Why are courts legitimate?  

Why are police who arrest people for smoking a joint considered legitimate?

It’s because society agrees to live under those conditions.  It has nothing to do with elections or anything else for that matter.  I don’t like the term “vigilantism” because of its negative connotations.

Would you consider a man who was robbed, going and collecting is property from the person who stole it, using force if necessary, to be an evil or immoral person?

Because I don’t – and I don’t think the rest of a free society would either.  In that sense, vigilantism is no more chaotic or immoral than ‘legitimate’ police action or court systems.

@font-face {
font-family: “Times New Roman”;
}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }p { margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

you condoned vigilantism for anyone who doesnt abide by private court
rulings. i consider vigilantism to be the greatest threat to a free society.
people would commit violence on personal opinions of what constitutes
“justice.” just look at Islamic nations to see how that works out.

in your pure-restitution system, there will be those who disagree with the
restitution that the victim came to terms with the aggressor. and they will
claim that if retribution was an option, it would have been chosen instead. and
this will motivate people into vigilantism. this would deprive the courts of
their legitimacy, as why would anyone accused of violent crimes agree to a
monetary settlement if they still get killed anyway? and even if they arent
killed, social ostracism would still be in full force, and they will be
deprived of any chance at a meaningful existence going forward.

however, if the victim forgoes retribution for restitution, then this must
be respected by the community as a whole. the victim has made their choice, and
society has no right to override it. and if the victim is willing to give the
guilty party another shot, the community will do the same. of course, people
have every right to avoid associating with anyone guilty of violence. but i
believe most people are more forgiving, provided justice was carried out in the
first place.

i agree with the idea that social ostracism is all thats needed to enforce
private adjudications of dispute. but without retribution as an option, society
will still engage in ostracizing the guilty, even if restitution was already made. only
through the victim forgoing retribution or even forgiving the crime altogether
will the people’s desire for vengeance subside. and vigilantes would be treated
with derision for not accepting that a private dispute was resolved.

like i said in my last comment, i agree that retribution does little to help
the victim. but it must be left to the victims to decide what they seek as
justice. or else something much more violent and destabilizing is invited into
an otherwise peaceful and free society.

in your pure-restitution system, there will be those who disagree with the restitution that the victim came to terms with the aggressor. and they will claim that if retribution was an option, it would have been chosen instead. and this will motivate people into vigilantism. this would deprive the courts of their legitimacy, as why would anyone accused of violent crimes agree to a monetary settlement if they still get killed anyway? and even if they arent killed, social ostracism would still be in full force, and they will be deprived of any chance at a meaningful existence going forward.

however, if the victim forgoes retribution for restitution, then this must be respected by the community as a whole. the victim has made their choice, and society has no right to override it. and if the victim is willing to give the guilty party another shot, the community will do the same. of course, people have every right to avoid associating with anyone guilty of violence. but i believe most people are more forgiving, provided justice was carried out in the first place.

i agree with the idea that social ostracism is all thats needed to enforce private adjudications of dispute. but without retribution as an option, society will still engage in ostracizing the guilty, even if restitution was made. only through the victim forgoing retribution or even forgiving the crime altogether will the people’s desire for vengeance subside. and vigilantes would be treated with derision for not accepting that a private dispute was resolved.

like i said in my last comment, i agree that retribution does little to help the victim. but it must be left to the victims to decide what they seek as justice. or else something much more violent and destabilizing is invited into an otherwise peaceful and free society.

I would argue that no one ever has “the right” to kill anyone else unless it is in response to a direct life threatening situation.

Being convicted in a court does not constitute such a situation.

you also misrepresented Block’s stance. the theory of proportionality is about the MAXIMUM punishment the victim can seek out. i agree with you personally that monetary restitution is more beneficial, but this is a subjective opinion. we have no right to force our values on others. the ultimate decision rests with the victims and their families. if a man’s wife and children were raped and murdered, and the party responsible has been found guilty in the private courts (and all appeals have been exhausted), then the man has the right to seek capital punishment. the idea that “society” has any say in this private matter is absurd.

i also think the idea that the punishment should be “beneficial” to society to also be ridiculous. people have the right to seek retribution TO THE EXTENT that their negative rights were violated by the criminal. i dont see how executing murderers, raping rapists, beating up assaulters, thieves paying back twice the amount they stole, etc. violates NAP. one cannot claim a negative right after already being found guilty of depriving the same right of another.

with that said, i think 99 times out of 100, victims will seek justice in restitution. but those that seek retribution cannot be deprived of that right. retribution should be supported and defended in that it acts as a deterrent in the oft chance the victim seeks it. i think Block’s idea of Russian roulette is an unnecessary impediment in the advocation of libertarian justice. its already an uphill battle as it is. no need to throw additional obstacles in the transition to a stateless society.

Nowadays, why throw away a potentially useful human? Just dissociate from them until you feel they’re rehabilitated. If they’re an immediate threat then, of course, neutralize their ability to threaten you either defensively or offensively. Like you, I am very leary about ceding power to others which can then become a government in form if not in name. Justifying punishment beyond making a victim whole (plus discovery costs) has the potential to make a more angry, violent society.

I posted something a while ago on how BitCoin (or something like it) could be used as a Whuffie-like reputation system (http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/i4g1q/bitcotts/). The ability to discover truth easily (moving in the direction of a transparent society with new technological developments) coupled with the ability to bring effective decentralized corrective efforts to bear would make large-scale anarchy much more conceptually possible.