So if you are robbed, and the robber is caught, all he needs to do is return the amount stolen, plus court fees?

If I was a robber, I'd go for that. Assuming I get caught only a certain percentage of the time, returning the amount stolen plus costs for the times I was caught would just be the cost of doing business.

What is fair "retribution" for a rape victim? Would it be fair for a male member of the rape victim's family to rape a female member of the rapist's family?

Please provide some examples as this is news to me.

Rob

No offense but it is barely articulated which hardly makes it complicated.

I like the system we have, or rather had. I think that the judiciary has usurped the balance and should be put in its place.

I don't know that all libertarians agree with that. Rather, I know that some or many would disagree.

I too think that punishment is not the point of criminal enforcement but rather protecting people. Obviously a career thief will steal again after getting caught and having to pay back a small percentage of the total he's stolen over the years. For people like that you need prisons. They can't steal from me if they're in prison.

As for the rape thing...I suspect that question was made for the purpose of rhetoric. The female member of the rapists familily did nothing wrong and should not be subjected to force. It does bring up the question of whether or not that rapist might be raped if the victim so chose.... I'm not dead set against that but I'm not arguing for it either. It's interesting to think about. A person could actually make a living as a rapist that way by raping the convicted. Thus satiating his appetite for rape while delivering justice. And then the convicted rapist would have to pay the proffessional rapists salary as "court costs". That's downright amusing.

Many people may not be aware but the second option in this pole is textbook libertarianism. At this time 41% agree with it. They don't have many options though.

Hey GABO!!!! I was wondering when I would run into a porc on this board. Are there any others?

__________________

Bit of a stupid poll... I don't want a free for all or Totalitarian regime-like control. I think there needs to be more control than there is right now...

You should feel safe to pick "the system we have now" then. It is 100% guaranteed to get bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger.

__________________

Wow! Have you ever thought about joining the Jay Leno look alike contest?

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

What about things like the public library system and the interstate highway system? Those have been incredibly beneficial to society yet would never have come about via private means.
I don't see a problem with the government orchastrating the developing and distribution of services if the people want it to.

Out of the limited options available in the poll, I have to go with the system we have now.

You're not the first one to say that! I met outgoing Senator George Allen at a party, and those were the first words out of his mouth. (Although he put it differently)

~Ben

Libraries existed before they were subsidized, they in fact DID come about via private means.

I think that the interstate system would probably not exist. Just because something is beneficial doesn't mean it's the most beneficial thing possible. There are a finite amount of resources. If resources hadn't been used for the interstate system than they would have been voluntarily put to use at whatever the market thought was best. In the case of the interstate system I think there would be a lot more shipping and travel by rail and still lots of money left over for other pursuits. Perhaps enough passenger travel to allow amtrack to be self-sustaining instead of government subsidized like it is today. This would also reduce the amount of oil we use and emmissions it creates. The market invariably performs better than central planning in every instance throughout history.

Then there's the argument that just because it's good doesn't give people the right to force other people to pay for it through threat of imprisonment. I'm not of the opinion that I own my neighbor and have a right to force him to labor for the service of my desires. Doesn't matter how much good I think it will do for the whole.

__________________

Actually the railroad industry owes quite a bit to government subsidizing too. The most obvious example being the early transcontinental railways.

The interstate highway system has allowed to companies to be more productive than rail or shipping lines would have ever accomplished. More importantly, it allowed companies to go where the railway and the river did not. I submit that this added productivity more than made up for the loss inherrent in the governments clumsy handling.
I would say that what the market can accomplish on its own, it should be allowed to accomplish. But what it cannot accomplish, if deemed necessary, the people should consider employing the government to accomplish.

But where exactly is the dividing line between what the government can "force other people to pay for it through threat of imprisonment"? Surely the state has the right to tax people in order to support the military. What about public parks? Civic buildings? Police and fire departments? Politicians? City beautification?
I don't think there's an obvious line between what the government "must" be empowered to pay for and what private industry could do.

Why, then, do so many Bible thumpers try to do exactly that?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

Don't forget the military benefits to having a road system that stretches the length of your country. National defense is a legitimate concern of any government and national highways are key to defending a country. Hence, why the Roman government built their famous road system.

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

The Great Northern Railroad was funded and ran entirely without government priviledge, not even emminent domain. All the land was bought/sold through voluntary interaction. The Great Northern railroad is the only railroad that has remained financially solvent from it's inception until this day. The fact that the others chose to use the government's monopoly on force doesn't mean they needed it. Just that they greased the right pockets and got it.

People went those places anyway. Some towns died and some towns popped up because of the new highways but no place that was previously inaccessible became accessible. Trucks existed before interstate highways.
As for the rest of it... those numbers don't exist... It's entirely speculative. If it was/is productive than there's no reason to bring guns into it in order to make it happen. Why ya gotta be so violent?


"Employing".... that's a funny choice of words. I don't threaten my customers with violence in order to make them hire me. If an organization wants to do something that does not infringe upon my life or liberty and they raise that money voluntarily than I don't care what they call themselves they are welcome to it. If they want to raise money by threat of imprisonment than I still don't care what they call themselves they are not welcome to it. If people don't voluntarily pay for something than that's because they don't want it done bad enough.


The government shouldn't raise any money at all by force. If people want cops than they'll pay for them. I wouldn't voluntarily continue to pay for cops that trample on people's rights and get paid vacations for a reward. Being a cop just might be about protecting people again. If the PD didn't get paid unless they performed than those cops would be fired. Most fire departments ARE voluntarily funded. Politicians..... hell no. In New Hampshire State Reps make 100 dollars a year. That could be raised voluntarily, people pay way more than that for campaigns.

Parks are almost always better maintained privately and for less money. Where are people going to get this money? From the huge pile of money that government won't be spending poorly.

Buildings beautification etc.... If people want them than they will choose to pay for them. Are you serious.... imprisonment for refusal to plant flowers? That's vicious. Why do you hate people?

Military, not at all. If you want to pick up a gun and head to Iraq than I won't stop you. But I think it's a despicable war and giving me the choice between laboring for it's benefit and getting raped is equally despicable. I'd be the first to come out shooting if we were actually under attack. But for that I'm going to need to keep my guns. I'd also voluntarily pay for military services I approve of and have myself been in the military, that's where I learned that our government is NOT here to defend us and our freedom. Just like every government throughout history it serves it's own interest and is not to be trusted.

Services provided by government can be paid for by excise tax but should never exclude competition such as the post offices monopoly on packages under a dollar. A little over 100 years ago Lysander Spooner did a better job for less money so they passed a law that made it illegal. I expect if not for laws like that there would be no service the government offers that isn't done better by a private entity? I'd love to be proven wrong because that would mean all those laws have been repealed.

In short. No person or group of persons has the right to violate the self ownership of...well..... me. I own me. You don't. If you want something from me... ask. I'm a good citizen. There's no need threaten me with guns to make me pay my way. That makes me angry. If some people don't want to pay.... that's fine. They don't own you and can't expect you to do anything for them. So don't. Problem solved. If people really do need government services. They'll pay for them.

Land Tax..... that's a different story. One too long to talk about tonight.

__________________

Right the romans.... pillars of freedom and liberty they were.
They did their best to conquer the world and managed to kill Jesus before failing. Slave labor... gladiators... landed aristocracy... Dilletante pointed out in another thread that the word fascism is derived from the romans.

When has the interstate system been key to defending the US?

__________________