kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/10/86)
From: ~joe testa~ <TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
... libertarians believe that one of the functions of government
should be to prevent people from infringing on other people's
rights.
Not simply ONE of the functions, but the ONLY function.
Well, to do this, a government has to provide some sort of
judicial system, since not all members of the society will
voluntarily respect each others rights.
True.
This is bound to make (at least part of) the world a better place.
Well, yes. What I was objecting to was the idea that by
redistributing wealth among people convicted of no crimes the
world becomes a better place.
Then there is the question of how one manages to establish this
judicial system. It will take money. But, you object to taxation
as "robbery".
I object to INVOLUNTARY taxation.
Certainly the concept of "user's fees" cannot apply here, ...
Certainly it can. Convicted criminals can be fined. The losing
side or both sides in civil trials can be billed for court costs.
Retail companies can start a fund to pay for special prosecutors,
just as they now have a fund to place those anti-shoplifiting ads.
An enforcement tax can be placed on all contracts. It would be
perfectly ok to make contracts without paying the tax, but if you
do so you cannot sue if the contract is violated except by paying
court costs.
justice should be available to everyone, not just those with
money.
Is it now? There ARE volunteer attorneys for the impoverished
accused. Many attorneys will take civil cases on a contingency basis.
The court appointed attorneys for indigent defendants are worse than
useless, in my experience.
Is it not reasonable that, in exchange for a justice
system designed to protect everyone, that some form of taxation be
used to support it?
To protect everyone's rights, it is necessary to violate everyone's
rights? No, it is not reasonable.
...Keith
-------testa-j%osu-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA (08/10/86)
From Keith Lynch: > [from me earlier:] > Certainly the concept of "user's fees" cannot apply here [to the > judicial system],... > > Certainly it can. Convicted criminals can be fined. The losing >side or both sides in civil trials can be billed for court costs. >Retail companies can start a fund to pay for special prosecutors, >just as they now have a fund to place those anti-shoplifiting ads. > An enforcement tax can be placed on all contracts. It would be >perfectly ok to make contracts without paying the tax, but if you >do so you cannot sue if the contract is violated except by paying >court costs. That's fine in certain cases, but can it always be applied? Say the cost of conducting a murder case (salaries of attorneys and judges, cost for maintaining a courtroom, etc.) is $XXXXX. Now say a defendant is found guilty and so is liable for these expenses. What if he/she has nowhere near this amount of money? Does this mean that, since the government knows before the trial that the accused will not have enough money to pay for the trial if found guilty, that the person cannot have a trial? Or does it mean that the convicted person will somehow have to "work-off" the debt? I thought we got rid of debtor's prisons a long time ago. Anyway, i'm not familiar with the actual costs of a trial, but i can imagine that the cost for a complicated case could easily exceed the amount of money that convict could "earn" for the rest of his/her life. > justice should be available to everyone, not just those with money. > > Is it now? There ARE volunteer attorneys for the impoverished >accused. Many attorneys will take civil cases on a contingency >basis. The court appointed attorneys for indigent defendants are >worse than useless, in my experience. Yes, it is. No matter who you are, or how much money you have, you have a right to a trial by your peers. I said nothing about the quality of representation. I would much rather have the right to a trial, with an idiot for an attorney (i'd rather defend myself), than be denied a trial at all because i didn't have enough money. One could argue that, in analogy to pro bono cases accepted by attorney to act as defense lawyers, judges could also volunteer their time to serve in indigent cases. This is unacceptable, since a judge is NEEDED to hold a trial; if no judges feel generous this month, no trials. However, one does not NEED a defense attorney, so a defendant could still receive a trial. Besides, there are all of those other expenses -- electricity for the court room, for example -- who volunteers to pay for them?? > Is it not reasonable that, in exchange for a justice > system designed to protect everyone, that some form of taxation > be used to support it? > > To protect everyone's rights, it is necessary to violate everyone's >rights? No, it is not reasonable. The reason that most of law is complicated (probably more complicated than it needs to be, of course) is that there are conflicts between laws, and conflicts between rights. Personal rights are not mutually exclusive. I have the right to use a gun. I have the right to not be shot by someone else. So, society (oops -- the government, "representing" its constituency) weighs each of these rights and comes to the conclusion that the right to not be shot outweighs the right to shoot a gun, so it passes laws saying that "you can shoot your gun, but not at other people." I think the same thing applies here. I have the right to keep my money. I also have the right to access to a fair judicial system. Since the harm done by lack of access to justice -- possibly being thrown in jail for life -- outweighs the harm of some of my money being taken away, we must provide first for a judicial system. If the only reasonable way to guarantee equal access to the justice system is by taxation, then that is the way we are forced to do it. -joe testa ------- -------