"whi I Murdered 13 American Soldiers At Ft. Hood"

[Vitamin]

I suppose courts would be one route.

Courts in anarchy. This does not compute. Who pays for the courts? How does the court enforce its rulings through nonviolence?

[Nihil Obstat]

There have in fact been historical examples of voluntary courts. It is a fascinating topic. If I had several years to spare I would want to study it in enormous detail.

[Winchester]

Courts in anarchy. This does not compute. Who pays for the courts? How does the court enforce its rulings through nonviolence?

It doesn't compute because what you mean by "anarchy" is not what anarchists of the libertarian, socialist, communist, capitalist, and so on, mean by anarchy. 

 

"Nonviolence" isn't a requirement for libertarian anarchists.

 

The current system doesn't have any magical powers. Court orders are paper. People can choose to resist them, it's just that there are consequences people would rather avoid. Do you think that this would disappear if there were no monopoly power claiming a right to legalized aggression?

[CrossCuT]

The words I say have special meanings that only I know of.

 

That is literally the #1 PM fallback.

 

[CrossCuT]

.

Edited April 29, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Vitamin]

There have in fact been historical examples of voluntary courts. It is a fascinating topic. If I had several years to spare I would want to study it in enormous detail.

You have the right to leave whenever you want.
Anything you say will be used against you, but only with your permission.
You have the right to an attorney, or you could just refuse to acknowledge we have authority.
We politely ask you to submit to us anyway. Thank you. Edited April 29, 2014 by Vitamin

[Vitamin]

It doesn't compute because what you mean by "anarchy" is not what anarchists of the libertarian, socialist, communist, capitalist, and so on, mean by anarchy.

"Nonviolence" isn't a requirement for libertarian anarchists.

The current system doesn't have any magical powers. Court orders are paper. People can choose to resist them, it's just that there are consequences people would rather avoid. Do you think that this would disappear if there were no monopoly power claiming a right to legalized aggression?

So basically mob violence and kangaroo courts that can contradict each other then?

[Winchester]

So basically mob violence and kangaroo courts that can contradict each other then?

False choice.

[Vitamin]

False choice.

Then what will ensure justice then?

[Winchester]

Then what will ensure justice then?

You think justice is ensured now?

 

Do you read any news, at all?

 

 

The criminal justice system we have doesn't really attempt justice. It merely punishes. There is no attempt to make the victims whole. So even if the system were capable of ensuring punishment, it till wouldn't be concerned with justice.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Winchester

[Vitamin]

You think justice is ensured now?

Do you read any news, at all?

Dodging questions using semantics now are we?

Edit: Try telling a parent thaty they have no reason to care if their child's killer doesn't have to accept any punishment because they'll never be whole again.

Justice has never been about "making people whole again". Its about accountability at minimum. Edited April 29, 2014 by Vitamin

[Winchester]

Dodging questions using semantics now are we?

 

Nope.

[Nihil Obstat]

What a stupid debate. I should have known better.

[Vitamin]

What a stupid debate. I should have known better.

I actually quoted Winchester before he clairifed his stance. Still waiting for a response to my edit. Edited April 29, 2014 by Vitamin

[Winchester]

I actually quoted Winchester before he clairifed his stance. Still waiting for a response to my edit.

Wasn't a clarification. It was merely additional information to make sure no one thought I was under the delusion that the current system is interested in justice. The fact that the penal system regularly fails is still my point.