Government Courts: By What Principle?

Libertarian Justice, Part 1

A question that is often posed is the issue of libertarian justice, or crime and punishment. Frequently, the assertion is made by "libertarians" that the State is necessary, if only to establish justice and punish wrongdoers. This, however, is not the case.

First, remember the Principle--the initiation of force is wrong. This is the key to the whole matter. A libertarian cannot delegate the initiation of force--it is not something that he rightfully has to begin with. Therefore, he cannot claim that he delegates his "right" to initiate force to a third party (his bodyguard, say), because no such right exists. The only moral use of force is in self-defense, or the defense of others.

The key word here is "defense." It is moral to shoot someone who is attempting to rob you. It is further moral to kill someone who is attempting to murder an innocent third party. However, it cannot be moral for a person to seek revenge at a later date: I cannot claim that I am acting in self-defense, if I hunt down and shoot someone who attacked me last year. I may be getting vengeance, but cold-blooded murder is not self-defense.

Contrast this with our present system of "justice": A crime is committed, and a suspect is arrested, tried, and convicted. Some form of punishment is then imposed upon the criminal. This is what we call justice. But how is this different from the scenario that I described above? Certainly self-defense cannot be claimed in either case--the criminal was punished long after the crime occurred. The only difference is that in the second scenario, the State carried out the punishment, and not I.

But what right do I have to delegate the initiation of force to the State? There is, and can be, no such "right."  One person has no less rights than two, or two thousand. No one, no group of men, has the right to initiate force, even if the Magic Document says so. There is no moral difference between a prison and a death camp, or between executions and genocide. The only difference is in degree.

Our current system of punishment (since is is certainly not "justice") is entirely arbitrary. In fact, it's like a socialist "economy": Just as a planner in the old Soviet Union deciding tractor production, our legislators decide what acts constitute "crimes," and what the punishments for these crimes will be. And, like the Soviet system, our punishment system is fatally flawed.

After all, what should be the penalty for robbery? A spanking? Imprisonment? Parole? Death? No matter what you may think is "right," any penalty that is imposed on a robber through force after the fact of the robbery is not moral. It is nothing more than simple revenge, taken far after the fact and at leisure. What does a spanking, say, do to a convicted robber? Does it return the stolen goods? Does it absolve the crime? Does it in any way make restitution for the robber's act? At the end of the legal process, all that we can say is "The government did this, and called it justice."

Like the USSR's "economy," our "justice" is based upon best-guesses, assumptions, and whims. With no underlying moral principle to guide it, the "law" is whatever those 435 men say it is. Some guns are bad, because the "law" says they are. Some plants are likewise bad, for the same reason. Murder, however, is legal, as is slavery and theft. Tomorrow, these heretofore "illegal" things may become "legal". We are forced to conclude that the only thing our system of justice is based upon is pure political expediency.

We truly have "socialized law," as some countries have "socialized medicine." The State writes, enforces, and modifies the law. And some "libertarians" not only accept, but embrace this situation. What principle do they base their adoration of the State on? Forget it, they say, principle isn't expedient. Morality? Might makes right, whether by bullets or ballots, and if you don't like it, talk to the boys in black. Life, liberty, and property? Only as far as they serve the Law--that is to say, only as far as they serve the State.

We can see that our current system is in no way moral. Indeed, there is no way that it can ever be made to be moral, since by it's very nature it rests upon the shifting sand of politics. Once we make a single exception, even for the noblest of purposes, the Non-Aggression Principle becomes the Non-Aggression Guideline. After a few more "exceptions," we have the Non-Aggression Lie. Do you consider your principles a mere guideline, to be flaunted as you see fit? Is your moral code a lie, serving as camouflage for your true desires? If not, then you cannot make an exception to your principles for the State's courts.

In summary, we have The Choice: Endorse the State, or work for liberty. We cannot give "just a little" power to government courts, or soon thereafter the State will use them to own us. Liberty and the State are irreconcilable opposites--they are like oil and water, or food and poison. We cannot "compromise" when our compromise is mixing half a glass of water with half a glass of poison, or a glass of water with "just a little" poison. Justice is far too precious of an ideal to contaminate with even a drop of the State.

On the one hand, we can continue to participate in and endorse our socialized law, with its random crimes, arbitrary arrests, and selective prosecutions. We can help bring legitimacy to the system that allows The Butcher of Waco to walk free, that "authorizes" Lon Horiuchi to shoot a mother down in cold blood, that has a consistent history of sanctioning premeditated murder.

On the other hand, we can work for change. We can support our fledgling private courts. When forced to participate in the State's mock trials for false crimes, we can work against them. We can keep the flame of liberty alive. If we have the courage, we can establish private law of our own. We can seek a future where we do not tremble at the thought of "justice," but rather welcome it.

discuss this column in the forum

back to Strike The Root