How do you balance prevention with reaction in a free society?

by gwho on June 25th, 2013

So consider people who are incorrigibly hell-bent on crimes and let's say they also have no remorse for the sake of argument. You know they will harm someone; it's just a matter of time.

In that case, do you wait for something bad to happen, knowing there is a high probability that someone will get hurt because of him?

Technology might bring about some tools, but philosophically and immediately, how do you deal with this?

Prevention is the justification that many statists have. And frankly, I can't rebuttal the grounds, although I completely disagree that a government should be given power in light of that grounds.

This goes back to the other question of nonaggression principle, being applied fully on a criminal. Self defense is obviously allowed under the NAP.

But I feel the NAP and waiting for technological solutions doesn't address the core pragmatic and philosophical problem posed here.

 Filed under: Law, Crime, Courts, Police & Prisons, preventative, prevent, Prevention, balance, incident, reaction, crime


Quinton: This is a very good question.
Tue, 06/25/2013 - 23:03

This is a very good question. My business partner and I were talking about exactly this the other day.

So I think if we take it outside of just the NAP and move into whether or not somebody is imposing on another person's free will we may be able to make more progress.

For example, if somebody is planning to kill you, and you know it, you are probably going to live your life differently. At this point, even though they are not using violence on you, you are living differently than you would if they weren't planning to kill you. You may be purchasing firearms, installing alarms in certain places and changing the hours which you normally do certain tasks. All this is to prevent a possible murder from happening on yourself.

So at this point, even though no violence is being used, there is a level of influence that is being used against your free will in a negative way. So in a way they are using force, but not physically obviously.

In scenarios like this I almost think it would be up to you to prove to a court that they are in fact planning to do that. Since courts would be private and the people would probably be fairly clever at detecting stuff like this they would work out whether or not this individual or group is planning this type of thing. If they find them to be guilty they would assign them whatever type of repercussions they rule. And then the person found guilty would have to make this right or face the societal consequences. (this brings up another question... can you bring people to court over victimless crimes?)

This is obviously just one way to look at it and there are most certainly some problems with it.

Another option is to completely ignore it. Perhaps it may be better to take the view that victimless crimes are no crimes at all. Until somebody is injured and aggression is used it may be best to stay out of the situation. In the case of somebody speeding or driving drunk, if nobody is injured it doesn't matter. But we also know that the driver is more likely to injure somebody if they are speeding or driving drunk. It's a tough question.

What are your thoughts?

Luke: Just report them to your Assurance Co.
Fri, 06/28/2013 - 01:31

I'd send a quick email to my Assurance company (This is a free society, right?) and they'll probably make a stop by the dangerous man's house with a warning or something.

You must be logged in to comment

Site Statistics