> > I don't know about Eric, but I definitely think that > there would be less murders if there were no laws against them, > and similarly for robbery, rape, fraud, etc. > Crimes would instead be settled in civil courts, > and murderers would be greatly indebted to the heirs, > and the fact of criminals paying back their debt > would make the whole process economically efficient. > > [Anarchocapitalist utopia omitted...] >
I like anarchocapitalism as much as the next guy, but this thread seems tendentious to me. If private individuals or organizations have a right to sue you for murdering one of their relatives or life insurance customers or whatever, that makes murder _de facto_ against the law. If the Texas State Legislature were to remove murder laws from the statute books WHILE DOING NOTHING ELSE, there would almost certainly be an increase in killings. Sure, giving victims the right to choose who they trust to investigate crimes committed against them would probably lead to fewer miscarriages of justice a la JonBenet Ramsey or O.J. Simpson. (If I don't think my small-town police department is up to the task, I immediately call an agency that I know can do the job properly.) But removing government penalties against murder does not seem like the smartest first step toward a free-market legal system. How did a debate about the best way to deal with the problem of spam turn into this? Respectfully, James Haney
