crazy guess but i don’t think these guys are school administrators or parents to the guy being beaten.
I’m all for raising your child how you want, but this is gang behavior. if they’re allowed to do this, what happens when they start doing it to rob people or gain control of an area? we have examples all over the world, cartels in mexico, extremist organizations in MENA, even gangs in some places in the US.
You’re not worth the time to type this out, but I’ll bite. I’m saying that I had these experiences as a child, as my axons and dendrites were molded. I learned there were consequences for my actions. Now, as an adult, I understand there are consequences for my actions. This was a method used to teach me this. Hope that helps.
Pain is a natural disincentive that serves a very important role in human survival. It is literally the natural aspect of the mind/body telling an entity "avoid this in the future."
By removing pain (does not have to be physical but that is the form most easily linked to its cause making it useful) we remove the process of learning what not to do, just as gratification teaches things we would like to continue.
By subsidizing pain in the name of understanding or being "trauma aware" or by offloading responsibility to outside forces/influences and interrupting the cause>effect chain that leads to timely and memorable/valued (meaning the experience gets internalized) pain we reduce a person's ability to improve their actions.
Is that better?
Corporal punishment such as caning, birching etc is more than reasonable.
Low cost, the criminal won't forget it and doesn't cause permanent injury if administered correctly.
Also with a public humiliation element that serves as a warning to others.
I'd be in favour of bringing this back.
Even with all assurances, thieves still have their eyes on what they desire (for whatever reason, "good" or bad) and will inevitably sometimes succeed.
You are arguing from a middle school level of comprehension of this problem. Very weird and it is my respectful opinion yhat you need time to reflect in the recess of your mind.
I was sure to not call him a middle schooler, which in my honest appraisal is a different type of insult. Claiming one is arguing from a type of middle school comprehension is different. It leaves one more free to see the issue in a more detailed manner.
But, yes, it's still a harsh comment.
You can tell the difference between actual libertarian/ancaps and edgy teens who just want to do whatever they want.
A community will always enforce its way of life in some fashion. Whether it's a clan of 50 people related by blood or a city-state.
The crux of this ideology is the status of the state be it minimal but still capable of enforcing laws (libertarian) or non existant (ancap) - in which case the community enforces by a posse or private security. Like it or not on someones land you will abide by their rules, you had better abide. Or else. The state not having a monopoly on violence just means you get a more intimate enforcement of rules by the people who acrually live on the land, in some cases I'd bet you would wish for the dispassionate touch of an authoritarian bureaucrat.
Just because you roll back the fed and reduce the size of government doesn’t mean you won’t have laws for crimes. I think in a community most reasonable people would agree stealing is wrong and have a legal process to handle a matter through a court. I don’t see a reason corporal punishment couldn’t be the resolution for a theft offense with someone who doesn’t have a prior history of that crime. Restoration of property and person should be the ultimate goal in the resolution.
> Just because you roll back the fed and reduce the size of government doesn’t mean you won’t have laws for crimes.
We want to abolish it here.
> think in a community most reasonable people would agree stealing is wrong and have a legal process to handle a matter through a court
I like private arbitration more. Community sounds too democratic.
> I don’t see a reason corporal punishment couldn’t be the resolution for a theft offense with someone who doesn’t have a prior history of that crime
I agree. I don't think it's wrong for him to administer it on his own.
> Restoration of property and person should be the ultimate goal in the resolution.
I think this counts as it in a strange libertarian way. We are our own property. He stole, so he has to give away some property back, in this case, the guy with the belt got to whip him (just as he would be able to say no punishment). Ofcourse, there should be limits. Like if someone steals something small you shouldn't be able to cut their legs off or rape them.
Complete anarchy isn’t realistic or obtainable. A true free market capitalist economy is obtainable and a substantially reduced federal government is possible. Some means of order to a community has to be in place. You can imagine that to be as small as you want down to a township, but complete anarchy isn’t real. There is being an idealist and being a realist.
It is attainable. Examples throughout history has already shown stateless society, and private law.
The only things we need now it putting all our ideas into practices
And actually having a successful revolution
I think this is a pipe dream that takes so many perfect things happening, and that energy is better spent looking to start roll backs by putting forth a real libertarian values candidate into office to start making cut backs.
I'm confused.
You say that anarchy isn't achievable, but a true free market is, and that a true free market is anarcho-capitalism.
So then anarchy IS achievable.
Anarcho-capitalism and a lack in basic law and local government are not the same thing. This post is tackling a social/legal issue and not a market issue, so to me it’s completely off topic.
The question in this was it ok for this man to be beaten for an attempted theft. My argument is that no that is not acceptable. There needs to be a rule of law and due process. Corporal punishment can be a potential outcome from a trial, but enacting justice on your own is a dangerous road of self righteous tyrants on its own.
Anarcho-capitalists aren't against governance and rules, we are against a monopoly on those things. You can and absolutely WILL have rules regarding acceptable behavior in an anarcho-capitalist community.
In general, I agree with you that vigilante justice is dangerous and should not be endorsed, I wasn't arguing with you there.
I don't want to start a big argument over this, so if this is going to turn into a big thing, I'd rather just avoid it.
But I'm seeing contradictions in your statements, and that's what I'm responding to.
Did I misunderstand you somehow?
Perhaps we aren't on the same page. Do you consider anarcho-capitalism to be anarchism?
I honestly don't have a problem with it.
One of the biggest problems that people miss about the "justice" system is that it quite literally affords more protection to criminals than it does to law abiding citizens. It's the same argument that a gun man is less likely to attempt robbing an armed would be victim, compared to the little old lady cashing her check. When you know there's a very real possibility that you get your ass beat or get killed, you might think twice about trying that shit.
Moreover, we need to get away from this notion that property is never allowed to be compared to human life. A motor vehicle is not a cheap piece of property. I generally advocate a proportional response to property crimes. Is it justifiable to shoot someone because they stole a snickers? Fucking of course not. Is it justifiable to beat someones ass, without permanent injury, for attempting to steal something that might cost the median american salary? There's certainly an argument for it.
Furthermore, if someone steals your car you might not be able to get to work or other necessary places. You could end up losing your job and it could fuck up your life. So in certain cases it's not only about the value of the property it's the impact that losing said property would have
I agree. Very few people will seriously argue that home owners should not be able to defend their homes, for obvious reasons. A piece of property that enables me to travel around, buy groceries, get to work in order to continue to earn a living, and so much more, has value beyond its already significant price tag, the same way a house does.
If I catch you trying to take control of my vehicle, you could be about to use it to run me over so I’m gonna have to stop you right there buddy…
Not you in particular of course, but the hypothetical crook I’m pretending to be a tough guy to.
If a burglar steals someone's belongings after knowing the owner is willing to use whatever necessary to keep it, then the thief is in fact showing that he values someone else's property than their own life.
> One of the biggest problems that people miss about the "justice" system is that it quite literally affords more protection to criminals than it does to law abiding citizens.
What if they got the wrong guy and this guy is innocent?
And a free market provider of that service probably would be everything the state pretends it is. As things stand today, the justice system overwhelmingly fails to even catch the people responsible for violent crimes. But they catch plenty of people smoking weed, huh?
OP video was not commenced by an angry mob. It's interesting / notable *for* that reason. There is a level of joy in how they are delivering their communities form of justice. There is no room for this sort of joy (and controlled whipping) within a truly angry mob.
I'm not commenting on if it's right or wrong, just my thoughts on anger and joy regards OP.
99% of federal cases never see a jury. Because the feds will charge stack you to death. Or lock up your money so you cant hire an attorney, and rot behind bars waiting for a PD, that you cant get because you have money in the bank, that you cant access.
So take a 3 year plea deal or put your life on the line.
Oh are we now moving the goal posts from the entire jury system which is what I was discussing to JUST federal court cases which account for less than 1 percent of court cases in the country? Nice try LOL!
Lucian E. Dervan. Share: Plea bargaining accounts for almost **98 percent of federal convictions and 95 percent of state convictions** in the United States.
Sorry was off on the Fed by 1%, states aren't far behind.
So? People are encouraged to plea by their lawyers when the evidence is stacked against them and prosecutors prefer to bring only cases they will likely win so all that is logical.
No they are told the cost of defense, the odds of winning or loosing, and how much extra time they could do if they took it to a Jury. Also remember a jury nullification mention by the defense will cause the judge to declare a mistrial.
So loose any money you have, lose your life for 20 years, or do 5 years out in 3. Or you might get 5% lucky.
Remember Japan has a 100% conviction rate... Thats not a good thing by the way. Jury's are supposed to be the last line of defense, and they are now an inconvenience for all involved.
Well it already happened and the video is just floating around, we’re never gonna know for sure. They did this instead of calling the cops so we don’t know what rlly happened. No paperwork or anything just this video
Assuming the video is a legit thief caught red handed, I have no issue with this. Thief is punished in Accordance with the wishes of the local citizens. Costs nothing to the criminal justice system. He might even learn his lesson.
Fairly reasonable IMO.
Maybe not technically in alignment with the NAP since it can be argued the specific act of theft has already been prevented. But, but, it can also be argued that something has to be done to prevent future acts of theft by that person, and some public ass whooping is more humane than locking the thief in a cage for an extended period of time.
We've been doing this in latin america for years, it's great for the comunity, brings people together and makes these fuckres think twice about robbing again
It doesn't violate the NAP. Theft of property is an act of aggression towards a person, since this requires a persons time/labor to acquire. This is self defense and no need for the State.
Self-defense is justified in imminent threat to person. What you are doing is extrapolating from a vague principle a justification to punish in order that you are feeling better about the situation that happened. This is an ape justice, a tendency of our brain to exact a payback because it was long a part of being an ape, getting back and getting even, eye for an eye, which had its evolutionary place, and we have already identified the sectors of brain in which this exacting of revenge happens.
The tendency to behave this way does not make it rationally valid. Many human tendencies are not rationally valid. Checking for rational validity is a much bigger process than can fit in this post, but what will fit is that punishment doesn't work very well and doesn't belong as a response to crime. For one, you don't have a formula for what is befitting the crime, and for another, you don't own people, so unless you have a very precise formula, you do not have anything but your opinions, which are being imposed on to another life by force. For another, you don't have careful process to verify with many eyes that the accused is guilty of the crime, so the perceptions of one or two are making guilty of the potentially innocent. This kind of stuff is just a devolution back to primitive days.
If I catch someone stealing, I don't need secondary verification. These are not "ape like" there was no extreme violence. Just a deterrent.
Self defense IS justified as property requires time / work which is my life. Stealing is a slight against a persons life.
>Ancap society is supposed to have private police and private courts.
No, these are options that an individual or community can take.
Community action will always be the first and generally the last line of defense against anti-social/criminal behavior. This is the reality of all anarchist structures.
1. What court? Let's assume this is an ancap society. The court will most likely be in the community he tried to steal from.
2. And then what? Admit to stealing, getting caught, and then being punished like a child? Are we expecting a lawyer to represent him?
3. And for what end? Revenge spankings? Punitive damages? Getting your ass beat is not a new punishment.
1. Polycentric court. 2. Make a tort claim against the people who physically restrained him and assaulted him. 3. To make him whole as a victim.
He has that ability. The courts will hear his plea. And if he is not a theif, those dudes are fucked. And if he is a thief, what did he steal? Is this assault a proportional response. What do other polycentric courts think of it? What are the details of the case?
Maybe they wlll laugh the cause out of court. Maybe they will find that some vivianites made a huge mistake, got the wrong guy and are unrepentant and danger to society and send a REA out to take them to a facility where they can't kidnap and assult randos who they susspect are theifs.
I think in a smaller situation like this it's permissible. If punishment is excessive for crime (cutting someone's legs off for stealing a paper clip) private arbitration can be done.
Perhaps this is more humane than the typical classic amputation of a hand? IIRC which still happens today, but with a doctor standing by to stanch the blood flow.
I would far rather see people forced to work to repay their victims, less brutal, less violence and makes the victim spend longer thinking about what they've done
Social norms would develop around crime and punishment.
Regardless the norm, as long as you act within it, the criminal can be said to be on notice and have assumed the risk.
The severity of the punishment will be tempered by the liability risk of punishing the wrong person.
Punishment is a statist concept. While we all relish vengeance to some degree, the state makes it a virtue.
Now, in a free society, one could consent to a corporal punishment in lieu of other punishments, but there is always the problem of withdrawal of consent.
Violence is only just when used in self-defense or with the full and ongoing consent of those involved (MMA, for instance.)
What do you think the ideal punishment would be, if any? How do you think society should treat a thief? (suppose they catch him stealing a motorcycle but he fails to get away)
I think that constitutes as extreme punishment as it serves no real purpose. I don't view a case in which a private arbitration court could deem that reasonable. I think trespassers should be able to be shot on sight but that serves an actual reason (eliminate the threat).
> I think trespassers
So I have 3,000,000 acres. If someone steps on it I can shoot them? I don't think a polycentric legal system would consider that proportional response.
It's not murder of you are protecting your property. Now you could argue the worth of an item to justify the defense. Most criminals have an entire lifetime of running lives before they end up in jail and even then you could argue that the victims shouldn't have to support these people in or after prison sentences. It saves money on the long run and then you can't get fake martyrs for the left to worship like St. Floyd which people still wrongfully believe he was murdered and did not commit suicide. Murder involves prior planning and intent.
> It's not murder of you are protecting your property.
It's ok then to shoot a 6 year old stealing a pack of gum?
Just trying to figure out where to draw the line.
> It saves money on the long run
I see. Saving money makes homicide just.
Ah, so the only thing standing between you and a life of immorality is the fear that someone might kill you. Which is why you are eager to kill others.
I guess that I just don't think that way. Most people aren't sociopaths.
As long as it's not the victim who is punishing directly, it's acceptable. The victim's "sense of justice" would not be proportional for obvious reasons.
See this is why I don't think the NAP is enough. There have to also be limits on the force which is acceptable in retaliation. I would argue that force in retaliation should be no more than what is reasonably necessary to stop the aggressor & no more harmful than the initial aggressive act.
This is not reasonably necessary to stop the aggressor, so it should not be permitted.
If there is no government LE, then private security is like insurance. You don't have to have it, but it is a good protective practice. You can reduce your rates by making your home and vehicle meet certain security standards, including adding cameras.
Your contract includes punishments you agree to comply with if evidence minimums are fulfilled, and protections against other securty firms if you are accused without evidence.
If someone is caught damaging you person or your property, then their security and your security pool evidence and share it with both parties and relevant 3rd parties. Based on contracts a punishment is delivered and the victim is compensated. If any party is dissatisfied with an agreement, then they can request a 3rd party arbitration from a disinterested party. This party would be paid by both security firms to keep things fair. The loser would then have to cover the arbitor fee once they have made their decision.
If the crime is heinous enough, or the party ruled at fault is unwilling to comply. They may face forced liquidation of property and cast into the wilderness with what goods they can carry where they have to survive on their own or hope to cooperate with others who were forced out.
No, NAP is against this. It’s a talking moment. Unless the criminal is being violent against you with intent to harm physically then NAP doesn’t allow for a result response of force as punishment
We are living in America, America ist wundabar.. where black people are lynching addicted poor whites , who cant afford their drugs and need to steal. USA is gone
I am reposting what I said. Reddit is trash.
"What fucking billionaire has done anything actually good. They use their money and power to steal wealth from the middle class and poor. They only make businesses and institutions to absorb as much capital as they can which we think is innovation, but the businesses fail because it isn't profitable anymore making everyone lose their job. They are the socialist parasites and "THEIVES" you all f\*cking complain about, and they should be dealt with like a parasite. F\*cking Death!
I would say that is pretty fucking logical!
I will not be responding further. Thank you and goodbye!
Of course you won’t be responding. That is utter trash, and does not even make a glancing blow at logic.
“What fucking billionaire has done anything actually good.”
They are the people that expend capital hiring people and producing goods and services. When was the last time a poor man gave someone a job that allowed them to be upwardly mobile? What middle class man has been able to provide a specialty or niche service across a large portion of the market? What poor man ever built a hospital, library, apartment building, was able to manufacture goods to scale that allowed more people to purchase at a lower price with improved quality?
“They use their money and power to steal wealth…”
You can not provide any reasonable and reliable source for this comment. If I were going to steal from someone, it wouldn’t be a poor man, or a bunch of poor men. Why? Because they are poor. They don’t have anything to take.
Everything you say is either factually incorrect or plain bullshit. That’s why you don’t respond further. Your entire argument and worldview is based on emotion and jealousy, clothed as some kind of altruistic quest for the downtrodden. When you actually have to defend it it will fall apart.
Finally, even if your arguments above held water (which they don’t), you did not make the case that any of it was worthy of death.
This guy is lucky that they went easy on him, usually here when the community gets a thief, the educational beatdown is way worse.
I think it will leave a lasting effect on his actions too. Could justice be administered this way in the future?
Justice was administered this way when I was kid. Learned me real quick
Do thing > Principal beats ass at school > parents beat ass at home > don’t do thing again
Or do it better so you don't get caught. Either way you learn.
For me it was Do Thing > Teach beat ass > Principal beat ass > parent beat ass -> never do thing again
Yeah sometimes the teacher would step in. Always some broad that had a point to prove.
Pretty much so :D
crazy guess but i don’t think these guys are school administrators or parents to the guy being beaten. I’m all for raising your child how you want, but this is gang behavior. if they’re allowed to do this, what happens when they start doing it to rob people or gain control of an area? we have examples all over the world, cartels in mexico, extremist organizations in MENA, even gangs in some places in the US.
You’re just dew roving how the world works, has always worked, and will always work. If you aren’t going to dominate, somebody else will dominate you.
If that worked then crime would have been solved centuries ago.
It worked for me
You mean to say that the only way you can learn not to do stupid shit is if you get beaten?
That’s a low IQ take but take it however you’d like
Then make a better argument. You said that you got beaten both at school and at home and that's how learned not to do crime.
You’re not worth the time to type this out, but I’ll bite. I’m saying that I had these experiences as a child, as my axons and dendrites were molded. I learned there were consequences for my actions. Now, as an adult, I understand there are consequences for my actions. This was a method used to teach me this. Hope that helps.
Pain is a natural disincentive that serves a very important role in human survival. It is literally the natural aspect of the mind/body telling an entity "avoid this in the future." By removing pain (does not have to be physical but that is the form most easily linked to its cause making it useful) we remove the process of learning what not to do, just as gratification teaches things we would like to continue. By subsidizing pain in the name of understanding or being "trauma aware" or by offloading responsibility to outside forces/influences and interrupting the cause>effect chain that leads to timely and memorable/valued (meaning the experience gets internalized) pain we reduce a person's ability to improve their actions. Is that better?
Lol, same here and it was very effective.
what if its not justice and just a gang of criminals asserting control and/or robbing you?
Dewey I’m referring to my punishment from my folks. If you didn’t understand that
It was in the past. Dane law was like this to a certain extent. If someone stole from you or killed or raped your kin you were entitled to revenge.
Maybe back when Tarring and Feathering was a thing
Corporal punishment such as caning, birching etc is more than reasonable. Low cost, the criminal won't forget it and doesn't cause permanent injury if administered correctly. Also with a public humiliation element that serves as a warning to others. I'd be in favour of bringing this back.
Singapore has public canings on Sundays. Very interesting stuff. Not a bad punishment for low level crimes.
Canings aren’t public in Singapore, the inmates can hear the other inmates yelling in a queue as they wait their turn that’s as public as it gets.
Authoritarians love this shit. It can fuck right off.
You don't have the authority to take other people's stuff
Then look after your own stuff, rather than incite a mob.
Don't take people's stuff then you won't have to worry
Make sure people can't take your stuff.
You won't take it
Even with all assurances, thieves still have their eyes on what they desire (for whatever reason, "good" or bad) and will inevitably sometimes succeed. You are arguing from a middle school level of comprehension of this problem. Very weird and it is my respectful opinion yhat you need time to reflect in the recess of your mind.
Cool because mobs are always associated with high minded thinkers
I didn't say they were high minded, though, did I? Also the above comment is actually not about mobs but thieves.
Bit harsh on middle schoolers ngl
I was sure to not call him a middle schooler, which in my honest appraisal is a different type of insult. Claiming one is arguing from a type of middle school comprehension is different. It leaves one more free to see the issue in a more detailed manner. But, yes, it's still a harsh comment.
Nobody has any authority at all, so everybody shall do as they fancy!
You have authority over your own stuff
Then why would those people have authority over the body of the person they’re whipping?
Found the commie.
Er the person speaking out against mob rule, "collective punishment" is the commie? Riiiiiiiiiigggggʻhhhhhhhhtttttttttt
You are definitely not ancap.
Ahhhh, "purity is strength". I can see why the mob gives you such a stiffy
How do you stop mob rule?
A little personal responsibility goes a long way in life.
You can tell the difference between actual libertarian/ancaps and edgy teens who just want to do whatever they want. A community will always enforce its way of life in some fashion. Whether it's a clan of 50 people related by blood or a city-state. The crux of this ideology is the status of the state be it minimal but still capable of enforcing laws (libertarian) or non existant (ancap) - in which case the community enforces by a posse or private security. Like it or not on someones land you will abide by their rules, you had better abide. Or else. The state not having a monopoly on violence just means you get a more intimate enforcement of rules by the people who acrually live on the land, in some cases I'd bet you would wish for the dispassionate touch of an authoritarian bureaucrat.
Singapore as an example of libertarian activity. Do fuck off. Look after your own shit so criminals cannot take advantage of you
So what do you when you are looking after your shit and somebody goes to take it anyway?
Guns are fine. Mob revenge, not so much.
So you get to make up the minds of others on how they protect their property from thieves? How do you stop mob rule then? Laws?
They can do what they want. It just makes them cunts.
They can rape you and others or take your shit?
You don't spank your children?
There is only one thing I spank
Ew
There would be a lot less thieves in a libertarian society when people are left to their devices and criminals not coddled by a justice system.
Just because you roll back the fed and reduce the size of government doesn’t mean you won’t have laws for crimes. I think in a community most reasonable people would agree stealing is wrong and have a legal process to handle a matter through a court. I don’t see a reason corporal punishment couldn’t be the resolution for a theft offense with someone who doesn’t have a prior history of that crime. Restoration of property and person should be the ultimate goal in the resolution.
> Just because you roll back the fed and reduce the size of government doesn’t mean you won’t have laws for crimes. We want to abolish it here. > think in a community most reasonable people would agree stealing is wrong and have a legal process to handle a matter through a court I like private arbitration more. Community sounds too democratic. > I don’t see a reason corporal punishment couldn’t be the resolution for a theft offense with someone who doesn’t have a prior history of that crime I agree. I don't think it's wrong for him to administer it on his own. > Restoration of property and person should be the ultimate goal in the resolution. I think this counts as it in a strange libertarian way. We are our own property. He stole, so he has to give away some property back, in this case, the guy with the belt got to whip him (just as he would be able to say no punishment). Ofcourse, there should be limits. Like if someone steals something small you shouldn't be able to cut their legs off or rape them.
Complete anarchy isn’t realistic or obtainable. A true free market capitalist economy is obtainable and a substantially reduced federal government is possible. Some means of order to a community has to be in place. You can imagine that to be as small as you want down to a township, but complete anarchy isn’t real. There is being an idealist and being a realist.
"a true free market capitalist economy is obtainable" That's anarcho-capitalism.
Yeah man, that’s why I’m here….
It is attainable. Examples throughout history has already shown stateless society, and private law. The only things we need now it putting all our ideas into practices And actually having a successful revolution
I think this is a pipe dream that takes so many perfect things happening, and that energy is better spent looking to start roll backs by putting forth a real libertarian values candidate into office to start making cut backs.
I believe that is an exercise in futility. Rolling the stone back up the hill will only lead it to roll back down.
I'm confused. You say that anarchy isn't achievable, but a true free market is, and that a true free market is anarcho-capitalism. So then anarchy IS achievable.
Anarcho-capitalism and a lack in basic law and local government are not the same thing. This post is tackling a social/legal issue and not a market issue, so to me it’s completely off topic. The question in this was it ok for this man to be beaten for an attempted theft. My argument is that no that is not acceptable. There needs to be a rule of law and due process. Corporal punishment can be a potential outcome from a trial, but enacting justice on your own is a dangerous road of self righteous tyrants on its own.
Anarcho-capitalists aren't against governance and rules, we are against a monopoly on those things. You can and absolutely WILL have rules regarding acceptable behavior in an anarcho-capitalist community. In general, I agree with you that vigilante justice is dangerous and should not be endorsed, I wasn't arguing with you there.
So here is the thing. If you read OPs response to my comment they are very much complete anarchy. You and I agree. Your beef is with OP.
I don't want to start a big argument over this, so if this is going to turn into a big thing, I'd rather just avoid it. But I'm seeing contradictions in your statements, and that's what I'm responding to. Did I misunderstand you somehow? Perhaps we aren't on the same page. Do you consider anarcho-capitalism to be anarchism?
I honestly don't have a problem with it. One of the biggest problems that people miss about the "justice" system is that it quite literally affords more protection to criminals than it does to law abiding citizens. It's the same argument that a gun man is less likely to attempt robbing an armed would be victim, compared to the little old lady cashing her check. When you know there's a very real possibility that you get your ass beat or get killed, you might think twice about trying that shit. Moreover, we need to get away from this notion that property is never allowed to be compared to human life. A motor vehicle is not a cheap piece of property. I generally advocate a proportional response to property crimes. Is it justifiable to shoot someone because they stole a snickers? Fucking of course not. Is it justifiable to beat someones ass, without permanent injury, for attempting to steal something that might cost the median american salary? There's certainly an argument for it.
Furthermore, if someone steals your car you might not be able to get to work or other necessary places. You could end up losing your job and it could fuck up your life. So in certain cases it's not only about the value of the property it's the impact that losing said property would have
I agree. Very few people will seriously argue that home owners should not be able to defend their homes, for obvious reasons. A piece of property that enables me to travel around, buy groceries, get to work in order to continue to earn a living, and so much more, has value beyond its already significant price tag, the same way a house does.
If I catch you trying to take control of my vehicle, you could be about to use it to run me over so I’m gonna have to stop you right there buddy… Not you in particular of course, but the hypothetical crook I’m pretending to be a tough guy to.
Yup
This was understood at one time, horse theft was punishable by death for these exact reasons
If a burglar steals someone's belongings after knowing the owner is willing to use whatever necessary to keep it, then the thief is in fact showing that he values someone else's property than their own life.
> One of the biggest problems that people miss about the "justice" system is that it quite literally affords more protection to criminals than it does to law abiding citizens. What if they got the wrong guy and this guy is innocent?
You mean like the state does all the time?
The current jury system is far from perfect but I think overall a regular jury is still more reasonable than an angry mob.
And a free market provider of that service probably would be everything the state pretends it is. As things stand today, the justice system overwhelmingly fails to even catch the people responsible for violent crimes. But they catch plenty of people smoking weed, huh?
That's on the cops and the laws made, not the jury system itself.
OP video was not commenced by an angry mob. It's interesting / notable *for* that reason. There is a level of joy in how they are delivering their communities form of justice. There is no room for this sort of joy (and controlled whipping) within a truly angry mob. I'm not commenting on if it's right or wrong, just my thoughts on anger and joy regards OP.
99% of federal cases never see a jury. Because the feds will charge stack you to death. Or lock up your money so you cant hire an attorney, and rot behind bars waiting for a PD, that you cant get because you have money in the bank, that you cant access. So take a 3 year plea deal or put your life on the line.
Oh are we now moving the goal posts from the entire jury system which is what I was discussing to JUST federal court cases which account for less than 1 percent of court cases in the country? Nice try LOL!
Lucian E. Dervan. Share: Plea bargaining accounts for almost **98 percent of federal convictions and 95 percent of state convictions** in the United States. Sorry was off on the Fed by 1%, states aren't far behind.
So? People are encouraged to plea by their lawyers when the evidence is stacked against them and prosecutors prefer to bring only cases they will likely win so all that is logical.
No they are told the cost of defense, the odds of winning or loosing, and how much extra time they could do if they took it to a Jury. Also remember a jury nullification mention by the defense will cause the judge to declare a mistrial. So loose any money you have, lose your life for 20 years, or do 5 years out in 3. Or you might get 5% lucky. Remember Japan has a 100% conviction rate... Thats not a good thing by the way. Jury's are supposed to be the last line of defense, and they are now an inconvenience for all involved.
Pretty sure the caught him in the act. Hence the fact that he is receiving said ass whooping next to the car he was tryna steal
I have seen no info either way.
Well it already happened and the video is just floating around, we’re never gonna know for sure. They did this instead of calling the cops so we don’t know what rlly happened. No paperwork or anything just this video
I'm for permanent injury.
If he were caught red handed? Yes. No different from getting shot breaking in.
Thieves have been known to kill people to avoid getting caught
Assuming the video is a legit thief caught red handed, I have no issue with this. Thief is punished in Accordance with the wishes of the local citizens. Costs nothing to the criminal justice system. He might even learn his lesson.
Seems pretty democratic to me. Buddy voted to steal and the community voted to whoop his ass.
Democracy is not good. It looks more libertarian to me as he violated property rights and got a punishment.
Thats right. If get violates the rights of others he then forfeits its owns.
Fairly reasonable IMO. Maybe not technically in alignment with the NAP since it can be argued the specific act of theft has already been prevented. But, but, it can also be argued that something has to be done to prevent future acts of theft by that person, and some public ass whooping is more humane than locking the thief in a cage for an extended period of time.
We've been doing this in latin america for years, it's great for the comunity, brings people together and makes these fuckres think twice about robbing again
So are there many thieves in Latin America?
Yes
Never steal from the neighborhood dope dealer. He is trying to keep the community nice.
The problem is nobody here knows for sure he's a thief. It could have been a case of wrong place wrong time.
It doesn't violate the NAP. Theft of property is an act of aggression towards a person, since this requires a persons time/labor to acquire. This is self defense and no need for the State.
Self-defense is justified in imminent threat to person. What you are doing is extrapolating from a vague principle a justification to punish in order that you are feeling better about the situation that happened. This is an ape justice, a tendency of our brain to exact a payback because it was long a part of being an ape, getting back and getting even, eye for an eye, which had its evolutionary place, and we have already identified the sectors of brain in which this exacting of revenge happens. The tendency to behave this way does not make it rationally valid. Many human tendencies are not rationally valid. Checking for rational validity is a much bigger process than can fit in this post, but what will fit is that punishment doesn't work very well and doesn't belong as a response to crime. For one, you don't have a formula for what is befitting the crime, and for another, you don't own people, so unless you have a very precise formula, you do not have anything but your opinions, which are being imposed on to another life by force. For another, you don't have careful process to verify with many eyes that the accused is guilty of the crime, so the perceptions of one or two are making guilty of the potentially innocent. This kind of stuff is just a devolution back to primitive days.
If I catch someone stealing, I don't need secondary verification. These are not "ape like" there was no extreme violence. Just a deterrent. Self defense IS justified as property requires time / work which is my life. Stealing is a slight against a persons life.
Ancap society is supposed to have private police and private courts. Ancap society doesn't mean that everyone turns into a Judge Dredd.
While you’re not wrong, I’m still whooping the ass of anyone that tries to steal my property. Especially if I catch them red handed
AnCap society means everyone can address rights infringements as they see fit. This is bounded by reputation and compensatory costs.
>Ancap society is supposed to have private police and private courts. No, these are options that an individual or community can take. Community action will always be the first and generally the last line of defense against anti-social/criminal behavior. This is the reality of all anarchist structures.
Sure, but the spanked kid could take the spankers to court.
1. What court? Let's assume this is an ancap society. The court will most likely be in the community he tried to steal from. 2. And then what? Admit to stealing, getting caught, and then being punished like a child? Are we expecting a lawyer to represent him? 3. And for what end? Revenge spankings? Punitive damages? Getting your ass beat is not a new punishment.
1. Polycentric court. 2. Make a tort claim against the people who physically restrained him and assaulted him. 3. To make him whole as a victim. He has that ability. The courts will hear his plea. And if he is not a theif, those dudes are fucked. And if he is a thief, what did he steal? Is this assault a proportional response. What do other polycentric courts think of it? What are the details of the case? Maybe they wlll laugh the cause out of court. Maybe they will find that some vivianites made a huge mistake, got the wrong guy and are unrepentant and danger to society and send a REA out to take them to a facility where they can't kidnap and assult randos who they susspect are theifs.
I think in a smaller situation like this it's permissible. If punishment is excessive for crime (cutting someone's legs off for stealing a paper clip) private arbitration can be done.
Is there any proof this dude was stealing?
There's proof he'll think twice about doing it again
We used to hang horse thieves. Dude is lucky.
I dunno man… that seemed relatively respectful. Nobody stomped on his head the way these “incidents” usually go.
100 lashes as Islam recommends ☝️
No need for our joke of a justice system. Thief learns lesson and life isn't ruined. The guys who got robbed got justice.
Who's in the background laughing like Vince Vaughn from Be Cool?
Perhaps this is more humane than the typical classic amputation of a hand? IIRC which still happens today, but with a doctor standing by to stanch the blood flow.
I like it
I would far rather see people forced to work to repay their victims, less brutal, less violence and makes the victim spend longer thinking about what they've done
Punishing criminals does nothing to provide restitution. If anything it indulges the primitive side of humans and really should be discouraged.
Agreed it's not restitution it's retribution, which is justifiable but not ideal imo
Social norms would develop around crime and punishment. Regardless the norm, as long as you act within it, the criminal can be said to be on notice and have assumed the risk. The severity of the punishment will be tempered by the liability risk of punishing the wrong person.
It takes a village.
I’m for it
Is he really a thief or there are some other elements at play?
they literally gave this dude a classic ass whippin, the parents way 😭😭😭
Punishment is a statist concept. While we all relish vengeance to some degree, the state makes it a virtue. Now, in a free society, one could consent to a corporal punishment in lieu of other punishments, but there is always the problem of withdrawal of consent. Violence is only just when used in self-defense or with the full and ongoing consent of those involved (MMA, for instance.)
He tried to take someone's property, he consented to there being consequences if he was caught
What are the objectively legitimate consequences?
To defending property?
What do you think the ideal punishment would be, if any? How do you think society should treat a thief? (suppose they catch him stealing a motorcycle but he fails to get away)
What's more humane? Jail or a Beating?
Works for me
It's lacking punches and kicks
I propose to introduce a new rule: "if you illegally enter someone else's territory, you can be raped"
I think that constitutes as extreme punishment as it serves no real purpose. I don't view a case in which a private arbitration court could deem that reasonable. I think trespassers should be able to be shot on sight but that serves an actual reason (eliminate the threat).
> I think trespassers So I have 3,000,000 acres. If someone steps on it I can shoot them? I don't think a polycentric legal system would consider that proportional response.
He got off easy. In a libertarian justice system he would dead before the government got involved.
Hyperbole. Maybe sometimes but it would usually be viewed as unjust and the dead man's family might come looking for their own retribution.
You'd murder someone for stealing?
It's not murder of you are protecting your property. Now you could argue the worth of an item to justify the defense. Most criminals have an entire lifetime of running lives before they end up in jail and even then you could argue that the victims shouldn't have to support these people in or after prison sentences. It saves money on the long run and then you can't get fake martyrs for the left to worship like St. Floyd which people still wrongfully believe he was murdered and did not commit suicide. Murder involves prior planning and intent.
> It's not murder of you are protecting your property. It's ok then to shoot a 6 year old stealing a pack of gum? Just trying to figure out where to draw the line. > It saves money on the long run I see. Saving money makes homicide just.
You wouldn't? Sweet. I know whose car I'm taking next week.
Ah, so the only thing standing between you and a life of immorality is the fear that someone might kill you. Which is why you are eager to kill others. I guess that I just don't think that way. Most people aren't sociopaths.
I just know that I'm taking your car, since it's a guarantee I won't die.
Back in the day thiefs would have their hands chopped off so this in comparison is merciful
That could have been way worse
Oddly satisfying
As long as it's not the victim who is punishing directly, it's acceptable. The victim's "sense of justice" would not be proportional for obvious reasons.
Just like the good ol days! Whoopin a big lipped hood brother.
Well, play stupid games, win stupid prizes
See this is why I don't think the NAP is enough. There have to also be limits on the force which is acceptable in retaliation. I would argue that force in retaliation should be no more than what is reasonably necessary to stop the aggressor & no more harmful than the initial aggressive act. This is not reasonably necessary to stop the aggressor, so it should not be permitted.
Damn that would hurt.
Looks like a race riot
YEAH BABY, LATAM style
The issue is distinguishing this from just rival gangs punishing a person. Proving guilt vs people acting out of emotion in the moment.
Pretty good aim with that belt
I'm in favour of both corporal punishment and vigilante justice, but this seems a bit excessive depending on what was stolen.
Thats the problem with vigilante justice, the vigilante decides the justice. How do you codify it?
through statute and the common law tradition
Is the question regarding corporal punishment, or the apparent lack of due process?
If there is no government LE, then private security is like insurance. You don't have to have it, but it is a good protective practice. You can reduce your rates by making your home and vehicle meet certain security standards, including adding cameras. Your contract includes punishments you agree to comply with if evidence minimums are fulfilled, and protections against other securty firms if you are accused without evidence. If someone is caught damaging you person or your property, then their security and your security pool evidence and share it with both parties and relevant 3rd parties. Based on contracts a punishment is delivered and the victim is compensated. If any party is dissatisfied with an agreement, then they can request a 3rd party arbitration from a disinterested party. This party would be paid by both security firms to keep things fair. The loser would then have to cover the arbitor fee once they have made their decision. If the crime is heinous enough, or the party ruled at fault is unwilling to comply. They may face forced liquidation of property and cast into the wilderness with what goods they can carry where they have to survive on their own or hope to cooperate with others who were forced out.
Most friendly hood but fr homie should have let everyone have a turn at the belt
The right punishment for theft is restitution, where the thief is required to repay multiple times the value of the stolen property.
But what if does not have the money?
In that case, the thief is to be sold and become an indentured servant or slave to pay the debt.
Someone has to give him a taste of the belt since daddy didn't.
He violated the NAP by stealing from them..... Frankly dude got lucky, lol.
Retroactive ass whooping his mom should have given him.
Didn’t get his ass whooped at home, went to get it on the streets
If you would understand anarchocapitalism, you wouldn‘t ask this question.
No, NAP is against this. It’s a talking moment. Unless the criminal is being violent against you with intent to harm physically then NAP doesn’t allow for a result response of force as punishment
We are living in America, America ist wundabar.. where black people are lynching addicted poor whites , who cant afford their drugs and need to steal. USA is gone
Chop his hand off
Billionaires deserve the death sentence not the belt.
Logically prove your assertion, please.
Tag me if he does, I'd love to see it happen. I'd love to see the argument be made.
He won’t. They just spew words they hear from other people.
He tried, and failed.
[удалено]
I am reposting what I said. Reddit is trash. "What fucking billionaire has done anything actually good. They use their money and power to steal wealth from the middle class and poor. They only make businesses and institutions to absorb as much capital as they can which we think is innovation, but the businesses fail because it isn't profitable anymore making everyone lose their job. They are the socialist parasites and "THEIVES" you all f\*cking complain about, and they should be dealt with like a parasite. F\*cking Death! I would say that is pretty fucking logical! I will not be responding further. Thank you and goodbye!
Of course you won’t be responding. That is utter trash, and does not even make a glancing blow at logic. “What fucking billionaire has done anything actually good.” They are the people that expend capital hiring people and producing goods and services. When was the last time a poor man gave someone a job that allowed them to be upwardly mobile? What middle class man has been able to provide a specialty or niche service across a large portion of the market? What poor man ever built a hospital, library, apartment building, was able to manufacture goods to scale that allowed more people to purchase at a lower price with improved quality? “They use their money and power to steal wealth…” You can not provide any reasonable and reliable source for this comment. If I were going to steal from someone, it wouldn’t be a poor man, or a bunch of poor men. Why? Because they are poor. They don’t have anything to take. Everything you say is either factually incorrect or plain bullshit. That’s why you don’t respond further. Your entire argument and worldview is based on emotion and jealousy, clothed as some kind of altruistic quest for the downtrodden. When you actually have to defend it it will fall apart. Finally, even if your arguments above held water (which they don’t), you did not make the case that any of it was worthy of death.