A judiciary system as a public service
I followed up argument that commonly understood and maintained system of property rights for a society is a public good for that society, facilitating security, production and trade. Following up, I argued that the gains from this system are not well realized when private individuals or their employees are the security forces maintaining the system, because too much labor is diverted from production or pleasure, and/or those with little income or wealth are left out.
So presuming our society is mutually funding a security force to maintain property rights, what then? What should be done with those found out as they violate the property rights system by trying to take for themselves what belongs to another, or to the whole community?
Should they be stopped and let go? I can certainly think of worse options.
But if not, what then? Assume that this violation of property rights was what and who they are, and have the security force kill them? I worry when I hear people talk casually of "criminals" or "real criminals." I have stolen, and I have got better. And I will jaywalk periodically as long as I can walk. Should I be killed?
Well, I suppose I could be warned and publicly branded as a risk, by having a hand cut off.
Oddly, I'm not enthusiastic about that, either. I don't see closing off lawful options to those who've been accused of offending as socially useful.
And there's the question of trusting the publicly funded monitors of property rights. They are hired to serve the whole public, true. But they might be more interested in serving themselves, or they might simply be imperfect observers. I certainly am, despite my best and most honest efforts.
I don't want Judge Dredds.
That calls for judges.
--
So a socially recognized and maintained system of property rights reduces the waste of private concealment and defense of property, allowing more time for production and for pleasure, and facilitates trade, which is mutually beneficial and extends the opportunities of individuals, households, and communities. It is a public good.
And if we are to include all a society's people-- whether out of our ethics or from a desire to make their talents and consumer desires of every person socially available-- then we need enforcement of the property rights system to be universal, and that occurs most efficiently if law enforcement is funded by all society, on behalf of all society. (Yes, we fail, out of both systemic racism and classicism, and individual self-interest. But privately hired security forces are very unlikely to do better.)
I argued two days ago that Judge-Dredd-style law enforcement is inferior to the provision of some justice sytem to act as a monitor of law enforcement and a check on the power of law enforcement.
Do we want a judicial system run on a commercial basis?* "All the justice you can buy" is a catch phrase for corruption, because it works out so inequitably.
If we are sure that the only people whose ideas and talents and labor have social value have substantial wealth and/or substantial incomes, then a judiciary hired by them as a consortum might work out fine.
But that's not something I'd want to premise.
* Lois McMaster Bujold's SF world Jackson's Hole operates that way-- insofar as she depicts it-- operates on that basis, with about the results you'd expect.
Facebook posts incorporated:
Cops are not enough: We need a judicial system
Argument against privately hired judiciary
So presuming our society is mutually funding a security force to maintain property rights, what then? What should be done with those found out as they violate the property rights system by trying to take for themselves what belongs to another, or to the whole community?
Should they be stopped and let go? I can certainly think of worse options.
But if not, what then? Assume that this violation of property rights was what and who they are, and have the security force kill them? I worry when I hear people talk casually of "criminals" or "real criminals." I have stolen, and I have got better. And I will jaywalk periodically as long as I can walk. Should I be killed?
Well, I suppose I could be warned and publicly branded as a risk, by having a hand cut off.
Oddly, I'm not enthusiastic about that, either. I don't see closing off lawful options to those who've been accused of offending as socially useful.
And there's the question of trusting the publicly funded monitors of property rights. They are hired to serve the whole public, true. But they might be more interested in serving themselves, or they might simply be imperfect observers. I certainly am, despite my best and most honest efforts.
I don't want Judge Dredds.
That calls for judges.
--
So a socially recognized and maintained system of property rights reduces the waste of private concealment and defense of property, allowing more time for production and for pleasure, and facilitates trade, which is mutually beneficial and extends the opportunities of individuals, households, and communities. It is a public good.
And if we are to include all a society's people-- whether out of our ethics or from a desire to make their talents and consumer desires of every person socially available-- then we need enforcement of the property rights system to be universal, and that occurs most efficiently if law enforcement is funded by all society, on behalf of all society. (Yes, we fail, out of both systemic racism and classicism, and individual self-interest. But privately hired security forces are very unlikely to do better.)
I argued two days ago that Judge-Dredd-style law enforcement is inferior to the provision of some justice sytem to act as a monitor of law enforcement and a check on the power of law enforcement.
Do we want a judicial system run on a commercial basis?* "All the justice you can buy" is a catch phrase for corruption, because it works out so inequitably.
If we are sure that the only people whose ideas and talents and labor have social value have substantial wealth and/or substantial incomes, then a judiciary hired by them as a consortum might work out fine.
But that's not something I'd want to premise.
* Lois McMaster Bujold's SF world Jackson's Hole operates that way-- insofar as she depicts it-- operates on that basis, with about the results you'd expect.
Facebook posts incorporated:
Cops are not enough: We need a judicial system
Argument against privately hired judiciary