Comments on: The Libertarian Position on Capital Punishment

By: freethinker

freethinker — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:40:56 +0000

Total fail. You just took a position as a libertarian. So the libertarian position is that there is no libertarian position? After all, that’s the “whole point of being a Libertarian….” What if someone disagrees with your view about you not having to do what he commands? Is that also included in your libertarianism? Does this opponent who wants to enslave you also count as a libertarian? He doesn’t have to agree with your view, after all. Everyone is a libertarian!

By: Frances_Coppola

Frances_Coppola — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:32:07 +0000

It is oxymoronic for there to be a “Libertarian position” on anything. I don’t have to agree with your views and I don’t have to do what you say. That’s the whole point of being a Libertarian, isn’t it? Therefore this article has nothing to do with Libertarian thinking and everything to do with promoting the author’s particular agenda.

By: TokyoTom

TokyoTom — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 05:13:49 +0000

Frankly, Rothbard’s essay is disappointing and disturbing:

- he relies on the state and its minions;
- he fails to consider the very high risk of false conviction;
- his “opt out” for those opposed to the death penalty is very restrictive (only who have gone to the trouble of declaring their opposition in a valid will);
- he fails to note or discuss the racially-imbalanced way that the death penalty is applied;
- he fails to see either how the death penalty further dehumanizes society, or how it aggrandizes the state (and provides political opportunities for politicians, judges and prosecutors);
- he completely fails to consider how murders themselves are the predictable consequence of state policies – in particular, the stupid and destructive “War on Drugs” that (i) turns not merely consumers but everyone in the supply chain into criminals – with those other than users having strong incentives to violence to protect illegal goods, and to corruption, (ii) gives us serious penchants for police abuse and confiscations, and (iii) undermines economic development in inner cities; and- finally,
- it’s clear that Rothbard is being a small-minded hypocrite when he closes by saying: “the rest of us can have the capital punishment we would like to have, free from the interference of liberal busybodies.” What Rothbard is doing here does not differs from what those “liberal busybodies” he rails against were doing – namely, attempting to persuade others with respect to state activities that they have an opinion on? I’m right, so please shut up? Please.

By: RogC

RogC — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:19:25 +0000

When I was younger I was an ardent supporter of the death penalty. Growing older I’ve found that the logic for having such a penalty is still valid to me but I’ve become so mistrustful of the agents of our justice system that I can no longer support it’s application. If I believed that all involved parties, prosecutor, judge, defense, investigators etc worked honestly to see justice done then I could even reconcile myself to the rare mistake. Sadly I find that I cannot just assume that the sloppiness and shortcuts that result in so many criminals receiving super light if any sentences do not also occur in reverse.

By: MJ

MJ — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 01:41:32 +0000

I didn’t mean that insurance companies should take capital punishment etc as a form of ‘payment’ of the premium (I can see how what I wrote is confusing) I’m saying that in the event you murder someone “Capital Punishment / 40 Years of imprisonment / Slave Labor” would serve as the ‘deductable’ or the ‘excess’

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:38:45 +0000

I just think it was fun to read a completely different point of view on the subject. To execute or not to execute being left up to the individual victim (via a will). Being new to libertarianism my mind was still on the track that you either do it or not on a societal level. The individual nature of dealing with crime and capital punishment that he outlines was interesting. A lot of things to think about especially with the comments that help expand the conversation.

By: DW

DW — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:02:57 +0000

Thank you StrawVince for the remarks. Indeed, I am well aware of the limitations of the theoretical insurance-based world of anarchistic Libertarianism. Heck, I’m a Criminal Justice major and so I can attest that no Justice system will be perfect. Yet I do believe it is a more productive and peaceful one than the one we have now.

In response to Mathew, in no way does Restitution mean taking away MORE than what is owed to you. If I steal you car, you have every right to acquire it even if it means using REASONABLE force to do so. Excessive force would only excacerbate the existing problem of dis-equilibrium of property rights. Kill me for stealing you car, and whats to stop my family from doing the same to you for killing me?

Anyone who is interested in ancient Greek literature should read Antigone’s Oresteia concerning this subject. Mad cycles of vengeance existed then as they do now.

By: dobropet

dobropet — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:21:13 +0000

Oh, like marriage. Lol.

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:51:48 +0000

Unless at a later time they are found to be innocent. If they are unfit for release after being imprisoned, how does that differ from executing them?

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:24:52 +0000

Punishment of criminals seems to have three components; restitution, retribution, and deterrence.
Restitution is the repayment or ‘make whole’ of what was taken.
Retribution is the additional punishment after restitution to resolve a sense of ‘fairness’. ‘Two eyes for an eye’ is a good expression of this.
Deterrence is an additional punishment AFTER the above that is intended to prevent others from committing the same crime.

Punishment for intentional murder can’t progress beyond the restitution stage without assigning a value to someone’s life. Isn’t that the ultimate level where a homeless person and a corporation owner are ultimately equals?

By: J. Murray

J. Murray — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:11:46 +0000

Uh, read up further. No one goes to prison unless it’s life without parole. That person only comes out of the cell in a body bag. There is no release when being sent to prison because prison is where we put people who are too dangerous to be out in the world. If we have reservations about putting them into that kind of prison, we clearly don’t believe them to be a danger to others and, therefore, won’t go.

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:10:11 +0000

The best way to handle that would be to impose the punishment of the wrongly convicted on any who acted in bad faith, withheld evidence, or committed purjury during the trial.

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:05:45 +0000

And would you really want someone kept in those conditions for anything over a week released?

By: Gil

Gil — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:55:08 +0000

I doubt you can bequeath duties on to others.

By: André

André — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:27:22 +0000

Insurances cannot really replace punishments – unless they are mandatory, but then there must be some kind of punishment for those who roam uninsured. There’s a circle here.Also, the idea that any insurance company would accept anything like “Capital Punishment / 40 Years of imprisonment / Slave Labor” as a form of payment clearly comes from someone who does not run a profitable insurance company.And so we come to the main point, at least for me. Punishments are not payments, there is not voluntary transaction behind and nobody can receive any economical compensation by inflicting pain to someone else. Punishments, at best, may represent the sheer joy of inflicting pain on those who did something unpleasant to us or to those we love. If someone hurt to my daughter, I would feel the absolute urge to massacre the bastard, and way beyond the damage he inflicted to my kid. I would not think of compensations or anything economical. That’s why we pay so much for all those cops and judges… so we can (foolishly) imagine that someone would help us in case we would need to revenge on someone physically stronger than ourselves. Capital punishment does not make anyone richer, nor it compensates any loss. The whole system is just anti-economical. It’s a dangerous toy that only uncivilized societies can enjoy.You want to know how really free societies (ancient Greek cities, for example) dealt with dangerous criminals? No jails, no hangings – they just write your name on a piece of a broken vase and you cannot show your face around here anymore. If you love freedom, that’s the way to do it – I think.Rothbard wanted to stay with the mob on this one. Maybe in those years he wanted the libertarian movement to be more appealing to a larger number of folks – so he just did what all politicians do… follow the vulgar part of the stream. I did not like this one bit, I have to say.

By: Gil

Gil — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:12:33 +0000

A total pacificist would theoretically be against all punishments not just the death penalty because all punishments mirror a type of crime (jail vs kidnapping, fine vs theft, corporal punishment vs battery, etc.). Not to mention the risk of an innocent person getting punished regardless of how small the punishment is.

By: Gil

Gil — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:54:03 +0000

No it wouldn’t. In Anarchotopia people are free to act as they like as there’s no overriding power that is the government. Private property owners determine what’s best for their property. Businesses will have to calibrate what actions should be taken: light enforcements will lead to more crimes and deter customers yet harsh enforcements may turn away customers who don’t like harsh punishments. What people do in their private homes is their business and the onus of proof should be to the non-home owner as to whether the measures taken by the homeowner was unjust.

By: Dewaine

Dewaine — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:28:12 +0000

Did Rothbard side with the pro-capital punishment argument because there cannot be a libertarian position for the funding of life in prison without parole (the popular alternative to the death sentence)?

The more difficult argument would be the position that a court, state-sponsored or otherwise, could be both sufficiently independent and without corruption so as to be able to render a just sentence of death.

By: Shay

Shay — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 05:06:13 +0000

You can’t be a partial pacifist, just like a woman can’t be partially pregnant. And if someone is a pacifist, innocence isn’t the question; he would be against the death penalty, period. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, since you seem to have used the term “total pacifist” as an insult, rather than a description of a person’s principles.

By: MJ

MJ — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 04:47:13 +0000

In a completely anarchic civilization, punishment would be replaced by insurance. Murder insurance companies would work out a premium with the policy holder much like they work out 3rd-Party car insurance premiums with motorists. The company would assess you for the risk you represent in murdering/damaging someone elses body and your premiums would be charged accordingly. Those deemed as a high risk would be charged a higher premium thus discouraging murderous/violent acts. Capital Punishment / 40 Years of imprisonment / Slave Labor etc would simply be ‘payment’ options you could select on your policy in addition to paying a monetary sum. It would then be the responsibility of private land owners to ensure that you hold a level and type of murder insurance that they will allow on their property as they are the ultimate managers of their land. Eg, If a land owner requires that Capital Punishment be part of your murder insurance policy before allowing you onto his land, then you will obviously need to check this box on your policy. However, the land owner may not require this but instead require you to be insured for say at least $10 Million to be paid to the family of the victim and $1million to the land owner should you murder someone on his property. Anyone else on the land will need to avail themselves of what murder insurance the landowner is requiring and by entering onto the land they would be agreeing to the ‘payout’ should they be murdered. Under this ‘insurance not punishment’ system, people will know what kind of ‘restitution’ is on offer should they murder someone or be murdered themselves and they can decide for themselves whether this is sufficient for them before they enter someone elses property.