-13 votes

Do the poor and mentally ill have any rights in an anarcho cap society?

We know that they will ideally have contract rights and property rights (that they can't afford to enforce) somehow, but...

Specifically, do they have the rights enshrined in our Bill of Rights?

The right to due process of law.
The right to legal counsel even if they cannot afford it.
The right to be held innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The right to jury trials.
The right to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, even when accused of a crime unless there is probable cause?
The right to confront their accusers.
The right against self incrimination.
The right to not be cruelly and unusually punished.

What method is there for absolutely securing these rights procedurally where these people cannot afford to subscribe to agencies of law/defense etc? How can we make sure these rights are absolute and not conditional on the magnanimity of profit-driven entities with a disincentive to encourage free riding?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
tasmlab's picture

Like, would this poor, mentally ill guy get a fair shake?

Like, would this poor, mentally ill guy get a fair shake?

http://www.dailypaul.com/320596/fl-prison-guards-boil-mental...

Or the poor black guy selling weed?

I know I'm not answering any of the posed questions, but "method for absolutely securing these rights procedurally" is a tall order for the government to handle. Right?

Ours, with a two trillion dollar budget and 4,000,000 employees isn't quite getting us to a method of absolute security of rights, and that's not including all of the judges, police etc., that are actually at the state and county level in charge of this task.

Maybe if we doubled the budget? Hired twice as many? Would that be enough government to get the job done?

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Appeal to emotion - Would the poor have rights?

Currently, the poor are fed by government welfare.

Would the poor have the right to food in an anarcho-cap society?

You're appealing to emotion with whatever government services you want to force others to pay for.

Bill3 and I already dealt

Bill3 and I already dealt with this when Education brought it up.

Ventura 2012

Argument from authority

You are arguing from authority when you bring up the bill of rights. If the bill of rights is so important, why did you leave out the 5th Amendment, where it states -

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

This empowers the government to steal property (eminent domain). You don't support this particular portion of the bill of rights, but you support whatever portions of the bill of rights you happen to choose.

Why are you picking and choosing from the bill of rights whatever services you think are important, and then advocating for the socialization of those services?

Don't liberals want to socialize services which they think are important?

Lie-lemon

There's no arguing from authority at all, there's arGuing from common terminology and principles. Why would I argue from authority when I know that anarchists deny the authority?! Of course there would be no eminent domain discussion here.

Ventura 2012

question

Why are you picking and choosing from the bill of rights whatever services you think are important, and then advocating for the socialization of those services?

Don't liberals want to socialize services which they think are important?

Because we're talking about

Because we're talking about rights not services? Why are you trying to poison the well by using the loaded term "liberal"? The debate is about protecting rights that most libertarian s hold dear.
Why can't you try to come to a consensus with me instead of just trying to "win" via quips and fallacies?

If you put your two brain cells together really hard you will see that I also left out other parts of the bill of Rights...maybe you can figure out why I didn't think they were relevant to the topic of due process of law as it applies to anarchic society? Seriously, who goes into someones thread and asks them why they didn't make a totally different thread and include irrelevant material?!

Ventura 2012

rights

The debate is about protecting rights that most libertarians hold dear.

So if libertarians hold dear those rights you picked out from the bill of rights -- then they will enforce the provision of those rights for everyone.

So you answered your own question.

How?

How?

Also, while libertarians hold these principles dear, anarchists have nothing to say about them for the most part. Most of you are confronting this issue for the first time in this thread.

Ventura 2012

The source of rights is not government.

Just like government, a right is an abstraction. When it is recognized, it exists.
In a society based on voluntary association, every individual has the same rights as any other.

Due process of law, would consist, usually of arbitration of some sort.

A person does not have the right to property belonging to someone else. There is no right to have someone else represent you, or give you advice.

As for the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the question is by whom? If the point of the law is to punish lawbreakers, the this may be an issue, but is that the point of a system that is designed to protect rights? Isn't obtaining compensation for damage done the point rather than dispensing punishment?

If disputes cannot be settled by arbitration, certainly jury trials are preferable to a single judge collecting fines. Whether it is a right, I don't know.

You stated the poor and insane have property rights, so retaining control over that property when there is no dispute is a given.

In an anarcho capitalistic system, who but the accusers would be bringing a complaint? The issue of confronting accusers only comes up when the complaint has to do with accusation has to do with crimes that are not against people, but with sins against the law or the rulers - accusations of disobeying rules, rather than doing harm to persons or their property. Since there is no government per se, the legal system would not lend itself to the types of abuse such as secret accusers.

With self incrimination, again, this is only an issue if the point is punishment rather than compensation for damages.

The point of a legal framework under the A/C system would be compensation of those harmed, not punishment.

The way to secure the rights of those who do not agencies is the same way people are compensated when the damaging party is uninsured now. The people seeking redress get it from their insurer and that insurer gets it from those accused of doing the damage, if such can be identified. If the insurer cannot do that, then it is a write-off, the cost of doing business.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

1. How can a mentally ill

1. How can a mentally ill person receive due process in an arbitration court without representation?

2. You say that retaining control over property when there is no dispute is a given. That is true even in a Communist country. The problem is when someone disputes the claim. If your right is ineffective then you have no right.

3. Just because someone brings a complaint does not mean that they would necessarily testify. I don't see the relevance of your statement that self incrimination is only an issue in criminal punishment and not civil damages...of course you're correct but whats the relevance? Do you have the right to confront your accusers in court or not?

4. Punishment must occur to create discincentives for behavior. How would you deal with a murderer? How would you "redress" a crime committed by an indigent or invalid that cannot provide compensation?

Ventura 2012

Interesting thoughts, I will

Interesting thoughts, I will adress them when I get to a PC.

Ventura 2012

The whole premise of "anarcho" anything....

that does not recognize any authority is doomed to mob rule.

Apply it to any sport for an example. Competition requires a set of rules agreed upon by all players in order to have any sense of fairness or protection.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Not all of us... I

Not all of us... I acknowledge that there will certainly be some "mob rule" in an anarchist society but here's the rub. WE HAVE MOB RULE ALREADY (in case you hadn't noticed. The problem with a society where you claim some people on high have some kind of legitimate authority is that they become the "mob" and what they say goes. At least in an anarchist society the mobs will be smaller an localized. As such it's easier to take an abusive mob leader out of the picture (restoring liberty).

Beware the cult of "government"...

True, we could just kill anyone we don't agree with and...

the only thing we'd have to fear is their relatives and/or friends coming after us. Even if they do come after us, we could kill them too. I guess those with the most guns and numbers have the least to fear.

Also, another country that invaded us could take over, at least parts of the country. Illegals could flood in and take over whatever.

Personally, I prefer our constitution and a republic that will honor it. Correct, we don't have that now but to save a lot of bloodshed, I'd prefer a peaceful way to restore it. Time will tell what it'll take to restore it.

We may go through a period of anarchy but it will be bloody, a lot of good people will be killed, however, eventually, we'll get tired of the bloodshed and want peace and rights for all.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Bottom line is killing others

Bottom line is killing others is not profitable in a true free market. You can kill some people and take their stuff, but eventually someone will stab you in the back. This kind of violence is short lived and only can effect a limited number of people. The kind of violence that kills MILLIONS can only be accomplished with the false god of "government". Only with lots and lots of minions doing your evil bidding can one person (or a conglomeration of people) wipe out millions of people.

In "real life" people want to be prosperous and they become so through trade (honest trade if you want repeat business). Sure, there will always be the scammer but wise people will be looking out for the scams and not easily fooled. The scammers will be sorted out and run out of town or killed.

Beware the cult of "government"...

So, how would a nation of anarchist defend themselves...

against another "government" or large group hell bent on rape and pillage of this country? Also, how would anarchist resolve trade disputes?

Isn't the definition of anarchy; "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority."

If you did away with religion, anarchy might have a chance because without a constitution meant to protect liberty, religions would fight one another for supreme power to honor their God. Anarchy would look like Afghanistan or Iraq today.

I get that we've gotten away from our constitutional roots but the answer is to find a peaceful way to return to it, not trash it and replace it with disorder.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

There would be no "nation".

There would be no "nation". Individuals would live as peacefully as possible with others around them. If an invading horde came to conquer I would assume that these individuals would do everything in their power with the weapons that they have (there would be no laws against owning tanks, etc.) to repel them. There is no guarantee they would prevail just like today there's no guarantee of victory (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq). The real obstacle to achieving true freedom is really fear. Fear of the unknown. Holding on to the false god of "government" to protect us from who knows what boogyman...

Beware the cult of "government"...

"True, we could just kill

"True, we could just kill anyone we don't agree with and
the only thing we'd have to fear is their relatives and/or friends coming after us. Even if they do come after us, we could kill them too. I guess those with the most guns and numbers have the least to fear."

This isn't even a mischaracterization, this is exactly their position lol.

Ventura 2012

Agreed. The basis of our

Agreed. The basis of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is a legal framework that will defend those inherent rights. Without a legal framework for individual rights protections, literally everything is up for grabs for the best-armed and most violent to overrun the intellectual or property owning individuals who are not violent. The best way to defend individuals and protect rights is with a minarchy.

free markets, zero taxes and no fed reserve inflation!

We all agree that with free markets come better services and cheaper prices, right? well add that to no income tax and actual sound money and we shouldnt have the issue of people not being able to afford council or DRO protection. however, in the cases thatll arise that some wont be able to afford them, charities, communities and pro bono work will take care of them. plus, who says "afford" means exchange of money? those who need council/protection, can offer labor as their currency to work of the fees. the beauty of the free market is that there are endless routes to take for exchanging goods/services. we also have to remember that in a stateless society, economic ostracism is a huge deterrent of criminal acts. yes, bad people will still exist but through economic boycotts ( no one will want to do business with known offenders) the rights violators will find it hard to live in society. our inalienable rights arent subject to a qualification process. they are absolute.

St.Amant, LA...Libertarian Party of Ascension Parish

Dear ones,

I think you would be well-advised to look at the very first exchange at the bottom of this thread. I think the original poster uses some very revealing terminology there. In view of prison guards boilong somone alive in oil---yes right here in good 'ol "Mericuh"---his first response is to cite "procedural norm" and the "law as it is written."

Just think my friends. Who would respond in such a way?

Interesting appeal to

Interesting appeal to emotion. Undoubtedly anarchists here are heavily invested in emotional thinking.

Ventura 2012

just thinking

No appeal to emotion. Just looking at your response. You might get a demerit from your supervisor (Bill3?).

I guess that's ad hominem, come to think of it. Ignore a person's argument because he's probably sitting in the basement of a FEMA camp. Nah, there's really no argument anyway. Ignore a person's argument because it is the argument that leads to the creation of FEMA camps and that simply makes no sense.

Are you ever going to explain how these "laws" and "procedural norms" are going to protect people from those acting under authority? How did they protect the whiskey manufacturers from Washington and his army? How have they ever protected anyone?

The simple answer is they haven't, and you have no suggestion of why they ever will. You only have an appeal to emotion: "What about the mentally ill?" "What about the children?" "We have to help those people!" "Save yourselves through due process!"

All the while you damn them (and the vast majority of the rest of society) to abuse under the color of "law."

Do they have any of those rights now in any meaningful way?

The right to due process of law. No, case in point property or bank account seizures which all occur without prior notice or opportunity to be heard.

The right to legal counsel even if they cannot afford it. No, case in point indigent putative fathers who are imprisoned for debt or being jailed for contempt of court.

The right to be held innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No, case in point income tax presumptions or the reverse burden of proof if you are an innocent owner of confiscated property.

The right to jury trials. No, case in point traffic, family, or other administrative tribunals presenting themselves as a court.

The right to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, even when accused of a crime unless there is probable cause? No, case in point cash confiscation.

The right to confront their accusers. No because no court will ever provide a precise definition of the term "state" in order to confront any "state" prosecutor prosecuting on behalf of the "state" which is only a representative for any actual accuser.

The right against self incrimination. No, case in point income taxation.

The right to not be cruelly and unusually punished. No, case in point imprisonment for debt.

These are civil rights that arise from a judicial system

There is no reason for civil rights in an anarchy. And if there is well Ill say what I said before when an anarchy involves courts, laws, prisons, rules for the selection of judges, and a volunteer police force composed of the willing citizenry that enforces these judgments its what I call a government.

They are not

civil rights that arise from a judicial system. They arise from ancient customs and traditions which evolved into common law systems that evolved into code based legal systems. The next evolution will be a libertarian society where justice services compete in a free market.

There is no such thing as mental illness

Therefore, there are no mentally ill persons. Mental illness is a metaphorical illness, not a real illness. With the alliance of Psychiatry and the State, the "diagnosis" of mental illness is used as a method of social control. Criminals should be in prison and so-called mental patients who are not violating the rights of others should be left alone. A mental hospital is just a prison masquerading as a hospital.

this post is on the wrong page

I sometimes hit backspace.

Does a duck....

Waddle, or waadle?