Comment: That's an interesting point ...

(See in situ)


That's an interesting point ...

... and in a voluntary, stateless society that came about due to philosophical understanding that government is inherently immoral, then you might have a point.

But, I think even in that society there will need to be limitations on liability. Otherwise, you will end up with indentured servants, because we can NEVER guarantee that ALL jury decisions are (a) correct, and (b) just, as to compensation or punishment.

We only have to look at the cases where juries wrongly convicted people of murder to see that.

I think limited liability is a final "check and balance" against dumbsh*ts who WILL sit on some juries.

And that limited liability gets distributed throughout society in the form of businesses factoring in bad debts that they cannot recover in court.

I am against the death penalty for the same reason. Although one who murders deserves to lose his own life, we can not be sure that we don't kill an innocent man.

I also think that given where we are right now, it is an easier case to make to get back to constitutional limitations and THEN go for a voluntary society. But I understand the counter-argument, too, and respect it.