[eugenekop]

In the modern state the main purpose of punishment is usually considered to be the protection of society and deterrence of future crime.

In a an-cap world, there is no such thing as "society", there is just an individual who was harmed, and has to be restituted. So the purpose of punishment in the an-cap world is only restitution.

So how in the an-cap world can people be protected from a criminal if for instance the victim is not a vengeful person and decides not to demand restitution and not to punish the criminal? How can future crimes be deterred if the criminal was not punished? What if the criminal goes to murder someone else a week after? If only the victim decides about the punishment and restitution, what happens when the victim is not interested? Can we just let a violent aggressor go free?

[Eran]

Let me pose the question back to you.

If the very victim of the crime does not want the criminal punished, by what right does society punish him?

As for protecting against future crime, keep in mind that all habitable land in an anarchy is privately owned. Private property owners, unlike government, need not prohibit only convicted criminals from trespassing. They reserve the right to exclude any person for any reason.

If a criminal is known to have committed a crime, but is not incarcerated because the victim (or his heirs) chose not to press charges, private property owners can still choose (and probably will choose) to exclude the criminal from their property. The effect of protecting society is still achieved, without the need for the victim to press charges.

In practice, such a criminal will probably lose his insurance cover, without which he will not be admitted to civilized society. Whether or not restitution is sought.

[eugenekop]

Okay Eran. I have another set of questions:

Let's say a person is found guilty of robbery by three known arbitrators, yet he refuses to pay damages by relying on some insignificant shady arbitrator. Here are my questions:
1. Will it be fair to call the robber an outlaw as of that moment?
2. Will the victim be justified in forcing the robber to pay?
3. Will a security firm contracted by the victim is justified in forcing the robber to pay?
4. Will another security firm NOT contracted by the victim is justified in forcing the robber to pay?

[Eran]

1. I don't understand the concept of fairness in this context. I think we could agree, given your characterization of the three arbitrators as "known" (and, presumably reputable) and the one arbitrator as "shady" and "insignificant", that the person is probably guilty.
2. Yes, probably. It depends on the legal context. For example, there may be appeal procedures still open to the accused robber.
3. The answer is exactly the same as the previous question. The security firm contracted by the victim has exactly as much rights as the victim himself.
4. No. The right to recover belongs to the victim, and can be transferred contractually. It doesn't belong to strangers.

The right to recover the judgement should be thought of as property. If the victim is dead (say if this was a murder), the right goes to his next of kin. If the victim has no living relatives, the property is unowned and, as such, open to homesteading. In such a case, the first company to "homestead" it (enforce an existing claim, or make a claim if one doesn't exist) could become its just owner.

That's the mechanism that prevents people from arbitrarily shooting homeless people without families.

[eugenekop]

No. The right to recover belongs to the victim, and can be transferred contractually. It doesn't belong to strangers.

I assume that most private security firms will want to catch the robber because their customers will not want to see a robber going free. So I also assume that they ask the victim for the permission to catch the robber. If the victim agrees, can they go after him? Do you think that it would be in their interest to hunt down the robber?

Second of all, I'm having some problem with the uncertainty here. What if it wasn't so clear case as the one I presented? I'd like to understand when will the victim be justified in pursuing the robber. That's an easy thing to answer in a state where there is only one court, but its not easy to answer in anarchy especially with conflicting opinions. Don't you think this uncertainty is harmful? Do you think that maybe a law will be connected to land in order to mitigate this uncertainty? For example the owners of the neighborhood may require only specific arbitrator companies to rule in their land. This will reduce the risk of people being in conflict about choosing the arbitrator in that territory.

[Eran]

I expect a standard contract between an insurance company and its customers will state, effectively, that the insurance company will pay the victim compensation for his damage due to a crime, in return for which the victim will transfer all his recovery rights to the insurance company.

That's a little like auto insurance companies that compensate you for a total loss of your car (either due to an accident or theft). In return, the insurance company obtains title to the vehicle (its remains or in the event that it is eventually recovered).

Don't you think this uncertainty is harmful? Do you think that maybe a law will be connected to land in order to mitigate this uncertainty? For example the owners of the neighborhood may require only specific arbitrator companies to rule in their land. This will reduce the risk of people being in conflict about choosing the arbitrator in that territory.

Absolutely. The wonderful thing about the free market is that entrepreneurs are motivated to work hard to solve any problems that people care enough to pay for. Thus I would expect mechanisms to emerge in society to reduce uncertainty.

Those might be in the form of broad treaties between multiple insurance companies. Or, as you suggest, in the form of the "law of the land".

As people advocating anarchy, we cannot be expected to identify the exact or optimal mechanism that will eventually emerge in society. The very impossibility of identifying in advance an optimal mechanism is the reason we think central planning is doomed to failure. Multiple ideas will be tried. Some will be more successful than others. Those will continue to be improved upon.