Too many cops?

[CitizenX]

A million bucks? That's a lot of incentive for women to lie about being raped. You'll have guys getting falsely accused all over the place and thrown into slave labour camps for years and years while these 'victims' get rich!

Hey I just got raped. I mean

Edited September 17, 2011 by CitizenX

[Zachary Young]

You forget that it's the VICTIM who hires and pays for the judge. They'd WANT judges who tended to find people guilty all the time. In fact, that would be an incentive for the 'judge' to always find the defendant guilty. That would just get him more business!

A judge who always found a defendant guilty would be ignored. He would be irrelevant. People could take their cases to them if they wanted, but everyone would realize that it was a show trial, and not accept the results of the trial. An individual convicted of a crime by that trial (probably by absentee) would still find people to defend him, his own private security agency would demand a fair trial. On the other hand someone who was actually guilty, and found so in a fair trial by a judge who had proved his judicial fairness over the years, would have no one to defend him.

[CitizenX]

A judge who always found a defendant guilty would be ignored. He would be irrelevant. People could take their cases to them if they wanted, but everyone would realize that it was a show trial, and not accept the results of the trial. An individual convicted of a crime by that trial (probably by absentee) would still find people to defend him, his own private security agency would demand a fair trial. On the other hand someone who was actually guilty, and found so in a fair trial by a judge who had proved his judicial fairness over the years, would have no one to defend him.

[Zachary Young]

Those aren't 'private prisons'. They are government prisons. When the government controls who goes to them, pays for them, etc. it is a government prison. So they out source it to a corporation... what is the difference? Government prisons are for profit too. The warden gets paid. The guards get paid. Lots of money to be made.

[CitizenX]

Those aren't 'private prisons'. They are government prisons. When the government controls who goes to them, pays for them, etc. it is a government prison. So they out source it to a corporation... what is the difference? Government prisons are for profit too. The warden gets paid. The guards get paid. Lots of money to be made.

Government prisons are NOT for profit. When has the Canadian prison system made a profit?

[Zachary Young]

Government prisons are NOT for profit. When has the Canadian prison system made a profit?

The guards make a tidy profit every pay cheque.

[CitizenX]

The guards make a tidy profit every pay cheque.

That's called a wage. The Canadian Government does not make a profit.

[Argus]

A judge who always found a defendant guilty would be ignored.

Ignored by whom? You forget, in your magic land there is no government to appeal to. The security cops work for the victim, as does the judge, as does the labour camp. You'd be arrested by the cops, found guilty by the judge, and be shipped to the labour camp.

So how exactly do you ignore that?

An individual convicted of a crime by that trial (probably by absentee) would still find people to defend him, his own private security agency would demand a fair trial.

And they'd be told to get lost. Now what? You're in a slave labour camp for the next forty years. There's no government to appeal to, and you haven't got enough money to hire an army.

[Argus]

A judge who always found a defendant guilty would be ignored. He would be irrelevant. People could take their cases to them if they wanted, but everyone would realize that it was a show trial, and not accept the results of the trial.

Imagine if there was no government for people to complain to...

Judges took bribes to send kids to private prison

Edited September 17, 2011 by Argus

[CitizenX]

Imagine if there was no government for people to complain to...

Judges took bribes to send kids to private prison

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqgs6Ol5PSc&feature=related

Sorry about the JOY BEHAR

There are worse things than government....Corporations (if that's not evil I don't know what is)

Are Corporations Evil?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19421&st=150

Edited September 17, 2011 by CitizenX

[Zachary Young]

You are making the mistake of imaging that this proposed system would a carbon copy of our current system, just private. It would not. It would be radically different. The judge's verdict would be ignore by EVERYONE, most notably the private security firm the innocent person has retained to defend him. Now what do you do when there is a government judge that always finds people guilty? A hanging judge? WHat is your recourse in that situation?

You wouldn't be in the slave labour camp. When they came for you, your security firm would step in with their guys with guns and say "give him a fair trial or we are going to have a fire fight". Then there would be a fair trial. If you were found guilty you would face your punishment - your own security agency would ensure it. If you were found not guilty you'd be free to go.

And a judge in the current legal system was corrupt? I am shocked, absolutely shocked to find corruption in a legal sytem with no competition.

[CitizenX]

You are making the mistake of imaging that this proposed system would a carbon copy of our current system, just private. It would not. It would be radically different. The judge's verdict would be ignore by EVERYONE, most notably the private security firm the innocent person has retained to defend him. Now what do you do when there is a government judge that always finds people guilty? A hanging judge? WHat is your recourse in that situation?

You wouldn't be in the slave labour camp. When they came for you, your security firm would step in with their guys with guns and say "give him a fair trial or we are going to have a fire fight". Then there would be a fair trial. If you were found guilty you would face your punishment - your own security agency would ensure it. If you were found not guilty you'd be free to go.

And a judge in the current legal system was corrupt? I am shocked, absolutely shocked to find corruption in a legal sytem with no competition.

My security firm? My security agency? What if I'm too poor to afford these services? They do cost money correct? No justice for the poor?

Edited September 17, 2011 by CitizenX

[Zachary Young]

You would still be covered, probably through voluntary charity, either on the part of a security firm or by someone buying you a policy. But a society without the monstrous wealth destroying activities of government would be so prosperous there's no reason to imagine you couldn't afford a little security insurance.

[Argus]

You would still be covered, probably through voluntary charity, either on the part of a security firm or by someone buying you a policy. But a society without the monstrous wealth destroying activities of government would be so prosperous there's no reason to imagine you couldn't afford a little security insurance.

What you can buy depends on what it costs the security agency to provide that service. I would imagine many would be able to afford having a security service protect them from burglars or muggers, say, maybe even a street gang. But what kind of cost would it take to protect you from a large corporation in a world without government or regulations? The fee would be enormous. You could never afford it.

By way of comparison, many insurance policies in the United States now have fee limits. Once you pass the limit, as in, say, your continuing cancer coverage, they stop paying. There have been people who have used up all the money in fees before their cancer treatments were even finished, and they thereafter weren't able to continue with their treatments because the insurance companies walked away.

[CitizenX]

You would still be covered, probably through voluntary charity, either on the part of a security firm or by someone buying you a policy. But a society without the monstrous wealth destroying activities of government would be so prosperous there's no reason to imagine you couldn't afford a little security insurance.

I'm sorry but that is no answer. What you are really saying is Justice is only for those that can afford it. And if your rich enough you can get away with murder.

Government was created to protect the poor and less powerful.

Edited September 17, 2011 by CitizenX

[Guest Derek L]

You would still be covered, probably through voluntary charity, either on the part of a security firm or by someone buying you a policy. But a society without the monstrous wealth destroying activities of government would be so prosperous there's no reason to imagine you couldn't afford a little security insurance.

The Magnificent Seven?

[Guest Derek L]

I'm sorry but that is no answer. What you are really saying is Justice is only for those that can afford it. And if your rich enough you can get away with murder.

Government was created to protect the poor and less powerful.

Don't worry:

Bust a deal and face the wheel

[Zachary Young]

Government was created to exploit the poor. It was created through conquest, not out of benevolence. You must really be wearing some rose coloured glasses if you imagine government is about helping the poor. Oh, it is justified on 'helping the poor' but politicians and bureaucrats are just like anyone else - working for their own self interest. Of course there is nothing wrong with self interest, except when it's combined with the power of coercive taxation.

The system I am describing would be far more just - for the poor and everyone else - than our current system. A market in food doesn't mean only the rich can eat. The poor eat very well in our current society. What it means is market competition will work for the benefit of all people.

[Zachary Young]

Corporations are no threat to anyone. They exist entirely in the spectrum of voluntarism. What exactly are you afraid a big bad scary boogieman corporation is going to do to you? Sell you a service or employ you gainfully? The real danger is government. Government that can take away from you everything you have. Government that can steal your income, appropriate your land, dictate to you how you should live. Anyone who doesn't like a corporation is free not to deal with it. Can't say the same about a government.

[CitizenX]

I've got to go now. someone else can take on this young idealist anarchist. Good battle Zachary

[Zachary Young]

Great talking with you too, and thanks for listening

[Guest Derek L]

Corporations are no threat to anyone. They exist entirely in the spectrum of voluntarism. What exactly are you afraid a big bad scary boogieman corporation is going to do to you? Sell you a service or employ you gainfully? The real danger is government. Government that can take away from you everything you have. Government that can steal your income, appropriate your land, dictate to you how you should live. Anyone who doesn't like a corporation is free not to deal with it. Can't say the same about a government.

Unless the corporation(s) control a monopoly……who under your plan prevents monopolies from forming? Another corporation?

[Zachary Young]

Don't need one. Market competition, or the threat of market competition developing, prevent a harmful monopoly from being established. Anti-trust is actually profoundly anti-competitive. The reason why anti-trust legislation was established in the states (if you read the congressional records of the time you see this) was because established business interests didn't want to compete with these upstart trusts. Prices were rapidly falling, and instead of competing on the free market established business interests decided it would be easier to lobby washington to shut down their competition. It is possible a firm could grow to establish dominant market share, by out competiting their competition on price & quality, but that's hardly a bad thing.

[Zachary Young]

The real monopolist is the government. They monopolize education, health care, roads, justice, regulation, defence etc. What do you propose we do about THOSE monopolies? They are very harmful, both in terms of cost and in terms of service.

[Guest Derek L]

Don't need one. Market competition, or the threat of market competition developing, prevent a harmful monopoly from being established. Anti-trust is actually profoundly anti-competitive. The reason why anti-trust legislation was established in the states (if you read the congressional records of the time you see this) was because established business interests didn't want to compete with these upstart trusts. Prices were rapidly falling, and instead of competing on the free market established business interests decided it would be easier to lobby washington to shut down their competition. It is possible a firm could grow to establish dominant market share, by out competiting their competition on price & quality, but that's hardly a bad thing.

How do you ensure this doesn’t happen in your new system? You know, the one with private police forces?