David Friedman: Should We Abolish Criminal Law?
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 06. 2024
- David D. Friedman is an economist, political philosopher, and the author of many books including The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, wherein he lays the groundwork for a society based exclusively on voluntary transactions.
In this lecture, Friedman examines the differences between civil and criminal systems of law. He imagines what the U.S. legal system would look like if criminal law were dissolved -- that is, if the legal system was composed entirely of individuals bringing claims against each other. Friedman anticipates the problems raised by such a system and attempts to come up with solutions to the contrary.
Download the .mp3 version of this lecture here: bit.ly/Q5KKLm
Jeez, Milton should have had many more children.
I'm a huge fan of law and order myself. The ironic truth of the situation is that statism is exactly the sort of lawlessness that most people associate with anarchism. When has the state ever obeyed its own laws? and even when it does it can change them at a whim. the state is necessarily the judge in its own trials, what justice can ever come of this? and its even worse than that still! the very essence of the state is predicated on the commission of the very actions it expressly prohibits!
@frank anderson No. I guess I'm NRX now. I kinda followed moldbug out of libertarianism. Also racial identitarian to an extent in that I believe that so long as other races are organizing along identitarian lines its a defensive imperative of my own (white) race to do the same. So I accept a certain amount of collectivism as necessary if not ultimately desirable. About the avatar, the idea is I'm calling google a bunch of dirty commies.
wonderful, i agree wholeheartedly with everything you have written.
It's just a question of definitions, I think. Most people aren't used to rigorous definitions of the words they use. Ask "what is law?" to 10 random people on the street and I bet you'll get plenty of contradictions among them. I like to think that morality and ethics are the deepest preferences one can have, but they are still just that: preferences. But still, I can try to convince you that my preferences are worth emulating, or that my preferences are more internally consistent than yours.
A david friedman talk! this is cause for celebration.
friedman at an austrian seminars?
While he's certainly not an Austrian, he's a fellow traveller and has interesting insights. He also isn't a deontological libertarian, he's a utilitarian. He was recently invited to give a speech at an Austrian conference in Brazil.
Indeed. I think that's mainly because he cares not about rights nor ethics. For him, it's all about optimal outcomes, utility etc. While the Rothbardians stress their natural law approach to rights, Friedman rejects that. In Rothbard's words, "Friendan does not hate the State."
I don't know if I'm just misunderstanding him but he seems to be saying at approx 53:00 onwards that once he acquired claims for a sum of $1m, he can charge one of the criminals $1m and let the others go.
David brings up a contrarian view by posing the question, "why have two law systems (criminal and civil) and not just have one?"
Natural rights are frequently claimed to come from some largely indeterminate feature of the natural world, however rights are borne from the principles of justice defined by fairness, something is a right because it is fair, therefore it is just, right and ethical. Something is a wrong because it is unfair, it is unjust and thus unethical. Natural rights are borne exclusively from and wholeheartedly founded on the principle of justice itself.
For this reason, it is disheartening that anarchy, being likely the most ethical and humane philosophy of liberty and human rights, ultimately throughly abandons justice when structuring remedial arbitration of claimants. Instead, it reverts to the same injustices that exist today, perverting the purpose of justice to provide fair remedy in favor of exploiting injustice to administer “punishment” and “deterrence” of a “criminal”. While theoretically a privatized for-profit insurance based remedial arbitration and enforcement service may initially be incentivized to justly balance a remedy against the violation conducted, perhaps service providers may actually even be appropriate adversaries for their respective clients for awhile…until they’re not.
Because there is no clear ethical boundaries for remedial arbitration in the anarchist philosophy, no acknowledgement of the natural law of justice in this regard, (as there is for natural rights for instance) the potential exists to ultimately decline into a system saturated with disciplinary abuses, accentuated by development of uniformity and non-competing relationships among service providers, as exists within industries today. The fact that death for a non-violent infringement is even a consideration (should it become economically viable) is wickedly abhorrent. I am not convinced that an arbitration system that refuses to adhere to the rules inherent in the principle of justice is one engaging in ethical conduct, in fact it violates the very underlying principle that anarchism rests upon, resulting in a philosophy divided against itself.
I get the impression the problem is not trying to set up a fair and just system that works in harmony with our sense of justice but the abuse of it, so the solution would be to rehabilitate people to be unselfish and not greedy or jealous or envious and this requires a change of the heart and only God can help us to achived that and only if the recipient of this rehabilitation is willing, so wicked people(unwilling to change) are the problem not the just system proposed
I thought libertarians viewed personal property as something important. You can't scientifically deduce that someone violating your personal body is a violation of your personal rights? You can't scientifically deduce that if I throw my garbage on your lawn that it's a violation of your personal rights?
Do you think rape is objectively wrong? Or are there instances or a way of reasoning that could make rape morally ok for any society?
Why not have no law system? Why not have four or twelve different law systems?
You can not rationally argue that a person should be "punished" for something with out first accepting that you *know* what is moral and what is immoral. You can not *know* what is moral and what is immoral with out first accepting that morality and immorality are objectively valid classifications. I have yet to see anyone offer any logically consistent evidence to support this. Without accepting objective morality law can still be useful to maximize total human well being in a society.
Being able to spout bullshit has to be the best attribute for getting by without actually ever having a job.
my opinion is that it is immoral. the difficulty is in proving that morality extends beyond the realm of peoples preferences, beliefs and opinions and into the realm of that which can be measured and categorized scientifically.
I think we should have laws that compensate victims and disincentivize future rapists with out creating new victims in the process. To me the purpose of law is not to punish people but rather to facilitate the functioning of civilized society. Often laws that facilitated these ends could be construed as punishment but that would be purely incidental. This line of reasoning follows from my lack of belief in objective standards of morality coupled with my preference for civilization over barbarism
I feel small.
Do you think there should be laws against rape that have punishment for the offender?
Is rape moral or immoral?
moral
It is my opinion that it is always wrong in all societies. i just dont know how to use deductive reasoning to prove that it is wrong in any scientifically valid way. with that being said maybe someone smarter than me could. stefan molyneux has tried and, i believe, failed in that attempt. i dont know of anyone else who has even tried.
I'm all for your ideas. just get rid of all laws and law enforcement and let the strong survive. I know I will come out fine in such a society, because I'm very smart and physically fit, so go ahead and let it happen.
Worry to fix any downside (if there is any) later.