Punishment (including that delivered by the State) "should" be used only if it is to protect the person (people) from violence... It can only be justified if the actions prevent (or at least hinder) the perpetrator from repeating the harmful action.
If the "perpetrator" has not been violent (including the threat of violence*), then to take action against them denies self-ownership because it contradicts the NAP (which can be derived from self-ownership).
Can we consider punishment to be more than a safety issue and in fact a device to help instruct the transgressor that their behaviour is "wrong"... So the outcome not only has (intended) consequences for the people whom are protected (from the criminal) but also improving consequences for the criminal him/herself? Is arbitrary punishment alone (without restricting their freedoms) likely to improve outcomes? Would it be a deterrent? And if it is only a deterrent then why execute the punishment if only to deter others and make an example of the criminal? This is a terrorist tactic designed to control behaviour using fear...
How does taxation mitigate against continuing danger?
Taxation (meaning the payment of fiat money) does not mitigate against further danger because it does not address the issue... It serves the State but does not improve the safety of citizens... A reward is not "compensation" when a crime has been suffered and further, a reward to the State is not compensation for the victim, who is not the State. A reward does not solve the problem because it is a "positive" act, it does not alter the factors which precipitated the crime in the first place...
The ownership of (even excess quantities of) fiat currency is not a crime because to deny access to fiat currency does not deny life... Even though fiat may be limited in supply no one must have it to survive, unless the State introduces punishments for not paying fiat currency (taxes) but then the misdeed has been performed by the State (who demand taxes) and not the person who has an excess of fiat... If someone has an excess of land it might be valid to treat that as a crime, or if someone has been violent (to extend their own property rights or reduce those of another person) but fiat cannot reasonably be said to belong to someone if the State deny it (that they do own it) because fiat has no meaning beyond the State... Landowners are not subordinate to the State (contradiction of... see earlier)? Do the population have a right to object to the State-decreed allocation of property (land) rights, this would be a revolution, or local rebellion?
Property rights are upheld by violence (and self-defence) and violence is an expression (according to their personal self-assessment) of property rights... But when did the violence begin? The only way for property rights to change hands willingly (land claim disputes) is through the State. If everything must be free-trade then how are property rights established? Perhaps by individual, local (without the State) arrangement...
The only way to train people not to transgress property rights (including violating self-ownership) is to punish them for doing so. This creates a disincentive which makes the costs (risks) to the action greater than the rewards... But once the crime has been committed what use is the punishment, unless the crime is on-going as is the case with property disputes over land... In the case of land disputes, violence (in retaliation) solves the problem since property rights are established by using violence. As for crimes which are not on-going, such as violent attack, or rape... only prevention is a satisfactory solution since (retaliatory) violence is not capable of restoring the initial situation...
So punishment can only be justified if (equitable) property rights are restored...
*If we allow for the definition of violence to extend beyond merely physical violence, and to include psychological violence then the threat of violence can (should) be included in the meaning of "aggression", within the NAP. If it is an aggressive act to verbally (or through body language?) threaten violence, then is it violent (aggressive) to convey the threat of another person (to someone else)? Unless the message is conveyed under duress (the threat of violence, or similar), the intermediary can be said to have caused harm because the aggressor might not (otherwise) have delivered the threat to the person directly and would have been merely making idle "boasts"... Perhaps the threat of violence falls under free speech and "should" be disregarded from all consideration of the NAP (always presume any threats are "empty words"...)?
Sunday 12 April 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment