RE: Justice in a stateless society, peaceful parenting and the morality of coercive imprisonment for punishment: a short essay. (Dispute resolution, restitution and peaceful parenting)
We all generally agree that self-defense (particularly amidst an armed society) is the best hedge against immoral action; but what to do when defense fails is a very difficult problem.
First I’d like to acknowledge the fact that moral law - like physical law - is discovered by man, not devised. As such, our understanding in this area evolves with the species. I believe the problem of punishment subsequent to unsuccessful defense is on the leading edge of our understanding at this time (as is the aforementioned issue of abortion), and possibly just a bit out-of-reach.
Ostracization seems prudent and rational, but in practical terms, it will increase feelings of desperation within an already-unscrupulous and troubled individual. Most likely this will lead to another opportunity for defense against the actions of the offender, which is certainly less than optimal.
An understanding of (and commitment to) true moral principles answers for nearly all human sufferings; but as you’ve noted, this requires the earnest participation of the individual. The psychopath, for example, is all but utterly hopeless in this regard, and yet must be dealt with somehow.
If justifiable force could be employed during the offense, is it no longer justified immediately subsequent to the act? And if justified immediately after, why not long after? We can see how a return to the gallows could be deemed appropriate. So punishment becomes a very tricky business indeed.
I do not feel equipped to answer this questiion definitively, as my foundational understanding of morality seems insufficient to provide a responsible course of action in such cases. It may just be that I am not personally up to the task, or it may be that humanity on the whole has yet to evolve to the level of consciousness where the answer resides.
In any case, the conversation must continue until the logic is clear, and you have certainly done your part in encouraging this impotant work to continue. Much obliged, and keep up your resolve. You are an invaluable forerunner to the next stage of humanity’s social evolution.
Thank you for your comment and support.
My thought on this would be that psychopaths are still rational actors, as in, their ends may be unhealthy but the means they use to reach those ends are rational 'i am being ostracised, i can't get any food or shelter, it is rational for my self interest to make restitution so i can buy food and shelter'
So even the psychopath when they find that no one will rent to them, they can't buy food, clothing or fuel would likely conclude that it's in their interest to go to a voluntary restitution centre, they may not care at all about who they've harmed but as long as they do what is required for the victim to be ok with what happened then the outcome is the same.
If a person is no longer doing things that immediately threatening you or you have a defensive advantage and they are not armed then hanging them when they are subdued would be initiating force thus breaking the NAP, however i did say this:
Meaning, if you have someone who has a known pattern of pretending to not be a threat so they can then kill people and say you have them locked in a room or cell the DRO owns because it was the only way you could defend yourself at the time then maybe detaining them long enough that you and your dispute resolution agency (psychologists, criminologists) are convinced that they won't immediately try to kill you is justified (i think even this may not be right and is negated by the following two paragraphs.)
Having said that once you have someone disarmed and you and your DRO buddies are heavily armed then again they are no longer a threat even if they want to kill you they wouldn't be able to and it would be in thier rational self interest not to try at this point and you could just eject them from your property and put up a good fence.
However cunning and psychopathic this person is there's not much they can do when they have gattling guns pointed at them, your face detection cameras would alert you when they're anywhere near your property and all weapons dealers have been alerted that they broke the NAP and so no one will sell to them.
I think this^ solution is morally and practically superior to detaining the perpetrator any longer than it takes to disarm them and be guaranteed of your and other's safety .
I may make this in to a new post as it's an important issue.
You raise a good point - even if the psychopath can’t truly be rehabilitated, if he can be encouraged to “act as if” that’s a serviceable solution. I understand many such people do just that, as they find it more advantageous. Hey, not everyone can make it to high seats of power and afford themselves the luxury of living above the usual risks associated with being a scoundrel.
This was something i got from Ludwig Von Mises in 'Human action' (science of human action/micro economics) where he points out that people can have ends that make no sense to other people but their actions to get there can be completely rational.
So, they're acting rationally to get what they want even if what they want is not healthy or moral eg ' i want power (ends) so i will lie, cheat and steal (means)', if they were unable to be a 'rational actor' they would have to be categorised as a deterministic object, so if they can act rationally for the ends of say power they have shown themselves to have a capacity to act rationally for the benefits of not being ostracised.
As long as you're a rational actor in the above sense (you can make rational choices to achieve an end) then i think ostracism, self defence, voluntary restitution and the other ideas would still work.
Maybe they wouldn't be able to give sincere apologies and such but, restitution needs to be something that is negotiated and if they can be shown to be a psychopath then the two parties could take this in to account when negotiating, even if not a psychopath restitution is always whatever both parties agree on.
The key issues with psychopathy being lack of empathy and utter selfishness, I suppose there's no reason why these people can't be made to understand why it's in their best interest to play nice. After all, many of them do now.
The bigger question for me is the matter of defensive force. If I catch a murderer in action, but by the time I pull out my gun, the deed is done, am I obliged by morality to refrain from killing him? The defensive opportunity being lost, am I now in a new category of moral obligation?
I can see how it is so, since rehabilitation is possible. What we're saying here is that there is no just punishment; there is only restitution. I can't find any ground to debate this point, given my current moral understanding, so I suppose I'm bound by it...
It's a bit of a tough pill to swallow when considering this scenario of a mere instant between justifiable homicide and murder. Then again, whether a minute or a year, revenge is not defense. So there we have it, I suppose.
'I can see how it is so, since rehabilitation is possible. What we're saying here is that there is no just punishment; there is only restitution. I can't find any ground to debate this point, given my current moral understanding, so I suppose I'm bound by it...
It's a bit of a tough pill to swallow when considering this scenario of a mere instant between justifiable homicide and murder. Then again, whether a minute or a year, revenge is not defense. So there we have it, I suppose.'
^^This is where the logic lead me too