AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Anarchy and utopia9/2/2023 ![]() Therefore a sys tem that allows all boundary impingements provided that full com pensation in paid is equivalent to a system requiring that all prior agreements about the right to cross a border be reached at that point on the contract curve 8 most favorable to the buyer of the right. Let us return to the first of our two questions: why not allow any boundary crossing provided full compensation is paid? Full com pensation keeps the victim on as high an indifference curve as he would occupy if the other person hadn't crossed. If what is necessary is more than /(H)+ r X H, there will be a duty to retreat. Specification of a rule of necessity which requires one not to use more in self-defense than is necessary to repel the attack. When an amount A in addition to /(H) is ex pended in self-defense, the punishment which later may be in flicted is reduced by that amount and becomes r X H -A. So the upper lim it of what one may use in self-defense against a doer of harm H is /(H)+ r X H. One may, in defending oneself, draw against the pun ishment the attacker deserves (which is r X H). The structure we present here can yield this as follows. Prohibition, Compensation, and Risk rule yields our judgment that, all other things being equal, one may use more force in self-defense against someone whose r is greater than zero. Presumably a protective association would use such funds to reduce the price of its services. Since the victims of the crimes of those people apprehended are fully compen sated, it is not clear that the remaining funds (especially those yielded by application of the retributive theory) must go toward compensating the victims of uncaught criminals. Perhaps some resources left to spend would be yielded by the retributive penalties in addition to compensation, and by the extra penalties needed to deter because of less than certain apprehension. Might make penalties (in addition to compensation) monetary, and use them to finance various government activities. We should note the interesting possibility that contemporary governments In this re spect it differs from a rule of proportionality which makes the upper limit of self-defense a function of r X H. Any view, /(H)� H.) Notice that this rule of proportionality does not mention the degree of responsibility r it applies whether or not the doer is responsible for the harm he will cause.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |