X!

This is precisely the kind of thought that's needed when looking at issues like this. I got to talk about the Constitutional rules that were broken when the pinheads in DC didn't declare war, and how that has led to KSM being tried in a US criminal court, but you take it one step further, beyond government, and into the world of ethics, morality, and economics.

The key is your focus on the private justice system. Some might look at what you write as being unworkable, or totally alien. "NO rights"? Well, let's look at the issue again.

The key thing that we have often expressed here at the LC Forum and in the Audios is that the term "Rights" has been corrupted, and was corrupted back when Locke really articulated the concept in the 1600's. As we've noted, Locke's expression of negative "rights" (you have a right to be left alone by me, and I have a right to be left alone by you -- our rights to our property are essential for the upkeep of our lives) -- that expression of rights was always tied to an argument in favor of "limited" government created to "protect" those rights. But such thinking is circular, for Locke would infringe on the right to property (and by association, impinge on our right to life) in order to fund the government police mechanism created to "protect" our right to our property. QED. In such a system, "justice" and "rights" are constantly attenuated by government. As we've noted, this was actually advocated by Justice Scalia in the majority opinion for the "Heller" gun case. Our recent audio series on "rights" delves into this, and can be heard for more detail. The key here is that the government definition of "rights" will change, based not on what society determines, but on factors that have nothing to do with society. And even if the government DOES eventually reach the right conclusion (for example the Supreme Court finally ruled that people like KSM and other 911 terrorists have to be tried in US courts not military courts, given habeas, etc.), there is a lot of time that passes. Markets work more quickly, and better reflect the principles of the people in society.

As a result, your speculation about what a free market justice system would do with KSM is not only justified, it's important, and I believe your comments about restitution are key. In our free market paradigm, there would be numerous societies, all with slightly different interests. But one interest would be paramount -- as we have seen throught world history. This is the ability to do business with others and prosper. Even in our government-run world, societies living under all sorts of oppressive ssytems find ways to do business with societies living under other governmental systems. Markets are driven by human interests and operate through peace, despite the coercive tendencies of government. People who can't even speak each others' languages trade with one another, and sometimes they don't even realize the profound implications of their peaceful activity. As a result, under the market justice paradigm, different free market societies would have strong incentives to make arrangements with each other in order to provide reciprocity of justice. Those societies that did not would end up seeing people fleeing them, and would eventually not prosper, just like any business would not prosper if its clients were not treated well.

Therefore, as you indicate, private justice systems would work in a reciprocal manner in order to handle bad elements that the societies would see as interfering with their progress, putting them in danger, etc. One key element here is the market solution supplanting retribution (in most cases). Private "police" would not only be efficient, and work in proportion to market demands (does the market want more traffic policing on the private roads? Does it want more proportional protection of homes, with a policeman walking the beat? Less? The market will work out those proportions), the police would also have to be very reliable in the apprehension of suspects. As you note, the apprehension of the wrong suspect would be detrimental to the security of all (either by leaving a bad guy on the street, or threatening the wrongful arrest of more in the future). Therefore, the private justice businesses would work hard to reduce liabilities, work hard to arrest the right people, and the private market would offer incentives for good policing and disincentives for bad policing. The good operators would prosper, while the bad police businesses and arbitration systems would fail. Under our paradigm, mercenaries would just be market participants, and would grow in stature and reputation based on their effectiveness in helping the private societies function in amity with one another.

Smart to look at the KSM trial with this in mind, man!

X,

It's a good question, and I don't have any real answers.  I suspect your hypothesis about private contractors bringing someone like KSM to justice is broadly correct, but it sparks another question - what is justice in a case like this?  I don't see how restitution could be made in this case or other cases involving mass murder.  Even if it is possible to make some form of restitution for pre-meditated murder, is it mathematically (to use a horribly crude term in light of the example) possible to make that restitution to the relatives of 3,000 victims?  And surely those relatives would have differing views as to what kind of restitution or penalty they would accept.  Some private justice paradigms would no doubt seek the death penalty, while others would exclude it.  That's not an easy thing to negotiate in a scope of work document between private firms.

Nevertheless, I think the real value of a stateless/anarcho-capitalist/libertopian society lies less in the "what happens after" phase, and more in the "leading up to" phase.  I suggest that these kinds of politically motivated attacks would be far less likely to occur in the first place, as stateless societies would probably not incite the kind of hatred that governments seem so adept at creating.

It's a bit of a dodge, I'm afraid, but I'm open to ideas from the other Conspirators.

Stephen,

Not a dodge at all.  All good points, especially about the disparate punishments allowed by different societies. 

My problem with this whole issue is that whatever trial KSM gets is a show trial designed to aggrandize the State, not to provide justice to the victims.  After all, everyone from the President on down has said KSM is guilty and will be executed so what's the point of a trial anyway?  As Lew Rockwell said on his blog, the Republicans want to give KSM a military tribunal and then execute him to show how powerful the U.S. is; the Democrats want to try him in civil court and then execute him to show the world how great the American system is.  What happened to the victims?  What happened to justice? 

As you said, it would be hard to find justice in this case anyhow, but any justice that is reached in this case will be a byproduct of the real motivation: propagation of the faith in the government system.

Well said.

As Smokey Robinson said, "I second that emotion."

And as one looks at potential private justice systems in non-state societies, one must consider the possibility that retribution will be the only answer for some people when they consider these exigencies and form the rules for their societies (and how they interact with other societies).

In this context, I think that most cards would be on the table when it came to agents living under one society potentially acting agressively in another society. In order to facilitate the best interaction -- ie market movement -- these kinds of potential threats would be part of the thought process when stateless societies formulate rules for their members' interaction and their potential arrest, trial, etc.

Some societies might want massive security, where the accused is considered guilty before trial -- much like what the US Dems and Repubs think is appropriate for the KSM case. In this case, I think the ability of them to prosper through tourism and market interaction might be lessened. Others might have much more open societies, with very thurough justice systems for visitors or even intruders, in order to facilitate reciprocity from other market societies should one of their own be arrested in that latter society.

I see this as similar to individuals grouping together to form sports teams, and then those sports teams forming into leagues. they are free agents, all, yet in order facilitate bettter play and enjoyment, and more frequent play, they agree to certain rules and ways to work out disputes.

Mercenaries would be part of the protection arrangements for many private societies, across the board. Mercenaries in one society might even be recognized as valid by others, easing their reciprocal justice arrangements, and, by extrapolation, facilitating better market interaction and safety among those societies.

Good stuff, gentlemen!

Gard

I remember a wonderful thing you said on one of your podcasts, X - the current, statist justice system makes the victim pay twice. The first time they pay is when they are the victim of the crime. The second time they pay is when their tax money is taken from them to imprison the charged, then convicted criminal.

I do find this area difficult to negotiate, as I'm not entirely comfortable with the term 'mercenary' in terms of dealing with crime. I think private security is open to corruption, almost as much as our current system. I'm little more trusting of large corporations, and the mercs they could hire, than I am of the government and their blue light gang. 

However, I do agree that within a market-based society (and may I replace the term 'market-based' with 'natural') that the people will be able to accept/ reject better than they can within a statist society. I can't pretend to think that it will work, perfectly, and coercion/ intimidation won't be an issue, but I believe it will be *closer* to perfection than our current mess. And easier to hone/ amend, as and when required.