It is to the advantage of the State to make the punishment of a crime the payment of fiat currency. This creates an artificial demand for the paper currency which would otherwise not exist, it makes fiat currency valuable. If people need currency to discharge debts to the court system then paper money will have a market value due to this...
This procedure is highly advantageous to the State since, if fiat has value, it allows the State to issue paper notes which can be exchanged for other goods and services.
There is no reason the State should have this ability above other individuals or groups... If other people could "charge" criminals with the payment of their paper money, it would create a demand for that currency also. This would be to the direct advantage of the person issuing the currency (and of no advantage to anyone else) and a disadvantage to the criminal who must acquire the fiat. Also, the payment is made to the State but the State is not necessarily the injured party... (and how does (would) rewarding the victim serve justice anyway?).
Why must money be paid (does this best improve the "social environment" for the future (does it even satisfy the victim?), or is there something more appropriate?), what (type of money) must be paid and to whom must it be paid?
Questions regarding the nature of (fair) punishments:
i) Does paying money (paper or otherwise...) address the problem facing "Society" now that the crime has come to light (is it a good solution)?
ii) If it is (to be) paper money, what type of paper money should be paid (issued by whom)?
iii) To whom should the payment be made?
On the second point... (what type of money "should" be paid?) Assuming the price to obtain the money is roughly consistent, it can make little or no difference to the victim or criminal which currency is chosen... The only difference it makes is that it allows the courts to give legitimacy (value) to a particular currency. But this is an arbitrary choice because the courts should be there only to serve justice, not to advantage a particular body by creating demand for their (paper) currency, even if that body is itself.
For a court to (choose to) pass as punishment a payment or fine in its own currency (that of the State) is a conflict of interests because it has an incentive to do so. The courts will always choose to make the payments in their own currency if they can (it is in their self-interests to do so, and an abuse of power).
It would be preferable if the courts were separate from the State (or any money-issuing authority)... Issuing money should preclude you (the body) from acting as (or within) a court system, or even as an agent of the court... Or rather, a court should not be entitled to pass a sentence which involves the payment of a currency issued by the court, or body aligned with the court. Since this is the only way a paper currency ever takes on value, no virtuous paper currency will ever exist because, if a court itself cannot make demand for their currency (or for that of a "body aligned with the court"), for another currency to have been chosen by the court is indicative of collusion... Then to choose another currency suggests that the body chosen might be aligned in some way... So then the courts would never have a good reason to ask for payment in paper currency.
Unless it can be argued that for the criminal to pay money (even asset-backed money) alleviates the suffering of the crime, then fines and payments (including taxes) are a worthless approach in punishment. How does a payment help anything?
Making someone pay money into a court denies the self-ownership of the criminal (it makes them act, rather than preventing them from doing so)... It is better to deny them rights that they might otherwise have. A person dos not become a slave (someone who has lost the "right" to self-ownership) having committed a crime... we do not take control of their decision-making process, even if we would like to. We "should" not make a person (even a criminal) act against their will, only (allow ourselves to) act according to our own will which may be to seek to reduce the freedoms of a criminal person.
Even if a person has done something wrong, we should respect their "right" to self-ownership. Even criminals should be respected... To make someone hand over money requires the issuing of a threat, unless the sum is paid worse consequences will follow. The threat can be said to have been made in self-defence (since it has been issued to the criminal) but it does not expand the property rights of the victim(s) because it is resolved by payment of fiat (which does not represent property? (safety from the State...)). We can assume a restriction of property rights is done against the will of the person concerned, so a threat in this case is worthless (property rights are in the opinion of the State).
The court has made a bargain with the guilty criminal that if they pay, no further action (actual, physical action) will be taken. Given that payment of fiat is equivalent to working for the State, the crime is forgiven if the defendant serves the State with goods and services... But the State is not "the people". This punishment doesn't even reward the victim (it rewards the State) and it does not reduce the property rights of the criminal (except to the extent that it increases the debt of the individual (criminal) to the State). It increases the implicit debt (of that person in particular) that each of us (apparently) have to the State... which perhaps alleviates the debt of everyone else, if the State consequently demands less.
A debt to Society is not a debt to the State, and even a debt to Society does not alleviate or resolve any of the problems presented by crime. It is not enough that a person has been punished, we need to take preventative measures... Making people pay fiat doesn't do any good, or serve a useful purpose.
Tuesday 14 April 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment