Privately Enforced and Punished Crime • Hacker News Board

Re: Privately Enforced and Punished Crime

#71

Post by RobinHanson » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 1:21 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #61

nickik wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of these arguments have been made (and argued) between some of the best and most respected economists and judges over the years. But of course you are just so far above all this people that you can just 'predict a dystopian society' probably without studying any of the related subject at all. Efficiency is actually a very high goal because in the context of a legal system it means that more people get the servic…

You've crossed repeatedly into incivility and personal swipes. We ban accounts that do this, especially when we've warned them before (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16706226 ). Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use this site only as intended? The idea goes like this: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment…

Maybe this poster does that elsewhere, but this comment seems pretty mild to me.

Re: Privately Enforced and Punished Crime

#72

Post by RobinHanson » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 1:23 PM UTC

will_brown wrote: post #44

Intent is built into the very foundations of US criminal law (very rarely is any crime strict liability, where no intent is required). I’ve never seen a system of insurance that insures willful acts, seems like insurance reform would be step 2 after the proposed criminal reform. It seems very strange to suspend imprisonment for a system where everyone has to buy insurance for their own potential criminal conduct and…

The contract with the insurer could specify prison. The official courts no longer require prison, but the insurer that you've agreed to might.

Re: Privately Enforced and Punished Crime

#73

Post by RobinHanson » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 1:25 PM UTC

ohazi wrote: post #28

This is a terrible idea on its own, but I find it particularly unpalatable because the author is deliberately tickling the fancy of all the "My theories are so beautiful and internally consistent" libertarians who wouldn't be able to identify a negative externality if it punched them in the nose. I've had this discussion a million times in college. It's always a dumpster fire.

I don't recall mentioning anything about consistency or beauty, and I think I'd do pretty well at a test of identifying externalities.

Re: Privately Enforced and Punished Crime

#74

Post by RobinHanson » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 1:27 PM UTC

drivingmenuts wrote: post #60

This reads like the premise of a bad movie. When I hit the part about requiring insurance, I heard the ghost audio of a record screech. Yes, he's trying to solve a real problem. This ain't the solution. Requiring insurance for drivers is one thing - being able to afford a car presumes some ability to afford insurance. However, his solution requires insurance just to exist. That's not workable.

If we've set the fine levels right, someone who can't or won't afford crime insurance is a net liability to the rest of us. The insurance premiums will vary greatly with the conditions one agrees to. Very few people would be unable to afford any such conditions.

Re: Privately Enforced and Punished Crime

#75

Post by drivingmenuts » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 1:48 AM UTC

RobinHanson wrote: post #74

drivingmenuts wrote: post #60

This reads like the premise of a bad movie. When I hit the part about requiring insurance, I heard the ghost audio of a record screech. Yes, he's trying to solve a real problem. This ain't the solution. Requiring insurance for drivers is one thing - being able to afford a car presumes some ability to afford insurance. However, his solution requires insurance just to exist. That's not workable.

If we've set the fine levels right, someone who can't or won't afford crime insurance is a net liability to the rest of us. The insurance premiums will vary greatly with the conditions one agrees to. Very few people would be unable to afford any such conditions.

Perhaps the author read Terry Pratchett because this whole thing smells a lot like Ankh-Morpork. You pay a certain amount to the Thieve's Guild and you're safe for a year.

> someone who can't or won't afford crime insurance is a net liability to the rest of us. The insurance premiums will vary greatly with the conditions one agrees to. Very few people would be unable to afford any such conditions.

Bypassing the "won't pay" for now - if someone can't pay, they're a liability? Then what? Let them rot?

A very large number of people live in conditions where they are unable to affect the overall crime levels. Sure, they can keep them from going up by one, by not committing a crime themselves, but they don't have any control over externalities.

All that aside, it's very easy step to the idea that if one doesn't have crime insurance, that, in and of itself, is a crime. This already happens with car insurance.

This is a stupid idea that taxes a person just for existing and if they can't pay, could possibly wind up making them a criminal themselves.

It's basically a cheap shot at the poor.