Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
I think everyone agrees that the current system is sick. And it must change. By getting the government out of the financial system.
Government intervention wouldn't be needed if greed wouldn't dominate the bankers world. But this is a characteristic of humans so that's one of the reasons why it most likely will never change.
Government intervention wouldn't be needed if greed wouldn't dominate the bankers world. But this is a characteristic of humans so that's one of the reasons why it most likely will never change.
Dafuq?
1) You said exactly this: Make the fines fines high enough to cover the costs of the justice-system.
2) So you want the legal enforcement system to be dependent on financial punishments.
3) Financially interested is not independent.
4) Yet, you say, it's libertarian.
(edited)
1) You said exactly this: Make the fines fines high enough to cover the costs of the justice-system.
2) So you want the legal enforcement system to be dependent on financial punishments.
3) Financially interested is not independent.
4) Yet, you say, it's libertarian.
(edited)
1) You said exactly this: Make the fines fines high enough to cover the costs of the justice-system.
Yes. For instance, all the costs that were made to organize the trial - and to investigate the case - must be paid by the party that loses the trial.
2) So you want the legal enforcement system to be dependent on financial punishments.
Yes. See above.
3) Financially interested is not independent.
I don't see why the justice system would not be independent because the loser must pay for the trial.
4) Yet, you say, it's libertarian.
Of course.
Yes. For instance, all the costs that were made to organize the trial - and to investigate the case - must be paid by the party that loses the trial.
2) So you want the legal enforcement system to be dependent on financial punishments.
Yes. See above.
3) Financially interested is not independent.
I don't see why the justice system would not be independent because the loser must pay for the trial.
4) Yet, you say, it's libertarian.
Of course.
Independent justice system:
It's completely indifferent for the court, whether the accused is guilty or not.
Your idea's justice system:
The court is interested in finding the accused guilty, so they can impose fine on him.
It's completely indifferent for the court, whether the accused is guilty or not.
Your idea's justice system:
The court is interested in finding the accused guilty, so they can impose fine on him.
It's completely indifferent for the court, whether the accused is guilty or not.
I agree.
The court is interested in finding the accused guilty, so they can impose fine on him.
No. Because if the accused is found not guilty, the other party (who lost the trial) must pay for it.
(edited)
I agree.
The court is interested in finding the accused guilty, so they can impose fine on him.
No. Because if the accused is found not guilty, the other party (who lost the trial) must pay for it.
(edited)
So the state should pay? How? You don't accept taxation. Not every case is a civil lawsuit.
Not every case is a civil lawsuit.
Did I ever say that there should be some kind of public prosecutor?
Did I ever say that there should be some kind of public prosecutor?
What happens in case of a homicide?
People who knew the murdered person (for instance his/her family) can ask for a trial.
Ask a trial against who? In many cases the relatives, friends (if such people exist) have no idea who to accuse.
Ask a trial against who?
Unknown.
That's why I'm currently in doubt about whether anarchocapitalism isn't better (or a combined system, where there is public police and private investigation agencies you can hire). Because then you can chose what investigation agency you hire to found out who killed your relative.
Unknown.
That's why I'm currently in doubt about whether anarchocapitalism isn't better (or a combined system, where there is public police and private investigation agencies you can hire). Because then you can chose what investigation agency you hire to found out who killed your relative.
Ok.
So what if the victim didn't have a relative (for example he is an immigrant or a lonely old man), or the relatives are too poor / don't want the risk of a probably very costy fine if they lose? The life of the poor shouldn't be protected?
(Basic human rights provide everyone's right to live, which is fundamental for a democracy.)
So what if the victim didn't have a relative (for example he is an immigrant or a lonely old man), or the relatives are too poor / don't want the risk of a probably very costy fine if they lose? The life of the poor shouldn't be protected?
(Basic human rights provide everyone's right to live, which is fundamental for a democracy.)
Many people wouldnt care about it even without possibility of fine. (when you will lose relative most important for you is loss, not who did this). The proposed system without state authority would be heaven for criminals.
Just imagine that everything could be stolen, which has a lower value, than the high costs of police investigation + the court. Nobody would risk it. But there could be the funniest cases in the world:
For example, what guarantees the good-will of police? Someone steals your car -> you initiate the investigation process -> police finds someone from the next corner (most cost-effective way for police) -> court finds he's not guilty -> you lost so you have to pay the whole process. What could you do? Maybe you could accuse the police this time. :D
For example, what guarantees the good-will of police? Someone steals your car -> you initiate the investigation process -> police finds someone from the next corner (most cost-effective way for police) -> court finds he's not guilty -> you lost so you have to pay the whole process. What could you do? Maybe you could accuse the police this time. :D
That's the exact reason anarchocapitalists give to explain why competition is better, also for the justice system.
Edit: And for the poor: if people care about them (which they should), they should voluntarily pay to an organization that helps poor people in court. So a private organization that is voluntarily funded can do what the government does now.
(edited)
Edit: And for the poor: if people care about them (which they should), they should voluntarily pay to an organization that helps poor people in court. So a private organization that is voluntarily funded can do what the government does now.
(edited)
That's the exact reason anarchocapitalists give to explain why competition is better, also for the justice system.
And your answer to that is usually... what?
And your answer to that is usually... what?