Listen on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Podcasts, Podcast Addict, and RSS.
In this episode, an authoritarian and some anarchist(s) have an unhinged conversation about policing.
Participants: Yassine, Kulak, & Hoffmeister25 [Note: the latter's voice has been modified to protect him from the progressive nanny state's enforcement agents.]
Links:
About the Daniel Penny Situation (Hoffmeister25)
Posse comitatus (Wikipedia)
Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State or Federal Prison (BJS 1997)
The Iron Rule (Anarchonomicon)
Eleven Magic Words (Yassine Meskhout)
Blackstone's ratio (Wikipedia)
Halfway To Prison Abolition (Yassine Meskhout)
Defunding My Mistake (Yassine Meskhout)
Recorded 2023-09-16 | Uploaded 2023-09-25
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Okay, but as I asked during the podcast: If I am the victim of a crime, am I the one who is then responsible for paying the bounty hunter(s) out of my own pocket? Or is that bounty paid by elected state/local officials on my behalf, once I bring the crime to their attention? If I’m on the hook for paying them, this seems like a wretched system that penalizes people financially after they’ve already lost money as a result of being victimized in the first place, and means that only wealthy individuals have any recourse when victimized. If the latter, then how is that not just police with extra steps, as I alleged during the podcast?
I think bounties would generally be issued by judges at some minimum level that private individuals would be able to augment. And victims would have priority claims to the deceased's estate (lol I know most will have little) and private property (criminals may have a surprising amount of jewelry and cars etc).
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but "who will pursue the bounty" is a separate question from "who will fund the bounty". I was only addressing the former. I thought the latter question was totally on point and it's too bad we moved on before @Kulak could answer it.
David Friedman (anarcho-capitalist) has discussed similar ideas before.
His thought was to have insurance agencies. You insure yourself against crime, and the insurance agency would deal with the criminals.
The insurance agencies could have different levels of protection, or different avenues of vengence. In cases where a person from one insurance agency is in conflict with another person with an insurance agency, it would be the insurance agencies negotiating.
To answer: "How is this not just police with extra steps"
Different options within the same geography. Why does that matter? Because one of the main an-cap complaints against government is that it does not face enough competition, and thus you get the typical problems from monopoly suppliers of a good/service (poor quality, high price, etc).
That's an accurate breakdown, but how will people pay for the protection agencies? They can have varying levels of protection available, but if someone is poor enough (or the services are expensive enough) what options do they have?
Charity from wealthier people, or agencies will choose to extend minimum levels of protection for non-payers to prevent a base level of crime.
Or people will fall through the cracks. Just like they do in our current justice system when the police are unwilling to go into a dangerous neighborhood.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link