Laws, Crime, Justice, and Reason

Argument

X is (or should be) against the law!

Response

Laws don't define crime. Reason defines crime. Crime is initiation of aggression against another individual, either depriving or threatening to deprive him of life, liberty, or property. Justice requires restitution to the victim so he can be made whole again after suffering a crime, or retribution against the aggressor.

Laws declare things "illegal," regardless of whether a crime has occurred. Laws are fundamentally threats to deprive people of life, liberty, or property. Appealing to legality is irrational, because the laws are just a convoluted morass of politicians' opinions over many years, not a rational measure for morality and responsibility. The vast majority of laws either excuse crime under color of law or declare non-crimes "illegal." Examples of the former include taxation, eminent domain, conscription, and license mandates. The latter includes decrees against owning various "forbidden" objects, zoning laws arbitrarily restricting the use of property, and immigration laws restricting travel. Enforcement of laws against non-crimes, or using laws to commit crimes, is criminal.

Those who enforce bad laws often insist that they are "just doing their jobs," and that they "don't make the laws they enforce." They even argue that "democracy" means that these laws all bear a societal stamp of approval. However, appealing to legality necessarily means that slavery was not a crime when it was legal and that aiding runaway slaves was a crime, despite all reason and evidence to the contrary. Appealing to democracy necessarily means that if a majority declares a minority to be subhuman chattel property, it magically become truth. This is clearly irrational and immoral. Who is responsible for an individual's actions if not the acting individual? Who is responsible for the outcome of those actions if not the acting individual? Enforcing bad laws means the enforcer is committing a crime and bears personal responsibility for his actions.

Statists insist that these bad laws turning innocent people into "criminals" by legislative fiat and institutionalizing crimes against people are all accidental rather than inherent traits of government. They intentionally turn a blind eye to all the psychological studies showing how power corrupts good people and lures sociopaths like moths to a candle. They also ignore the economic studies showing the waste and abuse inherent in monopolies, the economic calculation problem, and public choice economics. In reality, government "lawmakers" have no interest in using laws to protect people from crimes and government courts have no interest in justice. Courts in fact uphold crimes and inhibit justice.

So what is the solution? Much has been written about polycentric law, competing arbitrators, dispute resolution organizations, and insurance systems that could replace the status quo, but we don't know how to get there from here. I honestly don't know how to achieve the goals of justice and rational law, but I know for certain that political action cannot achieve those goals. What can we do to experiment in the underground and aboveground economies to test alternatives? I leave finding solutions to the market, because the market is the result of sharing ideas and services to allow them to compete for consumer approval. Unlike politics, everyone wins when everyone joins, and the product is greater than the sum of its parts.