Here is Cat Farmer's own reply to the question on

Serial Crime, Collective Rights & Private Law

bkMarcus

Your question is complex, and I see no way around it but address it on multiple levels... sorry to be so long winded.

Question:

Do "we the people" have a collective right to lock up serial arsonists?

What is a right? Is it something inalienable, from a divine or natural source? I think you and I would agree that when an entity like a govenment is in the business of parceling out "rights," said rights are no longer distinguishable from privilege. If "we the people" have a collective right to deprive liberty from any one for any reason, the reasons will multiply, and the liberties will diminish. The arsonist's rights end where another person's begin; arson is foremost a crime against property, and property rights do not appear to be in question here, so I will proceed on that basis. If the arsonist has deprived another of the use of his property, the arsonist would be held directly responsible to the person(s) whose property has been lost for the damages. If he starts a fire that takes a life, he is also a murderer.

"Collectively exercised" rights can only end up in the hands of a few; government or corporate, authoritarian or mafioso. The harder it is to deprive a person of liberty, the safer individuals rights will be; the easier it is to deprive an individual of liberty, the less chance we have of retaining liberty...

What is a prison? Is it subsidized housing (aka welfare), or slavery, or both? Do prisons solve more problems than they create? Why should the productive members of society house and feed the few who would destroy society? If the inmate is a slave, whom does he serve, and to whom does he surrender his liberty? If he is not a slave, and his existence is not being subsidized, what is he, in prison? Will he get out of prison more or less predisposed to continue his arson spree?

I choose this particular crime example because even a well-armed populace can't realistically defend against someone who slinks around in the shadows with gasoline and matches, as we might, say, a serial rapist or robber.

If a well-armed populace can't, who/what can? The better armed the populace is, and the more at liberty a property owner is to defend his life and property under justifiable circumstances, the more risk the arsonist or rapist runs of running afoul of his own predilections.

What is the anarchist alternative to a collectively sanctioned prison system for housing serial arsonists or serial snipers, once they are caught?

So, does an anarchist society let arsonists and murderers run around on the loose? A functional anarchist society would necessarily evolve into voluntary communities; voluntary communities would find various ways of dealing with violent and dangerous people. One community might put him in charge of the local incinerator, where he could burn things to his heart's content, and earn enough to repay the property owner over time. Another might evict him, and he'd find it hard to join another community. A third might put him to work rebuilding the structures he has burned down, with the understanding that a further attempt at arson would be his last.

All I can come up with is good old-fashioned vigilante justice, which, it seems to me, would effectively place the burden of proof on the accused.

And the current government, with secret trials, and a helter-skelter code of law that Charles Manson could be proud of? How is that different from vigilante justice? Just because a "vigilance committee" exists on a federal level, it's somehow OK, and better than having "vigilance committees" emerge on a local level, where locals exert more influence, and it's easier to disengage from a community?

At the heart of the problem here (as I see it) is the practice of tailoring rules to fit the exception. The vast majority of people are not, and never will be, serial arsonists or rapists. Binding the ordinary person to laws which were crafted to accomodate the exception has made the law insane. Should we all have to wear seat belts because the exceptional idiot didn't, and decided to sue Ford when he got into an accident that was most likely his own fault? Should we all tolerate cameras in our bedrooms, because one rapist happened to marry, and rape his wife against her will? Is is possible to pass enough laws to prevent tragdies? Should we all be subject to strip searches at the airport because there's a possibility that any one of us has used an explosive device as a tampon? Either individuals are empowered to act and take the consequences, or "collective rights" will prevail... if we all have a collective right to be safe, none of us has an individual right to not be suspect.


  >^v^<