History and Logic: Fighting Crime Without the State’s ‘Help’

A More Sane Alternative to Government Prisons

09/06/2019

Rape, violence, and drugs are ubiquitous in prisons, so it is not surprising that recidivists commit a hugely disproportionate share of crime. Government prisons and so-called private prisons have no incentive to rehabilitate prisoners or improve prison conditions because taxes are their source of revenue, which is guaranteed regardless of performance.

Lawmaking, law enforcement, courts, and prisons are inextricably linked within a coercive government monopoly. As long as this monopoly remains, it is difficult to imagine a substantial performance improvement. In contrast, repealing the monopoly would expose all of these functions to the competitive marketplace, and history can be our guide.

The Marketplace

Historian Carroll Quigley wrote:

“… there was clearly a period, about 900 [AD], when there was no empire, no state, and no public authority in the West. The state disappeared, yet society continued.”

“It was discovered that economic life, religious life, law, and private property can all exist and function effectively without a state. … In Rome, in Byzantium, and in Russia, law was regarded as an enactment of a supreme power. In the West, when no supreme power existed, it was discovered that law still existed as the body of rules which govern social life. Thus law was found by observation in the West, not enacted by autocracy as in the East. This meant that authority was established by law and under the law in the West, while authority was established by power and above the law in the East.”

Think of laws made by the State as being “top-down law-making,” or “authoritarian law.” Think of laws made by the people themselves as being “bottom-up law-making,” or “customary law” (law established in recognition of evolving customs). Under customary law, when an offense was committed, victim restitution, not imprisonment, was expected. The offender must compensate his victim.1 Furthermore, it was unlawful to assault or kill an offender who had not been given sufficient opportunity to compensate his victim.

Customary law prevailed in Ireland for centuries. Murray Rothbard wrote, “Preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a “primitive” society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe.”

Anglo-Saxons formed legal institutions called hundreds. Each hundred consisted of about one hundred individuals or households. Membership in a hundred was voluntary, but there were strong incentives to join. When someone inflicted harm on another person or the property (e.g., theft) of another person, the other members of the victim’s hundred were obligated to assist in the pursuit and prosecution of the accused. A member who did not honor his obligations would be expelled from the hundred, and his tainted reputation may prevent him from being accepted into another hundred. He becomes an outcast, lacking the benefits of a protection association.

Arbitration was used when an offender and victim could not agree on an appropriate level of restitution. Arbitrators’ rulings were not binding. However, an offender who refused to submit to arbitration or did not accept the arbitrator’s decision would be socially ostracized and legally subjected to physical retribution (even death) by the community.

Internalizing Costs and Benefits

Bruce Benson wrote,

“… voluntary recognition of laws and participation in their enforcement is likely to arise only when substantial benefits from doing so can be internalized by each individual.” (emphasis added)

This is a crucial point. The cost of law enforcement — providing aid to other members when needed — was borne by each member of a hundred. Likewise, the benefit of law enforcement — receiving aid (leading to restitution) from other members when needed — accrued to each member. In other words, each member internalizes the benefit and the cost, thus creating an incentive for law enforcement.

This stands in stark contrast to our system of authoritarian law where restitution for victims is almost non-existent,2 and a majority of offenses are not even reported to the police because the police and courts fail to solve most crimes. Thus, police, court, and prison bureaucracies internalize the benefit (tax revenue), but not the cost (actual crime-solving, rehabilitation). And citizens are forced to internalize the cost (taxes) without the benefit (restitution).

Notice the difference between ‘victim justice’ and ‘criminal punishment.’ Victim justice requires offenders to compensate their victims. Criminal punishment requires taxpayers, including victims, to provide financial support for prisoners, as well as for ineffective police, court, and prison bureaucracies.

Furthermore, in contrast to the government’s inability to solve most crimes, ‘victim justice’ under customary law actually serves as a disincentive for individuals to commit offenses in the first place: “If I kill, rape or steal, I know for certain that a protection agency will be hot on my trail.”

Continue reading…

From Mises.org, here.

רשימת המצוות בעליה להר הבית

מתוך מאמר הרב ברנד (בהפרכת טענות שונות נגד עליה להר הבית):

[טענה ז] מותר לעלות רק לצורך מצוה, וכעת אין בזה מצוה

שאלה: מותר לעלות להר הבית רק לצורך מצוה, וכעת אין בזה שום מצוה, ואפילו להתפלל לא נותנים.

תפילה

תשובה: מצווה גדולה להתפלל בהר הבית, עי’ רש”י (ריש פרשת ויצא) שיעקב אבינו חזר מחרן למקום המקדש כדי להתפלל שם. וכן מצינו במסכת תענית שעיקר התפילה בהר הבית. [ושם ניתן לתקוע בשופר וחצוצרות ביחד (ראש השנה, דף כז ע”א)].

ואם לא נותנים להתפלל בפה, אפשר להתפלל בלב, כמבואר בפסיקתא, והובא ברמ”א (סי’ צד, סע’ ו. הרחבנו בזה במאמר ראיות על מקום ההיכל וקודש הקדשים).

ובזמן האחרון כבר אפשר גם להתפלל, באופן שלא עושים רעש.

אחיזה יהודית במקום

וכן יש צורך של אחיזה במקום, כדי שהערבים לא ישתלטו על כל ירושלים (עי’ לקמן כתבה מגורמי בטחון בנושא זה), וכן מבואר בגמ’ (שבועות הנ”ל).

להסיר חילול ה’

וכן להסיר החילול השם הנורא שח”ו יגידו הגוים איה אלהיהם, שאם הגוים משתלטים על המקום הם אומרים איה אלהיהם, כמו שנאמר ביואל (ב, יז): בין האולם ולמזבח יבכו הכהנים משרתי ה’ ויאמרו חוסה ה’ על עמך ואל תתן נחלתך לחרפה למשל בם גוים למה יאמרו בעמים איה אלהיהם”

וממילא מכיון שהקב”ה נתן לנו את המקום במלחמת ששת הימים, והסיר את החילול השם הזה, אנו צריכים לשמור את זה שלא יבוא לידי גוים ויחזור ח”ו טענה זו.

הכנה למצוות קרבנות ובנין בית המקדש

וכן התביעה להקרבת קרבנות ובנין בית המקדש [כשיתברר מקום המקדש מדויק, וכן מידת האמה, כגון ע”י חפירות או בירורים אחרים] זה בכלללשכנו תדרשו ובאת שמה (דברים, יב, ה).

ויש בזה יותר ממאתיים מצוות, מתחיל עם עליה להר הבית, שזה מראה שעושים פעולות מעשיות ולא רק תפילות וצפיה, שאם זה רק צפיה ותפילות, יכולים לחשוב שהכל ירד מן השמים, ואין הדבר כן, שאין לנו רשות לסמוך על זה. ומי שיכול לקיים איזה מצווה ואינו רוצה לקיימו
בגלל שטוען שיקיים רק כשיבוא משיח או אליהו, ויהיו ניסים וישועות, עובר על לאו של לא תנסו את ה’ אלהיכם כאשר נסיתם במסה (דברים, ו, טז), עי’ רמב”ן (שם). וכן צו המשורר – שחז”ל אמרו שהוא משה רבינו (תהלים, צה, ז) – היום אם בקולו תשמעו: אל תקשו לבבכם כמריבה כיום מסה במבדבר.

וזה כוונת אליהו ומשיח שאמרו, שמשיח יגיע “ַהיום אם בקולו תשמעו” (סנהדרין דף צח ע”א) – שלא יתלו את קיום המצוות שנתאפשר קיומם בביאת אליהו ומשיח. (וע”ע במאמר “אליהו הנביא ומשיח, הגאולה תבוא היום אם בקולו תשמעו“, ובמאמר “לא תנסו את ה’“).

המקורות שבית המקדש יבנה לפני ביאת המשיח

עי’ מגילה (דף יז ע”ב – יח ע”א), ורש”י (שם); ירושלמי (מעשר שני, פרק ה, הל’ ב); מדרש רבה (תולדות, פרשה סד, אות י. הובא לעיל במאמר של המשנה שכיר, ובהרחבה בהערה ב”לשם יחוד”); פסיקתא רבתי (איש שלום, פיסקא לו – קומי אורי). ועי’ מלבי”ם (דניאל, יב, יב; וכן בספר המסורת על מקום המקום המקדש) שבימי הקיסר יוליוס הכופר [כ־300 שנים אחרי החורבן] התחילו לבנות בית המקדש, רק שנחרב אח”כ.

המקורות שקרבנות לפני ביאת המשיח

עי’ כפתור ופרח (פ”ו); שו”ת חת”ס (יו”ד סי’ רלו); חזו”א (אה”ע, ב, ז). וכן ידוע מן הגר”א שאמר שאם יעלו להר הבית ויקריבו קרבן תמיד – יהא אחרי המעשה (הובא בספר סולו סולו המסילה).

את השאר ניתן לראות כאן.

‘One Is Forbidden to Swear Falsely Before Gentiles Who Realize That He Is Lying’

HaRav Dov Lando on a Ben Yeshiva on Vacation

by Yated Ne’eman Staff

HaRav Dov Lando delivered a strong chizuk address in which he said:

What more can I say, seeing present here roshei yeshiva who instruct their students? But I will say something relevant to us all, to all yeshiva students: a ben yeshiva must bear this title not only within the yeshiva itself but also outside, and he must bear this constantly in mind.

The concept of chillul Hashem, creating a discredit to Hashem’s Name, is something one must be very vigilant so as not to trespass. This is not measured only by one’s actual conduct but also by what the public sees and expects of him. A Torah scholar/student represents the Torah itself so that any aberration that falls within chillul Hashem is indeed a most serious infraction.

The Chazon Ish offered a new insight in this concept which he derived from the Tractate Sanhedrin 107, where Dovid Hamelech considered worshiping idols to avoid chilul Hashem, showing that chilul Hashem supersedes even the three cardinal sins.

The Beis HaLevi explains this gemora by saying that Dovid Hamelech bowed to Hashem in a place where it seemed to the public that he was worshiping idols. The sin here does not fall within idolatry but rather is just chillul Hashem, since everything is judged according to what the onlooker sees and thinks.

The Chazon Ish derives the plain conclusion that desecrating Hashem’s Name is more stringent even than worshiping idols, and he stated this many times. Chillul Hashem is so severe and so terrible that it is preferable to worship idols rather than to desecrate Hashem’s Name.

I have also seen this in the response of the Rid (siman 53) regarding the rule of `let one be killed rather than transgress’ in connection with chillul Hashem. One is forbidden to swear falsely before gentiles who realize that he is lying, since this constitutes chillul Hashem and does not supersede even preservation of life.

It is also stated in Sefer Yereim (siman 340) regarding the severe level of infraction of chillul Hashem that it is forbidden to accept charity funds from gentiles since this falls under that selfsame category.

Continue reading…

From Dei’ah Vedibur, here.

Hitler Was a Red!

Was Hitler a Red-Armband-Wearing Communist?

Almost every day some pundit or commentator paints conservatives and even libertarians with the toxic brush of Hitlerism. These uninformed critics repeatedly accuse the Fuhrer of right-wing extremism. But according to many scholars, that narrative has been found to be completely false. A number of historians, including the German Thomas Weber, are now declaring that Hitler was personally involved with a whole different crowd who opposed anything remotely conservative or classical liberal.

In truth, Hitler was involved in an extreme left-wing political movement and revolution, sporting a red armband while working on behalf of the Communist Party of Germany in Munich. In fact, on the second day after the Communists declared the Bavarian Soviet Republic on April 6, 1919, Hitler sought and won an elected position in the Communist government. Bluntly, Hitler participated in a Communist regime even during a period that resembled a Lenin-like reign of terror.

Where is the historical proof? It comes from military archives from Hitler’s barracks, which Thomas Weber discovered in Munich during research for his 2011 book Hitler’s First War. Thought to be lost during WWII Allied bombing campaign of Munich, these archives provide clear evidence that Hitler threw his hat into the ring within two days of the communist seizure of the Bavarian government. Elected “Deputy Battalion Representative,” Hitler appeared determined to support the revolutionary socialist Räterepublik, which was led by the Jewish, Russian-born Communist revolutionary leader Eugen LevinéAnd in doing so, Hitler was pledging his allegiance to Lenin’s Soviet RussiaIn fact, Weber revealed that Hitler earned the second-highest number of votes in his unit, resulting in his victory for the Ersatz-Bataillons-Rat position. According to Weber, Hitler’s actions made him a “more significant cog in the machine of Socialism,” helping to “sustain the Soviet Republic.”

Hitler’s duties included liaisoning with the new soviet republic leaders and their Department of Propaganda. In other words, Hitler joined the Marxist insurgents, took to the streets and assisted in promoting the policies of the Communist Party of Germany. The Communists quickly seized homes, cash, and food supplies. When food shortages became critical, especially milk, the Communist response was: “What does it matter? . . . Most of it goes to the children of the bourgeoisie anyway. We are not interested in keeping them alive. No harm if they die—they’d only grow into enemies of the proletariat.” As the situation worsened, the Communists raised a Red Army, estimated to be 20,000 soldiers, shot hostages, and planned to abolish money, following in lockstep with the repressive measures of the Russian Bolsheviks.

Other evidence of Hitler’s involvement includes a still photograph of a red-armband-wearing Hitler taken by Heinrich Hoffmann, who eventually became Hitler’s court photographer. In later years both Hoffmann and his son confirmed that Hitler was indeed in the photo. Of course, as Weber wrote, “all Munich-based military units and thus Hitler’s regiment, too, were part of the Red Army,” and had to wear red armbands. In that sense, “Hitler served in the Red Army,” although most Munich regiments did not actively support the communist regime.

Despite his subsequent reputation for anti-Marxist tirades, Hitler did not fight or oppose the Communists. He was serving them, although he expressed few details about this horrific episode in his life. One thing seemed certain; he did not try to escape from the Lenin-backed political thicket in Munich, nor did he join the anti-Bolshevik armed forces of General Franz Ritter von Epp. Thomas Weber makes it clear in his 2017 book Becoming Hitler that the future leader of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis) “remained in his post for the entire lifespan of the Soviet Republic,” and “did not join a Freikorps with his comrades prior to the defeat of the Soviet Republic.” Because he had failed to join the anti-communist forces to overthrow the Räterepublik red government, Hitler later suffered “scornful reproaches from Ernst Röhm,” co-founder of the Nazi’s Sturmabteilung (Stormtroopers). Otto Strasser, an early member of the Nazi Party, also criticized Hitler for failing to join the armed forces of General von Epp to “fight the Bolsheviks in Bavaria”, asking: “Where was Hitler that day?”

In the end, the Communist republic was quickly overthrown in fierce street battles with over 600 casualties. But there is more to this story. During the street battles, Hitler was arrested and interned with other captured communist adherents of the Bavarian Soviet Republic. In his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, Konrad Heiden, a Munich-born journalist and a Social Democrat himself, remarked that during this period Hitler engaged in heated discussions where he “espoused the cause of Social Democracy against that of the Communists.” That seemed reasonable, since Hitler and everyone in his barracks were in serious trouble. They were all interrogated over whether they were a Communist or a Communist sympathizer. The punishment for being a Communist was execution, imprisonment or exile. So, was Hitler protecting himself, and hiding his true loyalty to Communism, or did he in fact pledge his loyalty to the Social Democrats, a more moderate movement that had its original roots in orthodox Marxism?

We may never know the true extent of Hitler’s intentions or state of mind during this period. It does appear he was briefly a Communist sympathizer until it became too dangerous, and then decided to supported what he later called “national Social Democracy.” Nonetheless, Hitler did tell one of his confidants in later years that “In my youth, and even in the first years of my Munich period after the war, I never shunned the company of Marxists of any shade.”

From LRC, here.