes such considerations.
What crime against property is present when you have suffered no harm?
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
That’s not necessarily true Spiritus. I would prefer Lib’s suggestion, but as Lib did correctly surmise, I was suggesting options that could be adopted into our court systems today or in the future for those who might consider adopting them.
Now then…
Last time I was made aware of it, there were filing fees, etc., that are charged by our courts. No one asked me if I could afford it. I was simply informed that the monies were due upon filing.
But what I was suggesting by stating the plaintiff may be the one who bears such cost, were for cases such as bringing frivolous or fraudulent lawsuits. I have heard of one case in which that was done.
Until you brought it up, the issue of where the monies come from to pay judges salaries has not been addressed. A court must be independent of any bias, not merely economic.
As a side note, please don’t even try to tell me that in our current system judges cannot be corrupt. In some cases, the only test for appointments are their political connections.
That’s quite an assumption you made. Did you even consider such common sense solutions such as returning property to the rightful owner? Or in the case something was damaged, that it be repaired/restored and returned to the owner; that court ordered payments could be arranged, etc.? Whatever gave you the idea that someone could simply buy their way out of jail?
[sigh] Is it unreasonable that the man who was mugged walk a few steps further to the door and ask for assistance? He might not have to stumble along by himself to the hospital.
[eyebrow raised] Would you suggest that because it was pretty and she had no money, that it was perfectly well and fine that she steal? Does this child not have a parent or two? Couldn’t the parent(s) make amends with the store owner?
As far as the woman… please. I am addicted to nicotine, but that does not excuse me for doing the same. Nor should anyone be excused no matter what personal addiction problem they have.
Now, Spiritus. Get a grip on yourself. Common sense and logical reasoning are not that hard to obtain.
The threat of physical harm and loss of life. My life and my body belong to me, owned by me, alone. No one has a ‘right’ to either of them without my voluntary consent.
Obviously, a lot more than you have. 
You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims. -Harriet Woods-
Now Edlyn, I have been careful not to let my differences with your fiancee color my responses to you. Is it to much to ask that a peaceful and honest libertarian approach a similar standard?
Was that supposed to be clear from this exchange?
I am afraid I entirely missed the passage in which you made it clear that you were no longer talking about Libertarian’s utopian vision but were instead discussing a compromise based upon our present judicial branch.
Filing fees are not on the same scale as full court costs for a trial. If you are uncertain about this, I am sure that representative numbers can eb found.
I think the exchange above shows clearly that you were the one who first mentioned funding for the courts.
I have never argued that our present system is immune to corruption, though there is some doubt whether elected judges or appointed judges are more fit and impartial. I do think it is appropriate to ask whether the Libertarian justice system will tend to increase or decrease the element of corruption. For myself, I view making judges’ income dependent upon the particular individuals who appear before them to be an unwise decision.
Every sentence before the last in that paragraph represents a means of buying your way out of jail, unless the Libertarian justice system now stipulates loss of liberty and remuneration for all crimes. If so, please make it clear to me how this differs from our present system.
And if there is no one home? If the owners refuse to open the door? Why must you inject additional hypotheticals into the situation? Are you not the one arguing that context was irrelevant? I simply asked you whether all of those situations would and should be judged identically. More specifically, I asked you whether you saw the potential for cruelty in doing so.
I suggested nothing about how I exected any of the cases to be judged.
Again, I made no implication that I felt this case was more or less heinous than the others. I simply asked you whether all three should be punished in exactly the same manner, regardless of any circumstance beyond the theft of property. Why do you recoil from giving a simple answer?
On a good day, I agree with you. I am quite happy to exclude accidents from the category “crimes”. I think it is absolutely necessary to do so. What I did notm and still do not, see from you or your fiancee is a clear statement that intentionality must be considered when administering justice. So far, all I have seen is the rigorous philosophical principle that all crime stems from denial of property rights. I also have your statement, “As far as excuses… nope, nadda, forget it.” What is “It was an accident” if it is not an excuse. You both harangue me for my outrageous example, yet you fail to make the simple statement that would make the point unnecessary. Why?
There has been no loss of life, no injury. Is a threat now reason for punishment? I understand how we justify that in our present system, but how does that grow out of a strict Libertarian construction? Is it th eintent that is punishable? Is someone a criminal because they have given you reason to be afraid? What I am asking for is a strict Libertarian reason for the punishment of an act which has resulted on no property loss. We both agree, I think, that attempted murder (or reckless endangerment) is a bad thing. I am interested in how you punish it, though, without violating the proposition that “all crime is crime against property.”
I would hope so, since you advocate this system as a clear improvement upon our present system of justice. I would also hope that I might see the evidence of that extra thought and consideration. It is not obvious if you do not share it.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Ooops, sorry for the lost /b above.
BTW, Lib, before you are again tempted to utter things like:
You might think about this thread. It is tempting to let you wade through the text blindly, but since others might be interested I will quote a relevant passage:
And in case you haven’t a dictionary handy:
Utopia: An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects.
Now, what is that word again for someone who repeatedly makes deceptive or self-contradictory statements . . .
Oh, and as long as I’m here:
Or had you meant to state clearly that the victim, who exercises unilateral authority in determining punishment, has absolutely no input into the decision of whether a proposed restitution is satisfactory?
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*