"completely unknown solution"

I wouldn't say it is completely unknown. I think I can talk about certain attributes of it without being able to express it precisely.

I wouldn't say I "pop the champagne" over anything except my realization that the current "solutions" are completely unacceptable and that my "cocktail napkin" of a solution is already looking much better.

I guess I will continue at it.

"There is only two ways to do a proof: the wrong way and the right way."

Do you sustain the scientific method? How do you think society proves out hypotheses regarding working social systems? I wouldn't be quite so eager to overlook the thousands of years of history as you are solely because it doesn't appeal to you. The Founders examined dozens of societal governments before coming up with their own plan.

"I don't think you understand how radically different my vision is from the current situation."

I understand more than you may think. I'm an engineer. I look for how to take something from an idea on a cocktail napkin through to fruition. I'm just looking at your "plan" and coming up with more questions. That much of your answers rely on the promise of some hypothetical but completely unknown solution...

Go ahead and pat yourself on the back if you want. Most of us wait until the ship reaches orbit but if you want to pop the champagne over a cocktail napkin, I'm not going to stop you.

Have you paid attention to any of the "scientific" consensus about "global warming"? How about that the planet can't sustain the population? How about Keynesian monetary theory? How about COVID?

"All you have to do is ensure failure in cases of incorrect logic."

When you have less-than-all-knowing people critiquing other less-than-all-knowing people, you're bound to get error. There's no way to avoid it.

You have hypotheticalized a world of Vulcans where everyone is logical. When you find it, you can test out all of your theories. But it doesn't exist in THIS world.

"Certain cases basically make law, such as with judge rulings regarding..."

Yeah. That's why they call it case law. It's a judge trying to apply principles to the circumstances of the case... (Just exactly what I said.)

Reply to wrong thread. Please accept my apologies.

There is a major problem with your assertion and I think I can explain it in terms even you will understand.

Let's go back to basic economics. Money is valuable as a means of trade between two willing participants, right? Both decide on a service or value in terms of a mutually-agreeable "price" in a common currency. But what is key is that both are willing and either can walk away from the exchange at any time.

Not so with a crime. One of the parties is coerced into a "transaction" they did not feel was an equitable one. (Most of the time, they aren't even asked.) For example, if someone breaks into your house, steals your stuff, and rapes your wife, did you - or your wife - agree to any of that? Of course not. And if you were asked you would have flat out refused - even if offered millions of dollars.

Do you begin to see why your ideas of simplifying things into economic terms utterly fails? Crimes are crimes against will itself - against personal volition and the ability of a conscious being to determine their own path in life. To argue that any of that can be supplanted by money is to deny the intrinsic value of free will.

"I don't accept it as being axiomatic or following from any acceptable line of reasoning."

If you eschew common logic and reasoning and rely on your own biases, that's when productive conversation ends. The universe IS and that isn't subjective to someone's preferred viewpoint.

"Presumably, someone is rich because society owes them."

Don't assume. It just makes you the first three letters.

Debt isn't wealth. People aren't rich because people owe them, they are (ethically) rich because they have provided valuable goods and services which people paid them for.

"This situation might exist."

Those who choose to rely on hypotheticals in spite of reality get what is coming to them.

"Let's not look the case where it is premeditated murder because it is more complicated. Let's first look at the case where it was an accident..."

Those aren't the same crime. They aren't comparable. They don't equate.

"One of my propositions is that you can always place a price on someone's life."

You do realize that slavery is based on that exact same premise, right?

I will have a bit of an issue with your request because I would consider any plan to be eternally work in progress.

Well the plan is to have a voluntaryists / anarcho-capitalist society at the very least.

I guess I'm going to need to do more then.

"what planet are you on??"

Exactly the question I find myself asking sometimes.

I think if you follow the thread up, you will see that we were talking about an alternative justice system that would be more 'logical' from my point of view.

"Let me know when you get your definitions in order."

I'm guessing you are referring to my questionable use of the word "murder".

Ok fine, let me fix that for you:

"Also, the first killing has already happened. There is nothing we can do about it. What we can control is the future, and we should not waste it by arranging a second killing. "

"rich can get away with anything"

I do realize this consequence of my logic. However, I think it is valid. At least, I could not find anything wrong with it so far. If you can help me find a problem with my reasoning, please do so. However, please don't use assertions like "penalties for crimes have to extend beyond the monetary" because I don't accept it as being axiomatic or following from any acceptable line of reasoning.

Presumably, someone is rich because society owes them. Society might owe them so much that it would equal to the same amount someone's life might be worth (to them, plus everyone else who is involved (family, business associates, etc)).

I mean, think about this. This situation might exist. It is unlikely in a perfect world where we stop all predation. Mostly nobody would be that rich, but I guess some would be.

One of my propositions is that you can always place a price on someone's life. The reason for this is that there is indeed a monetary value you can attach to every hour of your life. People give up hours of their life to work, do they not? Why are they doing that? Clearly, there is a monetary amount for which they are willing to spend away their life.

Let's not look the case where it is premeditated murder because it is more complicated. Let's first look at the case where it was an accident (rich guy accidentally kills someone). I think it would make sense that the rich guy pay everyone off that suffered, including the victim (via next of kin). If everyone is compensated, I don't see why we need to cause more damage to the rich guy by incarcerating him (or even killing him). This would create more societal damage than was initially done by the accident. The rich guy would be much less rich, so, it is not like he is getting off easy.

Would you at least agree with the logic for the above case?

"You seem to think that money can act as sufficient repayment for any crime."

I wouldn't say "crime", I would say "damage".

Also, I would say there is no crime if there is no damage. If there is no damage there is no crime. I would say that with a word of caution because now you will be taking this out of context and applying it to the wrong things. But please understand, I mean it in a very specific way.

So, if damage was done, of course it can be undone with repayment. It doesn't necessarily have to be monetary. Money is just a medium of exchange.

"Then just execute all the criminals."

Who is going to repay the victims then?

"overturn a conviction of your peers"

I would do no such thing. Conviction is being proven guilty. I was commenting on what to do with the guilty party AFTER the trial.

My point was that if someone accidentally killed someone else, they should repay the damage but they shouldn't be put in captivity because they are not a danger to society. Accidents happen. Damage needs to be repaid and we need to move on. Any "punishment" wouldn't make sense. It was an accident.

"Freedom is self control." I don't know about this one. Self control to me means having the will to make hard decisions.

Freedom is control of self <- This is probably it, meaning that you control your actions and not somebody else.

I'm a bit unclear about your "action without consequence" point. Not sure what you mean exactly.

A labor camp? You mean like a prison?

"because it may have been an involuntary manslaughter."

So you get to play back-seat judge and overturn a conviction of your peers? Wow. Just... wow. Do you realize what an elitist mindset that is?

"The reason why captivity should be avoided is because it is costly, someone has to pay for it."

Then just execute all the criminals. Problem solved. [/s]

You seem to think that money can act as sufficient repayment for any crime. It is a naive world view. Under such a view, the rich can get away with anything because they can pay for it. "Hey, that business associate knows too much about my dealings with the mob. I'll just have him whacked and if they catch me I'll pay a couple million to the family." There is a reason why the penalties for crimes have to extend beyond the monetary.

"Also, the first murder has already happened... we should not waste it by arranging a second murder."

Let me know when you get your definitions in order. Oh, wait. You've already demonstrated repeatedly that isn't going to happen.

"I guess I might be delusional..."

For someone who has done so little to understand the topic... Yes.

Again, you're not adding anything. No solutions, just objections. When you come up with a plan you've thought out all the way then come back and we can discuss.

???
hey skippy
are you saying police do not lie??
or that DNA alone is proof of guilt?

not sure of your point

labor camp?
repay?

what planet are you on??
must not have any "liberals" on it

Was that a reply to me or to mhubb?

Not if he is in a labor camp working hard to pay back the debt.

I guess if the murderer goes through rehab and 'society' decides that he is sincere, he may not need to be in captivity but he would still be required to work hard to pay back the debt.

Sometimes, captivity/rehab is not necessary because it may have been an involuntary manslaughter. In that case he would still be working hard to pay back the debt.

The reason why captivity should be avoided is because it is costly, someone has to pay for it. It should not be tax payers but the perpetrator. However, that will interfere with his efforts to pay back the debt, so, we should try to not have that expense.

The debt is not some silly 'time' in the 'slammer' owed to some abstract notion of 'society.' It is actual monetary units to some actual victims.

Also, the first murder has already happened. There is nothing we can do about it. What we can control is the future, and we should not waste it by arranging a second murder.

So then I guess we should permit predatory statism so long as it protects us from ourselves and other predatory states. /s