Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Wouldn't Rich People Go On Murder Sprees In a System of Private Law?
In the previous post, I relayed some (good) objections from a reader of my pamphlet [.pdf] describing a stateless society. One of the objections went like this (paraphrasing): "In Murphy's vision, 'crimes' are actually codified contractually, and the punishments are typically monetary. So that means rich people could go on killing sprees, and just pay off the families of the victims."
Back in 2002, I wrote an essay for the site Strike-the-Root where I took this objection head on. I think many readers will be surprised at the power of free markets to solve such problems. Remember, the good economist doesn't stop at Step 1; he follows the thought experiment out to its long-run effects.
Without further ado, here is the excerpt from an essay I wrote in 2002:
=============
...This issue has consequences for the stateless society. A typical objection to a private legal system based on restitution rather than retribution, is that rich people could commit crimes with impunity, since they could easily afford the “fines.”
In the first place, this objection overlooks the fact that right now rich people (not to mention politicians) literally get away with murder, through direct bribery or other unsavory mechanisms. At least in market anarchy, the payment would be made in public.
But there is a more sophisticated response to the objection. Let’s take the caricature to the extreme, just to prove a point. Let us suppose that, in a hypothetical anarchist society, the only punishment for murder is a $1,000 fine. What would happen in such a world?
The statist recoils in horror at the thought: Why, Bill Gates could slaughter guests at a cocktail party to reenact his favorite scenes from Clue!
Well, he could, but how many people would go to his next party? Indeed, how many people would deal with him at all after such horrific behavior? People can still condemn the immoral, even in the absence of strict “official” sanctions.
But even these arguments miss the truly intriguing angle. If it’s legal for Bill Gates to kill, then it’s also legal for others to kill Bill Gates. After his homicidal conduct, outraged guests could take up a collection. Once they hit $1,000, they could afford his murder.
Of course, the analysis can’t stop there. Rich people and other public figures would alter their wills to reflect the new circumstances. In the event of their murder, people could establish trust funds to finance revenge upon their killers. Soon enough, people would find that the “official” sanction of $1,000—which is clearly below the level that would be set in an actual private system—would be supplemented with other retaliatory costs. It would be incredibly reckless for anyone, even the rich, to engage in murder sprees.
And what about the pauper, who can’t afford bodyguards or setup trust funds? Well, who wants to kill such a person? Is it really worth $1,000? Keep in mind, we are assuming that every killer is fined, which is different from the present system in which killers serve jail time only in a fraction of the cases. For a simple example, there would be virtually no robbery homicides. It would defeat the purpose to mug someone and shoot him, if the mugger knew he’d be out $1,000 for his crime.
This sort of “economist” talk will surely cause eyes to roll. Skeptics may point out that people commit crimes for all sorts of reasons, and that pecuniary motives do not determine an individual’s conduct. This is true, but in the aggregate, it would certainly make a difference if people knew they’d be fined (however lightly) for every crime. After all, women consider many factors when deciding to have a baby. But surely the welfare state leads to far more births than would otherwise have occurred.
Of course, the commodification of man would do the most good in the arena of politics. If government officials could only be made to feel even a fraction of the human cost of their actions, their worst excesses would be curtailed. Imagine if Harry Truman viewed Japanese civilians, not as his enemy, but as pieces of property. In that case, Hiroshima would never have happened; the residents could have offered a perpetual stream of millions of dollars as ransom on their continued existence.
But no, such a scheme would never have worked. The tender hearted American voters would have vomited at the thought of their fearless leader extorting protection money from helpless women and children. Why, that would be tantamount to slavery! How crass! How inhumane!
So instead Truman nuked them all to smithereens.
Back in 2002, I wrote an essay for the site Strike-the-Root where I took this objection head on. I think many readers will be surprised at the power of free markets to solve such problems. Remember, the good economist doesn't stop at Step 1; he follows the thought experiment out to its long-run effects.
Without further ado, here is the excerpt from an essay I wrote in 2002:
...This issue has consequences for the stateless society. A typical objection to a private legal system based on restitution rather than retribution, is that rich people could commit crimes with impunity, since they could easily afford the “fines.”
In the first place, this objection overlooks the fact that right now rich people (not to mention politicians) literally get away with murder, through direct bribery or other unsavory mechanisms. At least in market anarchy, the payment would be made in public.
But there is a more sophisticated response to the objection. Let’s take the caricature to the extreme, just to prove a point. Let us suppose that, in a hypothetical anarchist society, the only punishment for murder is a $1,000 fine. What would happen in such a world?
The statist recoils in horror at the thought: Why, Bill Gates could slaughter guests at a cocktail party to reenact his favorite scenes from Clue!
Well, he could, but how many people would go to his next party? Indeed, how many people would deal with him at all after such horrific behavior? People can still condemn the immoral, even in the absence of strict “official” sanctions.
But even these arguments miss the truly intriguing angle. If it’s legal for Bill Gates to kill, then it’s also legal for others to kill Bill Gates. After his homicidal conduct, outraged guests could take up a collection. Once they hit $1,000, they could afford his murder.
Of course, the analysis can’t stop there. Rich people and other public figures would alter their wills to reflect the new circumstances. In the event of their murder, people could establish trust funds to finance revenge upon their killers. Soon enough, people would find that the “official” sanction of $1,000—which is clearly below the level that would be set in an actual private system—would be supplemented with other retaliatory costs. It would be incredibly reckless for anyone, even the rich, to engage in murder sprees.
And what about the pauper, who can’t afford bodyguards or setup trust funds? Well, who wants to kill such a person? Is it really worth $1,000? Keep in mind, we are assuming that every killer is fined, which is different from the present system in which killers serve jail time only in a fraction of the cases. For a simple example, there would be virtually no robbery homicides. It would defeat the purpose to mug someone and shoot him, if the mugger knew he’d be out $1,000 for his crime.
This sort of “economist” talk will surely cause eyes to roll. Skeptics may point out that people commit crimes for all sorts of reasons, and that pecuniary motives do not determine an individual’s conduct. This is true, but in the aggregate, it would certainly make a difference if people knew they’d be fined (however lightly) for every crime. After all, women consider many factors when deciding to have a baby. But surely the welfare state leads to far more births than would otherwise have occurred.
Of course, the commodification of man would do the most good in the arena of politics. If government officials could only be made to feel even a fraction of the human cost of their actions, their worst excesses would be curtailed. Imagine if Harry Truman viewed Japanese civilians, not as his enemy, but as pieces of property. In that case, Hiroshima would never have happened; the residents could have offered a perpetual stream of millions of dollars as ransom on their continued existence.
But no, such a scheme would never have worked. The tender hearted American voters would have vomited at the thought of their fearless leader extorting protection money from helpless women and children. Why, that would be tantamount to slavery! How crass! How inhumane!
So instead Truman nuked them all to smithereens.
Comments:
The Blackadder Says:
And what about the pauper, who can’t afford bodyguards or setup trust funds? Well, who wants to kill such a person? Is it really worth $1,000?
In world where you have things like Bumfights, is it really hard to imagine people paying $1,000 to see someone killed (or to do the deed themselves)?
Keep in mind, we are assuming that every killer is fined, which is different from the present system in which killers serve jail time only in a fraction of the cases.
Well no. Everyone who is caught and convicted will be fined. It's not the case that everyone who commits the crime will be fined (presumably if a mugger knew he would be caught he wouldn't rob anybody even if he only bore a slight risk of going to jail).
And what about the pauper, who can’t afford bodyguards or setup trust funds? Well, who wants to kill such a person? Is it really worth $1,000?
In world where you have things like Bumfights, is it really hard to imagine people paying $1,000 to see someone killed (or to do the deed themselves)?
Keep in mind, we are assuming that every killer is fined, which is different from the present system in which killers serve jail time only in a fraction of the cases.
Well no. Everyone who is caught and convicted will be fined. It's not the case that everyone who commits the crime will be fined (presumably if a mugger knew he would be caught he wouldn't rob anybody even if he only bore a slight risk of going to jail).
# posted by 
: August 18, 2009 11:46 AM
: August 18, 2009 11:46 AM
Well, but no jury would award only $1,000 in a wrongful death suit. And, whether or not this were the damage award, there would be other consequences: widespread exclusion, perhaps amounting effectively to confinement; dramatically increased insurance rates; social stigma; and boycotts.
The Blackadder Says:
Out of curiosity, who is going to bring suit on behalf of the homeless drifter guy? My understanding is that under pure libertarian principles only the injured party has the right to seek recompense (e.g. if a battered wife doesn't want to press charges that's the end of it). That might work for things like theft or battery, but it poses some difficult problems for murder. Indeed, at common law there was no such thing as a wrongful death suit. This was only added later by statute on grounds which I'm not sure a pure libertarian would be able to accept.
Out of curiosity, who is going to bring suit on behalf of the homeless drifter guy? My understanding is that under pure libertarian principles only the injured party has the right to seek recompense (e.g. if a battered wife doesn't want to press charges that's the end of it). That might work for things like theft or battery, but it poses some difficult problems for murder. Indeed, at common law there was no such thing as a wrongful death suit. This was only added later by statute on grounds which I'm not sure a pure libertarian would be able to accept.
# posted by : August 18, 2009 12:12 PM
: August 18, 2009 12:12 PM
Blackadder,
Well in the original article I think I said something like, "Let's assume for the sake of argument that every murderer is fined with certainty, but is only slapped with a $1000 penalty. What would happen?"
Yes, even in Rothbard World some criminals would get away with murder. But presumably the likelihood of being caught would be a lot higher, just like the likelihood of your power working in the summer would be a lot higher.
I think the inner city murder rate would drop like a stone if every death meant somebody had to pay $1000. Again, we're not assuming that it's the Roman coliseum; we're taking the same society and changing the penal code.
If people freaked out about Bumfights (and they did, judging from your link) imagine the outcry over snuff films?
The point isn't to say, "Hey this system would yield 0 homicides per year." The point is, "Hey even a system with a very low but certain monetary penalty, would probably yield fewer homicides per year than our current system."
Well in the original article I think I said something like, "Let's assume for the sake of argument that every murderer is fined with certainty, but is only slapped with a $1000 penalty. What would happen?"
Yes, even in Rothbard World some criminals would get away with murder. But presumably the likelihood of being caught would be a lot higher, just like the likelihood of your power working in the summer would be a lot higher.
I think the inner city murder rate would drop like a stone if every death meant somebody had to pay $1000. Again, we're not assuming that it's the Roman coliseum; we're taking the same society and changing the penal code.
If people freaked out about Bumfights (and they did, judging from your link) imagine the outcry over snuff films?
The point isn't to say, "Hey this system would yield 0 homicides per year." The point is, "Hey even a system with a very low but certain monetary penalty, would probably yield fewer homicides per year than our current system."
Blackadder,
As far as who brings suit, let me rephrase the question: Suppose in ancapland somebody dies with no heirs and no will. He has a nice house and $500,000 in the bank. Does that all just sit there?
No, there must be some default rules for estates. And so in the case where a homeless guy gets killed, there must be some default rules over who inherits his estate's right to sue the killer.
As far as who brings suit, let me rephrase the question: Suppose in ancapland somebody dies with no heirs and no will. He has a nice house and $500,000 in the bank. Does that all just sit there?
No, there must be some default rules for estates. And so in the case where a homeless guy gets killed, there must be some default rules over who inherits his estate's right to sue the killer.
The Blackadder Says:
Bob, I think the murder rate in the inner city would drop if you legalized drugs. If you kept drugs illegal but reduced the penalty for murder to a $1000 fine I don't think it would go down.
I'm sure there would be social opprobrium attached to watching people be killed or fight to the death or whatever. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't still happen on the large scale. There was a lot of social opprobrium on whoring back when prostitution was legal, but this didn't prevent there from being a thriving prostitution industry.
Bob, I think the murder rate in the inner city would drop if you legalized drugs. If you kept drugs illegal but reduced the penalty for murder to a $1000 fine I don't think it would go down.
I'm sure there would be social opprobrium attached to watching people be killed or fight to the death or whatever. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't still happen on the large scale. There was a lot of social opprobrium on whoring back when prostitution was legal, but this didn't prevent there from being a thriving prostitution industry.
# posted by : August 18, 2009 5:22 PM
: August 18, 2009 5:22 PM
Blackadder said:
Bob, I think the murder rate in the inner city would drop if you legalized drugs. If you kept drugs illegal but reduced the penalty for murder to a $1000 fine I don't think it would go down.
OK, and now what if you took the current penalty--a 1% chance of doing an average of 7 years behind bars--and turned that into a 95% chance of paying $1000? I bet there would be a lot fewer kids killed in drive-by shootings.
(Obviously I am making those numbers up, but I hope you get the point.)
Bob, I think the murder rate in the inner city would drop if you legalized drugs. If you kept drugs illegal but reduced the penalty for murder to a $1000 fine I don't think it would go down.
OK, and now what if you took the current penalty--a 1% chance of doing an average of 7 years behind bars--and turned that into a 95% chance of paying $1000? I bet there would be a lot fewer kids killed in drive-by shootings.
(Obviously I am making those numbers up, but I hope you get the point.)
Bob, in my view, there is another possible answer. Alas, Blogger limits my reply length and formatting, so I left a comment for you here: “Wouldn’t Rich People Go On Murder Sprees In a System of Private Law?”: Reply to Bob Murphy.
But the basic answer is that restitution is based on the right to punish; using this right to punish, the victim can negotiate a higher damages payment ("restitution") from a richer aggressor than from a poorer one.
More detail at the link above.
Post a Comment
But the basic answer is that restitution is based on the right to punish; using this right to punish, the victim can negotiate a higher damages payment ("restitution") from a richer aggressor than from a poorer one.
More detail at the link above.
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]