What would be the effect of legalizing murder, combined with a complete de-regulation of the weapons market (no waiting time, no age limits etc)?
A lot of murders (though not as many as you might expect, perhaps). And a huge wave of emigration. I feel you could probably have started this thread in GQ.
Things would revert to the way they were before governments had a monopoly on force. You’d (hopefully) have a group affiliation - tribe, family, neighborhood, whatever - and your group would look out for its own interests. This would include avenging murders by killing the murderer and/or members of his group.
Are you telling me that The Purge wasn’t a documentary?
Was the OP inspired by the Louie CK bit?
I don’t think there is a factual answer to this since it hasn’t been tested.
But this would of course include the people working at government jobs. Policiticans, police, military, firemen, teachers… this applies equally for everyone.
Got bored pretty early in it and never finished it.
More about the fact that murder and guns seem to be so popular in the US. What happens if everyone just goes ”Fuck it. Legalize murder and give everyone a gun and let it sort itself out”.
Understood, but this still entails the end of the government monopoly on force. That’s a vacuum, and historically it was filled by some combination of tribalism and warlords. In the absence of the state, people still band together for mutual protection, just on a smaller scale and with far bloodier results (blood feuds, for example).
You didn’t answer my question. Did that routine inspire this if only a wee bit?
Actually no, at least not consciously. I had seen it before, and now that I re-watched it I enjoyed it, but as far as I can tell it did not enter my stream of consciousness before I posted the OP.
No more alimony!!!
Human Action has it, Tribalism and Warlords. Until people could guarantee protection for their families by banding together nobody would show up for their job. There wouldn’t be any cops or fireman. New mini governments would have to be created with ways of settling disputes without always killing each other. ie. Somolia
What does it mean “murder is legal”? I mean, you say murder is legal, but then you say the cops could murder you if they wanted to. Which means you murder somebody, and the cops come by and murder you. It’s legal for them, right? Or, if there are no cops, because they got murdered, what happens when you kill somebody that has friends and family? His buddies are going to get together and kill you. Or one of your friends/family.
There is no such thing as generally consequence-free killing. In olden times, before there were “laws”, if you killed somebody in your band, they’d all get together and decide what to do with you. Ignore it? Make you do some sort of restitution? Banish you? Note that banishment was very likely to mean you’d die pretty soon.
Of course, if you killed somebody over in the neighboring tribe the reaction of your tribe would be different. Maybe they’ll high-five you. Or maybe they’ll be worried about those guys coming over here and getting revenge.
If you kill somebody with no friends and no family, then nothing happens. Sure, just like today. People get away with murder all the time. A dead hooker shows up in a back alley and the cops shrug their shoulders. Or drop a bomb out of plane onto a village in Syria, kill a bunch of people, and what happens to you? Do you get arrested when you get back to the airfield? If you were just following orders, no you don’t.
But all “laws against murder” are are detailed plans for what the rest of us are supposed to do when someone kills someone. We don’t need detailed plans to have a response. We could have an ad hoc response. And that’s what will happen if there’s no “law” against murder. It just means that rather than having some sort of plan, we wing it. Maybe we’ll grab our torches and pitchforks and go over to your house and kill you, or your family. Maybe we’ll figure the dead guy had it coming. Maybe we’ll be pissed, but too scared of you and your buddies to do anything about it. Maybe we’ll kick you out of your house and tell you to never been seen in our political unit again. Maybe we’d like to kill you, but you’re the best hunter in the tribe and we might starve without you.
What it won’t do is remove our human emotions when someone we care about is killed. Just because murder is legal doesn’t mean that if you kill one of my friends or family that I shrug my shoulders. Murder is legal, so why shouldn’t I try to kill you? But how exactly is you knowing that if you kill me, my family will kill you in revenge different than a law against murder? Even pre-state societies with no written laws will have traditional codified responses to intergroup and intragroup violence. An interesting feature of these traditional responses to violence is the focus on preserving group solidarity. If group solidarity means we kill you or expel you, then that’s what happens. If group solidarity means we find a way to forgive you, then that’s what happens.
What it doesn’t mean is a sort of free-for-all murder spree, because human society would be impossible in such a situation. Even violent criminal gangs and organized crime don’t allow members to kill each other with impunity. Sure, if a member of an outlaw biker gang kills an outsider they’ll protect him. But what if he kills another member of the gang? What if he kills someone another gang member cares about? The gang will have to decide how to handle it, or further violence will tear the gang apart, and then you won’t have an outlaw biker gang, you’ll have individual bikers. And the whole point of the gang is that gang members are stronger together than they are separately. The gang protects you from violence by the threat of violence. Fuck with one of us and you fuck with all of us. Without that protection you’re at the mercy of anyone. Everyone has to sleep sometime.