A Short Defense of Punishment

Legal System, Libertarian Theory, Non-Fiction Reviews, Private Security & Law
By / / 1 Comment / 2 minutes of reading
Share

It is particularly prevalent among libertarians and practitioners of Restorative Justice to favor restitution and reject punishment, or to at least reject retribution (private punishment “owed” to the victim / “just deserts” / “getting even”). I find this brief argument, from Getting Even: Revenge as a Form of Justice by Charles K. B. Barton, p. 93, to be persuasive:

1. Humans are innately social beings who can flourish and achieve their full humanity and potential in terms of moral and spiritual maturity, only in society.

2. A human society is a moral community.

3. A moral community is such that its members are mature, morally responsible individuals who hold one another accountable for wrongs to fellow members and to the common good.

4. To hold persons responsible and accountable for wrongs to fellow members and to the common good is to consider them liable for blame and punishment for such wrongs, independently of functionalist and instrumental considerations, such as expressing disapproval or deterrence—though obviously such considerations are not irrelevant to impositions of punishment.

5. To consider persons liable for blame and punishment for wrongs independently of functionalist and instrumental considerations is morally to accept retribution.

Using this explanation as part of an argument, there are two conclusions which follow:

6. Human individuals can flourish and achieve their full humanity, including moral maturity, only if they morally accept retribution and retributive liability for their wrongful actions.

7. Since individual flourishing and the achievement of one’s full humanity, including moral maturity, are good things worthy of being pursued, retributive punishment within the limits set by the principles of justice is also a morally good thing which may be pursued and, unless contra-indicated by countervailing instrumental and functionalist considerations, or by the appropriateness of mercy and forgiveness, ought to be pursued.

I highly recommend Barton’s book Getting Even. And his book Restorative Justice: The Empowerment Model is likewise excellent.

For a more comprehensive discussion about the key role that mediation must play in any legal system that aims to achieve justice, see my working paper A Call for Mediation Casebooks.

A Short Defense of Punishment Read Post »

Thrifty, Principled Republican Plans to Defund NPR

Taxation, The Right, Vulgar Politics
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

In a bold move that promises to prove the Republicans’ dedication to preserving the First Amendment and fixing up the federal budget, Senator Jim DeMint has introduced a bill to eliminate federal funding for NPR. This is following the great controversy over NPR’s decision to fire Juan Williams, who made some commentary on Muslims and air travel that his bosses at NPR didn’t quite like.

DeMint, I’m sure, of course has a heroic record of free speech advocacy. I assume, though I have not found evidence at the time of writing this, that he introduced bills and fought vigorously for an end to this ridiculous idea of “free speech zones” which were used during the Bush Administration to stifle free speech. Because, surely, Jim DeMint is all about free speech, and this latest move was not simply motivated by his approval of Williams’ commentary, but rather from a deep philosophical opposition to government restriction of speech.

Some might also think that the $420 million that defunding NPR (and PBS) would save is a bit on the paltry side as far as budget cuts go, given that federal spending for FY2010 was officially about $3.5 trillion, or, to use like-terms, $3,500,000 million. But hey, that’s something, right? And, after all, if you exclude Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt, all the other “mandatory” spending, and everything to do with the military, is there really that much else to cut?

So good on you, Jim DeMint. Keep up the good work.

Not labeled: The 0.00012% of the budget that NPR represents

Thrifty, Principled Republican Plans to Defund NPR Read Post »

Benefactors and bad philosophy

The Left
By / / 5 minutes of reading
Share

There’s a reason I don’t often turn to Slate: Jacob Weisberg. Too often he approaches a great idea only to turn from it in revulsion.

Take his current profile of Peter Thiel. “Having given up hope for American democracy, [Thiel] writes that he has decided to focus ‘my efforts on new technologies that may create a new space for freedom.’ Both his entrepreneurship and his philanthropy have been animated by techno-utopianism. In founding PayPal, which made his first fortune when he sold it to eBay for $1.5 billion in 2002, Thiel sought to create a global currency beyond the reach of taxation or central bank policy. He likewise sees Facebook as a way to form voluntary supra-national communities.” Thiel’s current project, which Weisberg calls his “worst yet,” is a plan to pay “would-be entrepreneurs under 20 $100,000 in cash to drop out of school. In announcing the program, Thiel made clear his contempt for American universities which, like governments, he believes, cost more than they’re worth and hinder what really matters in life, namely starting tech companies. His scholarships are meant as an escape hatch from these insufficiently capitalist institutions of higher learning.”

Weisberg’s view of the world is par for the course from a Yale grad, so narrow …

Benefactors and bad philosophyRead More »

Benefactors and bad philosophy Read Post »

Article: Healthcare Is Not a Human Right

Articles, Health Care, Libertarian Theory
By / / 8 Comments / 1 minute of reading
Share

Of all the arguments favoring the coordination and control of the healthcare industry by the central planning agency of the state, the healthcare-is-a-human-right argument seems to be the most convincing one, even to those who may favor a free market approach to the problem of coordination of scarce health resources. How can we as a society possibly deny healthcare to someone in need? Shouldn’t the state assume that task?

Gabriel E. Vidal is the chief operating officer of a hospital system in the United States. He has a BA in politics, philosophy, and economics and an MBA in finance.

Read the Full Article by Gabriel E. Vidal

Afterwards, discuss it below.

Article: Healthcare Is Not a Human Right Read Post »

Scroll to Top