If they are guilty, they shouldn't complain about "indentured servitude"; they shouldn't have committed their violation of rights of a fellow man, and brought it on themselves.

This assumes the slavery exception for criminality in the XIII Amendment of the U.S. Constitution would be adopted by an Objectivist society. Hopefully, IMHO it would be, but it doesn't have to be in a society adamantly opposed to slavery in any form for any reason.

Interesting read. Thanks.

Slavery,according to the 13 Amendment is prohibited "except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". Because he (supposedly) did something to deserve it. The same should apply to indentured servitude (temporary slavery).

What do you mean? There is proper punishment for initiating force. First, a trial, to see if the person is guilty or not (and if not, he must be set free);if guilty, he is to be given appropriate punishment, depending on the nature of the crime (which could be jail, prison, penal servitude, payment of a fine),and possibly making restitution to the victim; and if absolute proof is possible, in some cases, death. (Although I having been turning away from the death penalty because there have been too many mistaken convictions; there was a case in
Virginia of a man spending 34 years in prison for a rape he never even did).
In fact, for rape, I would advocate something rather worse than death; that is, a certain type of amputatory surgery. But my problem with that is the same as my problem with the death penalty; it is irreversible in the case of a mistake, and there have been too many mistaken convictions.

Unfortunately when those who would live free and objectively are hopelessly outnumbered by those who choose slavery the ones who are exiled are the freemen. In an objective society police and courts would offer control of those who initiate violence, seek to restore if possible the loss (as in return the stolen car) and prevention (exile) of future acts of terrorism.
I heard of one method that I thought fair and offering redemption, the criminal could remain on probation as long as he worked toward restoring the damage he had done, if he chose to quit or fail then exile (prison) would be the consequence not the first alternative.

I can see thats what they are wanting. The think I dont understand is how can they want that, given THEY are also going to be destroyed in the process.

Try to imagine they are an enemy that wants America, the Enlightenment and all of Western civilization destroyed.

I find it difficult to understand why the liberals want open borders here to sap up our resources and wealth. Sounds stupid to me. Why wouldnt they want to pick and choose among the immigrants and pick the best ones?

Its almost as if they WANT to drain our wealth and give it to the poor ravaged refugees, thinking that the producers here will just build up the reserves again. They are wrong about that. The producers have pretty much had it with the wealth redistribution. One reason Trump got elected.

Reparations if that is possible, otherwise exile.

We just need to pick one with open borders, then the march can begin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islas_M...

I know! SNAKE ISLAND! We can put them all on Snake Island! it's off the coast of Brazil! it's full of nasty snakes! hahaha. (this is an honest joke, fun, evil thought... sorry! But it came to my brain as I was about to exit my window!)

I think we had that: it was called Australia! And in some cases America! :) and various other places around the world... French Guiana is another... Some worked out in the positive, some didn't. I guess depends on how you look at things.

being the french would send people away for not paying taxes... There really is some idea of removing that bad ones from society. I know they aren't Objectivist, but i'm just using them as a known example of sending criminals away to an island. Most of those people were never allowed back into society... some tried to prove innocent or get parole to return to France, but were unsuccessful. When the French Empire collapsed, they were just abandoned there. A lot of those men died of tropical diseases (malaria, etc).

I am a strong believer in due process, and evidence supporting the crime (true evidence!). I guess i'm trying to rationalize pulling bad, dangerous criminals out of society... I am for punishment that fits the crime, but there is also un-necessary suffering on all humanity if it doesn't.

I was going to add something else, but it has escaped my mind... and I should probably get back to work :)

That's what prison effectively is: exile from the main body of civilization pending reformation. Many nations or territories (including Australia, Georgia, and Florida) were started as penal colonies where the "riff-raff" of society were sent in punishment for their crimes.

I wholly support exile. If a person is unwilling to live the laws of society, they should find a different place to live with values they are willing to live by.

Who pays for it? Taxation. I reject the idea that any system of government can effectively exist without some taxation. Government does have a critical role to play but it is an extremely limited one when implemented properly. The problem is that few people who actually work in government appreciate the fact that they should be working to put themselves OUT of a job - not increase it!

Exile is great. The problem todday is where to send them if they are incorrigible.

For more normal offenses, there is restitution to the victims. If they cannot pay through their everyday jobs or savings, they have to work at forced labor until they can pay back what they owe.

First, I want it to be clear I did not down vote any of your posts. I wish whoever did would state why!

I understood what you meant by an island, but my thoughts and objections to a desolate island is that venue could clearly become a death penalty, which may not be warranted for the crime committed. Not all crimes are heinous. Some are just plain stupid and shouldn't become a sentence of living in total misery or death.

"Maybe I should start over." Yes, it would be nice to abandon the semantic game and engage in some plain speaking. The questions you pose that began this thread are good ones. They are rather difficult to answer and I do not have all the answers and my reference to Kublai Khan offered a solution that is clearly non-Objectivist in spite of the Khan's brag that it seemed to cut down on the crime rate within his empire.

"Some crimes like theft can be repaid..." Agreed, but what if the thief refuses to cover the loss? Slavery or indentured servitude are not objectivist positions, but what if restitution can only be achieved by some kind of force?

"some crimes are so heinous..." Agreed. So, should (or could) an objectivist society have a death penalty? IMHO, yes, under very special circumstances. Without research I'm going to assume your statement "Ayn Rand herself said that there is no way to always guarantee the guilt of criminal..." is true. Meaning, on a case by case basis, there are times when guilt can be guaranteed and other times it can not. On those times when guilt can not be guaranteed, there can not be a death penalty.

"So why not buy an island..." In a sense, prisons are islands where the inmates are, for most practical purposes, exiled from society. The question is who "buys" the island (or prison) and who makes sure there are enough resources to cover the survival of the residents (inmates) and make sure they don't get loose? Should the residents (inmates) be required to be self supporting in some way? Should they be required to make restitution of some kind to their victims?

I suspect dealing with crime in an objectivist society won't be a lot different than what you see in most civilized countries today. I doubt if perfection in dealing with criminals will ever be achieved, but that doesn't mean an effort shouldn't be made to protect the innocent. I would like to see more restitution for victims, but I can't see how that can be easily done in all cases.

You now are apparently are trying to equate "accusation" with "guilt". They are not equivalent.

"So what do we do with the accused molestators that are not confirmed guilty? " Let them go, of course. Confirmation of guilt can only be reached with evidence, not accusations. "Accusations" and "evidence" have different meanings.