Posts
Today’s Mises
Daily is an excerpt from The Ethics of
Liberty, by Murray Rothbard. The
specific topic is “Punishment and Proportionality,” taken from chapter 13.
I one
day decided to jump into this topic, motivated by a controversial post on
this topic by Robert
Wenzel. After some dialogue on my
original post, I decided to write a follow-up.
To make a long story short, I have concluded that the non-aggression
principle cannot answer the question: how much punishment is the right amount
of punishment? Libertarian theory can
offer a framework for considering this question, but it cannot provide
precision.
Where does the precision come from? To the extent that there will come something
specific, it will come from society – society will determine what is
acceptable. I write this even accepting
the libertarian-derived principle that the victim has rights in determining
punishment. I will not revisit my
arguments in this post – the previous posts provide enough fodder.
Instead, I will allow Rothbard to make the point for me:
If A has stolen $15,000 from B,
then the first, or initial, part of A's punishment must be to restore that
$15,000 to the hands of B (plus damages, judicial and police costs, and
interest foregone).
“Damages” is a subjective term, it seems to me. Administrative costs can be easily
calculated, as can interest. Who decides
proper “damages”? Does the victim? On what basis? What if the larger community decides that the
damages extracted exceeded reason – even applying the NAP?
Rothbard agrees: “What this extra compensation should be it
is impossible to say exactly…”
That’s what I said.
For example, suppose that A has
severely beaten B; B now has the right to beat up A as severely, or a bit more…
This seems so barbaric.
But simply to dismiss a concept as
"barbaric" can hardly suffice…
This gets to the point: punishment for crime must be deemed
acceptable within the ethical code of the given society. This ethical code cannot be found within the
NAP. What if the individuals within the
community within which the crime was committed decide that this is barbaric? At minimum, social pressure will limit or
eliminate the possibility.
Rothbard does an excellent service in fully presenting a libertarian
framework for thought on this topic. Yet,
even Rothbard finds no specific answers within the NAP.
I guess I am in good company.
While the NAP doesn't give us a precise answer, it sure helps to get a better one. Currently if my dog escapes and kills some of your chickens, I may not have to help to repair or pay for the damage, but you can bet that I will be paying a fine to the police which directly benefits them. Prison sentences are based overwhelmingly on how to make a profit for someone. At least with the NAP, we would do away with others being able to rob us as "punishment", and focus more on restitution for the victim. The focus on how to encourage the offender not to commit the crime again would also become more apparent, instead of trying to find something else to fine them for.
ReplyDeleteI agree - and that was your dog, eh? Where can I send the bill?
Delete