Stefan Molyneux

[Wheem]

So is your argument that libertarians in particular could build a society superior to post-collapse Somalia, or that people in general could? Because my understanding of libertarian ideology is that it is the latter. The former is simple Utopianism - the idea being that if you gather a number of like-minded people together you can build an ideal society, but only for those people.

My original argument is really just that Jhessail implied blame where none exists, and doesn't seem to know nearly as much about either libertarianism or anarchism as she thinks she does. She may as well have blamed Ethiopia's problems on Haiti.

It's true that people in general could build a society that's far superior to post-collapse Somalia, even if that society involves a very large centralized state (though I'd argue that such a state wouldn't be the best thing for a Somali - or any other - society). Of course, creating a central state there in the foreseeable future is probably a pipe dream, at least if one expects it to be stable and actually last for more than a handful of years. There's just too much factional tribalism in Somalia, and trying to shove them all under one government is likely to lead to yet more conflict and strife.

So now central government is acceptable for national defence. Okay, we're getting somewhere. How is the central government going to fund that?

You say this like it's the first time you've heard that libertarians aren't all anarchists (and again, as far as I can tell, most aren't). As for funding, what do you think? In a practical sense, it'll obviously be taxation (the exact type and rates of which are arguable; though I can't recall seeing any libertarian support for income taxes at all). Some other government functions, like courts (which is another thing that most libertarians agree that government should be in charge of), can be handled through user fees.

And Libertarianism is not only those noble ideas that you keep repeating - it's also the idea of minimal government - which I find an absolute fantasy.

The core of libertarianism is exactly what I've told you it is: a respect for individual (negative) rights. And yes, of course it's also the idea of minimal government - how else are individual rights supposed to be respected?

Of course the, "If it's a good thing, then I declare that it's also a right!" types will think that small government is a bad thing. Surely it's oppression if government agents aren't allowed to threaten citizens with imprisonment if they don't fork over some arbitrary amount of their income and/or assets in order to pay for other people's rent, birth control, failed business ventures, food, transportation, or whatever else the recipients vote for?

And Somalia should be the destination for anyone who thinks that no government or a powerless government is a good thing, just like North-Korea should be the home for those who think that a totalitarian society is awesome.

What you did would be like the opposition saying, "Oh you think that government should be heavily involved in the healthcare industry? Well then you should move to Cuba LOL PWNED SUCKER!!"

And why would you use the term "powerless government" here? I wouldn't call controlling the army, navy, air force, courts, and police "powerless" by any stretch of the imagination. What libertarians mean by small government is that the government should be just that - small. It should have power in a few areas, and take its grubby little hands off of everything else. It shouldn't be trying to centrally plan an economy, or use regulations and the tax code to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. It shouldn't be telling adults that they can't drink alcohol, or smoke pot, or own a gun, or be in a relationship with someone of the same sex, or work X job for Y amount of money. Nor should it be telling those same adults that they MUST join the military.

Where are you getting your "knowledge" of libertarian positions, anyway? Talking to one or two people over the internet and/or face-to-face? Reading "gotcha!" articles written by non-libertarians, who often totally misrepresent the political philosophy?

 

[Jhessail]

The core of libertarianism is exactly what I've told you it is: a respect for individual (negative) rights. And yes, of course it's also the idea of minimal government - how else are individual rights supposed to be respected?

What about situations where person A's rights clash with person B's rights?

As for funding, what do you think? In a practical sense, it'll obviously be taxation (the exact type and rates of which are arguable; though I can't recall seeing any libertarian support for income taxes at all). Some other government functions, like courts (which is another thing that most libertarians agree that government should be in charge of), can be handled through user fees.

So people who cannot afford court fees are not offered the protection of law. What will happen when some people decide that they don't want to pay any taxes? How is the national defence going to get soldiers? Have to be pretty nice benefits versus rest of the society to get enough qualified people - but what if that's not enough or your total population is small enough that you cannot rely on only volunteers? (Like Israel or Finland or Switzerland for example) Oh no, now your minimal government needs some kind of an enforcement agency that will collect taxes and maybe another that conscripts citizens for national defence - if not during peace time, then at least during war or conflcit. Oops, that's oppression. Guess your fantasy land is going to need a second libertarian revolution!

That's the problem with libertarianism. It's all catchy slogans about "respect for individual freedoms" without any backing in reality.

And why would you use the term "powerless government" here?

You're so quick to reply to me while the froth is still fresh on your chin, that you again didn't even bother to read what I wrote. Somalia hasn't had more than a "powerless government" since 1991. It hasn't had an army worth anything, or a navy.

 

[Wheem]

What about situations where person A's rights clash with person B's rights?

I can only think of one scenario where there's a legitimate clashing of rights, so you'll need to be more specific, and give some examples.

So people who cannot afford court fees are not offered the protection of law.

Yea, just like criminals who can't afford them don't even get arrested. Or, perhaps there could be...oh I dunno, payment plans, or even waived fees in some cases (particularly for anyone who was innocent). Those waived fees could, at least in part, be made up by revenue from asset forfeiture (though not the kind of forfeiture that's currently going on in the United States, where one doesn't need to even be arrested for a crime, much less prosecuted or convicted).

What will happen when some people decide that they don't want to pay any taxes? How is the national defence going to get soldiers? Have to be pretty nice benefits versus rest of the society to get enough qualified people - but what if that's not enough or your total population is small enough that you cannot rely on only volunteers? (Like Israel or Finland or Switzerland for example) Oh no, now your minimal government needs some kind of an enforcement agency that will collect taxes and maybe another that conscripts citizens for national defence - if not during peace time, then at least during war or conflcit. Oops, that's oppression. Guess your fantasy land is going to need a second libertarian revolution!

Why would refusing to pay for services rendered - national defense in this case - be treated radically different than it is now? Just how many Israelis do you expect to refuse to join the army if they end up in another serious war with a neighboring Islamic country or coalition? If people won't willingly fight to defend their homeland when it's actually facing a real, credible threat, then apparently they don't think that it's worth saving (at least in whatever state it's in currently).

That's the problem with libertarianism. It's all catchy slogans about "respect for individual freedoms" without any backing in reality.

Nah, you're just ignorant. You previously accused me of not "admitting facts," but you still haven't admitted that you didn't know that there's a difference between libertarians and anarchists (or deliberately muddied the waters). It also seems that you're not the least bit familiar with many/any libertarian arguments (and obviously, not ever libertarian agrees with me on everything, just like not ever liberal/social democrat/whatever you call yourself is going to 100% agree with you).

You're so quick to reply to me while the froth is still fresh on your chin, that you again didn't even bother to read what I wrote. Somalia hasn't had more than a "powerless government" since 1991. It hasn't had an army worth anything, or a navy.

Sigh.

You said, and I quote: "And Somalia should be the destination for anyone who thinks that no government or a powerless government is a good thing" (emphasis added) Just who thinks that "powerless" government is a good thing? Other than the strawman you've created, that is.

 

[Jhessail]

I can only think of one scenario where there's a legitimate clashing of rights, so you'll need to be more specific, and give some examples.

Which is? I can think of several. What if I feel that it's my right to parade around naked while carrying a boombox blasting Norwegian death metal? Oh noes, now you need to have ordnances and/or laws about public indecency and behaviour.

Yea, just like criminals who can't afford them don't even get arrested.

False analogue. And a broke criminal can only have an attorney because tax money pays for them.

Or, perhaps there could be...oh I dunno, payment plans, or even waived fees in some cases (particularly for anyone who was innocent). Those waived fees could, at least in part, be made up by revenue from asset forfeiture (though not the kind of forfeiture that's currently going on in the United States, where one doesn't need to even be arrested for a crime, much less prosecuted or convicted).

Uh-oh Wheem, now you're envisioning an entire bureaucracy to gauge the worth of stuff, to go through complaints of seizures, to store and distribute all that stuff, to handle applications for waivers and so on. Sounds terribly like an government to me!

Why would refusing to pay for services rendered - national defense in this case - be treated radically different than it is now?

Because Israel, for example, cannot afford to train soldiers when war has already broken out. They need to have a large enough army that has been equipped and trained during peace time. But it's not difficult to find people who eschew such responsibilities or tax-burden. How many homeowners are without full coverage insurance? Plenty. I'm sure you remember that news article about an American guy who didn't pay the fire department fees and the FD let his house burn down. Again, you need an entire bureaucracy to handle all this.

Nah, you're just ignorant. You previously accused me of not "admitting facts,"

Yeah, because you used a single source to defend the libertarian stance on Somalia without knowing or admitting that it heavily cherry-picked its own source, ie was basically propaganda. I tend to lump libertarians and anarchists together because both believe in a society that's impossible to actually create.

You said, and I quote:

Nah bro, you're still being clueless. You argued that a nation with an actual army and navy would not be powerless - to which I agree. But Somalia hasn't had one since the dictatorship got overthrown. Thus, Somalia has either had no government or a powerless one, that hasn't been able to defend the rights of Somali people against violations from other states and exploitative corporations and so on.

But if you want a strong enough government that it's able to defend citizens against external threats and from each other, you actually need the whole nine miles of bureaucracy and civil service and law enforcement and all. That's why I'm arguing that libertarians should go to Somalia to see what life without central government is. Sure, it probably beats a totalitarian ****hole like North-Korea, but I'm not sure if that's much consolation when a 12-year old kid with an AKM shoots you for your shoes.

Libertarians seem to think that you can remove all government functions that they don't like and the rest would just magically keep running smoothly. Which is pure folly to anyone with half a brain and some understanding of how things actually work.

 

[Eske]

Again you seem to not understand that libertarianism and anarchism are not the same thing.

Side note: I've watched quite a few videos by Stefan Molyneux, and I'm sure I've heard "anarcho-capitalism" banded about a bit. Actually, I was under the impression that was the preferred term but I might be thinking of other YouTube channels. I'd hazard that there are some real links to anarchism with libertarian proponents in any case.

There was a really heated debate that Molyneux had with Peter Jospeh (of Zeitgeist movie fame) - I'm fairly sure the term cropped up there. I can't say I subscribe to either ideology, but it's extremely fun to watch the two extremes (money vs. no money, no government vs. world government) clash head-to-head. I have to be honest and say I really dislike Molyneux's hyper-defensiveness and ginormous ego. Joseph might be equally idealistic, but I feel he has better intentions at least (and doesn't get sidetracked with attacking feminism, affirmative action, and figures like Nelson Mandela - I REALLY dislike Molyneux).

 

[RalliX]

I can only think of one scenario where there's a legitimate clashing of rights, so you'll need to be more specific, and give some examples.

Which is? I can think of several. What if I feel that it's my right to parade around naked while carrying a boombox blasting Norwegian death metal? Oh noes, now you need to have ordnances and/or laws about public indecency and behaviour.

Well, you might not do such a thing if you knew that everyone will want to disassociate with you(except maybe young males) and not do any kind of business with you. Essentially, if everyone is allowed to ostracize other people for falling far outside social norms, as in the case of streaking excessively, you may well starve for your actions.

You don't NEED to have somebody with a badge come and imprison you. Parents will cover their children's eyes, and people will kick you out of stores for non-compliance with their rules. So... Yeah.

Additionally, one might consider it their right to beat the ever loving ****e out of somebody who walks up to them and/or their child and starts flangling all their everything everywhere. I doubt anyone would be mad at the person who took such a course of action against the offender.

Again you seem to not understand that libertarianism and anarchism are not the same thing.

Side note: I've watched quite a few videos by Stefan Molyneux, and I'm sure I've heard "anarcho-capitalism" banded about a bit. Actually, I was under the impression that was the preferred term but I might be thinking of other YouTube channels. I'd hazard that there are some real links to anarchism with libertarian proponents in any case.

There was a really heated debate that Molyneux had with Peter Jospeh (of Zeitgeist movie fame) - I'm fairly sure the term cropped up there. I can't say I subscribe to either ideology, but it's extremely fun to watch the two extremes (money vs. no money, no government vs. world government) clash head-to-head. I have to be honest and say I really dislike Molyneux's hyper-defensiveness and ginormous ego. Joseph might be equally idealistic, but I feel he has better intentions at least (and doesn't get sidetracked with attacking feminism, affirmative action, and figures like Nelson Mandela - I REALLY dislike Molyneux).

I watched that chat session. I was personally quite displeased with how poor of an argument the Zeitgeisters managed to put up, as well as how out of touch they were with the actual implementation of their ideas.

At least Stefan seems to have a method for actually making his ideals come to fruition, and no illusions about their ability to be implemented.

 

[Moose!]

I doubt anyone would be mad at the person who took such a course of action against the offender.

Your personal incredulity does not indicate that others would not be mad. Anyone with half a conscience should recognize that such a violent assault is wholly unjustified given those circumstances.

 

[Austupaio]

Additionally, one might consider it their right to beat the ever loving ****e out of somebody who walks up to them and/or their child and starts flangling all their everything everywhere. I doubt anyone would be mad at the person who took such a course of action against the offender.

So, if it's your right to physically batter and assault someone for offending you, is it my right to drop you with a hand gun from across the street because I see you standing over a naked person, who's possibly intoxicated or mentally ill if they're naked, and beating them, possibly to death?

 

[Moose!]

It's almost as if we as a society should collaborate and determine a standard of rules for acceptable behavior that can be enforced by a group of individuals who are selected using standards that were chosen in a fair and democratic process. 

 

[Anthropoid]

It's almost as if we as a society should collaborate and determine a standard of rules for acceptable behavior that can be enforced by a group of individuals who are selected using standards that were chosen in a fair and democratic process. 

Whoa! Hold on now dude! That is just a little too radical, don't you think.

What is a "zeitgeister?"

Honestly, I don't have a clue what a "libertarian" is. It seems to be applied much the same way as other useless terms like "liberal" or "conservative" and offers very little real explanation of an idea or a person who might hold an idea.

I have watched a handful of Molyneux videos. I very much appreciated his careful and thoughtful analysis of the Trayvon Martin case. On the other hand I find his paranoia when it comes to things like "the state" to be both fanciful and poorly formulated. He seems to think that there are "us" the citizens and "them" the government.

Well, given I can apply for, and attain, a job in the Federal government, even though I do not presently have one; or that I can run for and attain public office even though I presently do not hold one . . . uh, doesn't that rather dismantle any such thinking as Us (citizens) vs. Them (the government)?

I will agree that, in-group and out-group effects are real, that nepotism/cronyism is real, that corruption is real and that many governments suffer from these and related lackings in ethics and accountability. But one need not blithely assume that all "states" much less all "governments" are inherently more prone to these foibles than any other grouping of humans, much less to take the following leap of bllind faith and assume that a world without governance would even be possible.

 

[RalliX]

Perhaps 'beat the ever loving ****e out of' was incorrect.
What I really meant was to use force to stop the person from doing such an action in the presence of a young child, if they won't go away by asking, and if just leaving is not a practical option.

For example: Are you going to sit there on a moving train with a school of children and watch somebody do this, or are you going to force them to get clothed?

Does it really need to be written down, or can people make their own decisions about how they will act in certain situations?

 

[Austupaio]

I'm going to talk them down if they're dangerous, if they're not dangerous, I'm going to call the police who have the training and liability insurance to deal with the situation more adequately than I could.

What I would do is defend anyone, anyone, I saw being attacked because someone else thought it was their right to use force against someone that offended their sensibilities.

Does it really need to be written down, or can people make their own decisions about how they will act in certain situations?

Yeah, it needs to be written down, because if it's not then people will think it's okay to beat mentally ill people to death because they're naked.

 

[RalliX]

I'm going to talk them down if they're dangerous, if they're not dangerous, I'm going to call the police who have the training and liability insurance to deal with the situation more adequately than I could.

What I would do is defend anyone, anyone, I saw being attacked because someone else thought it was their right to use force against someone that offended their sensibilities.

What do you mean by dangerous? If the person is actually dangerous, talking at them might not be very likely to change their behaviour.
What exactly is it again that police tend to do when somebody isn't listening to their orders? Granted, yes, a policeman has public sanction, but I'm talking about a situation in which there is not such an authority, and the offender in question is not willing to stop because of someone asking them to.

Does it really need to be written down, or can people make their own decisions about how they will act in certain situations?

Yeah, it needs to be written down, because if it's not then people will think it's okay to beat mentally ill people to death because they're naked.

Kill. Yes my wording was to use strong force, but I never did say to kill.
The object of the action is not the death of the perpetrator but the prevention of their ability to further perpetrate. You use the term mentally ill person. That may or may not be the case. They may simply be a criminal pervert. Though, there is probably plenty of overlap there.

 

[Austupaio]

What do you mean by dangerous? If the person is actually dangerous, talking at them might not be very likely to change their behaviour.
What exactly is it again that police tend to do when somebody isn't listening to their orders? Granted, yes, a policeman has public sanction, but I'm talking about a situation in which there is not such an authority, and the offender in question is not willing to stop because of someone asking them to.

Dangerous is a pretty clear word, so don't bull**** around. A dangerous person is a person who is causing harm, or is reasonably imminently causing harm, to another person. Talking to someone is always the first option, it doesn't matter if you're civilian security, police or military, it's always the first option for a non-bubba.

What do the police (or other applicable organization in this instance, such as private security within their mission and jurisdiction) do when someone does not cooperate after communication is exhausted? They incapacitate them, using minimal force to apply restraints, and escalating force if necessary to prevent harm or more easily apply restraints. They do not beat people to unconcsciousness and call it a day like you're suggesting.

And before you go 'OH WELL THE LAPD DID THIS', that's not proper police procedure. That is unprofessional police work and any accomplished and reputable peace officer/organization would agree.

Kill. Yes my wording was to use strong force, but I never did say to kill.
The object of the action is not the death of the perpetrator but the prevention of their ability to further perpetrate. You use the term mentally ill person. That may or may not be the case. They may simply be a criminal pervert. Though, there is probably plenty of overlap there.

Bull****, you said beat the ****e out of. You're beating a naked person hard, there is a very high chance of killing them. You are not a trained peace officer, you are not a doctor, you do not understand their prior illness or injuries, and it is not unlikely that you may impact their temple, throat, gut or kidney, all of which could lead to death.

You do not know if they are crazy or a criminal pervert, you have very little way of knowing that. Even if you have a good idea, you are not a psychologist capable of diagnosing their particular brand of crazy.

So, if I saw you attacking someone with this broad range of assumptions, I would defend them. So, if there's no authority, why should I not exercise my right to shoot you?

 

[RalliX]

What do you mean by dangerous? If the person is actually dangerous, talking at them might not be very likely to change their behaviour.
What exactly is it again that police tend to do when somebody isn't listening to their orders? Granted, yes, a policeman has public sanction, but I'm talking about a situation in which there is not such an authority, and the offender in question is not willing to stop because of someone asking them to.

Dangerous is a pretty clear word, so don't bull**** around. A dangerous person is a person who is causing harm, or is reasonably imminently causing harm, to another person. Talking to someone is always the first option, it doesn't matter if you're civilian security, police or military, it's always the first option for a non-bubba.

What do the police (or other applicable organization in this instance, such as private security within their mission and jurisdiction) do when someone does not cooperate after communication is exhausted? They incapacitate them, using minimal force to apply restraints, and escalating force if necessary to prevent harm or more easily apply restraints. They do not beat people to unconcsciousness and call it a day like you're suggesting.

And before you go 'OH WELL THE LAPD DID THIS', that's not proper police procedure. That is unprofessional police work and any accomplished and reputable peace officer/organization would agree.

Alright, you talk to the person, and attempt to convince them to put some clothes on, and they are unwilling to, so you use as much or as little force as is necessary to detain/incapacitate them.

Kill. Yes my wording was to use strong force, but I never did say to kill.
The object of the action is not the death of the perpetrator but the prevention of their ability to further perpetrate. You use the term mentally ill person. That may or may not be the case. They may simply be a criminal pervert. Though, there is probably plenty of overlap there.

Bull****, you said beat the ****e out of. You're beating a naked person hard, there is a very high chance of killing them. You are not a trained peace officer, you are not a doctor, you do not understand their prior illness or injuries, and it is not unlikely that you may impact their temple, throat, gut or kidney, all of which could lead to death.

You do not know if they are crazy or a criminal pervert, you have very little way of knowing that. Even if you have a good idea, you are not a psychologist capable of diagnosing their particular brand of crazy.

So, if I saw you attacking someone with this broad range of assumptions, I would defend them. So, if there's no authority, why should I not exercise my right to shoot you?

I do see your point. My use of words was very poor, and the concept over aggressive.

What I do believe has been made clear however, and was what my original idea was, is that individuals in a society with no rulers have the right to protect themselves from harm. If that harm is not physically violent in nature, one should use the least force necessary to prevent that harm, as Austupaio has made clear.

 

[Austupaio]

Oh my god, someone I was arguing/debating with came back to me and we were able to reasonably move forward, this is strange.

What I do believe has been made clear however, and was what my original idea was, is that individuals in a society with no rulers have the right to protect themselves from harm. If that harm is not physically violent in nature, one should use the least force necessary to prevent that harm, as Austupaio has made clear.

Right and we both agree here, my problem with this libertarian/anarchism view-point, in this example, is this.

Let's say that after me and you, as people, cleared the way to handle this type of situation. We would both act responsibly and ethically while doing what was necessary to protect whomever in our libertarian society. But, let's say Wheem as another libertarian (just using your name as an example, I'm not putting words in your mouth nor implying how you would behave) didn't agree or didn't participate in this discussion.

He decides that it is his right to beat the crap out of the naked person. So, in a bid to protect his children (from looking at genitals, ono), he's attacking this person in the street. Let's say there are no by-standers/by-standers-who-care-to-intervene and Wheem kills the naked person, intentionally or unintentionally.

There are no police, nor any responsible citizens to punish Wheem's murder. Is this a just society?

 

[RalliX]

Oh my god, someone I was arguing/debating with came back to me and we were able to reasonably move forward, this is strange.

What I do believe has been made clear however, and was what my original idea was, is that individuals in a society with no rulers have the right to protect themselves from harm. If that harm is not physically violent in nature, one should use the least force necessary to prevent that harm, as Austupaio has made clear.

Right and we both agree here, my problem with this libertarian/anarchism view-point, in this example, is this.

Let's say that after me and you, as people, cleared the way to handle this type of situation. We would both act responsibly and ethically while doing what was necessary to protect whomever in our libertarian society. But, let's say Wheem as another libertarian (just using your name as an example, I'm not putting words in your mouth nor implying how you would behave) didn't agree or didn't participate in this discussion.

He decides that it is his right to beat the crap out of the naked person. So, in a bid to protect his children (from looking at genitals, ono), he's attacking this person in the street. Let's say there are no by-standers/by-standers-who-care-to-intervene and Wheem kills the naked person, intentionally or unintentionally.

There are no police, nor any responsible citizens to punish Wheem's murder. Is this a just society?

I suppose that if the person who was killed by Wheem had anyone who was close to him, and this person's body were found, the body would be collected, and identified by a private investigation firm, then the people who have interest in finding the killer would hire those or other investigators to do the work necessary to find whodunit.

If they were to discover who the killer was, I'd guess people would be informed of who did what, and why not to associate with that person.

At least, that's how it would work ideally. I do not know whether this would happen in actuality, and I suppose that if it did not, no it would not be a just society.

Edit: Wait I made an oopsie with the name. Do ignore that.

 

[Austupaio]

I suppose that if it did not, no it would not be a just society.

Cool.

But I still got a couple more things I'm curious about.

the body would be collected

By whom?

identified by a private investigation firm, then the people who have interest in finding his killer would hire those or other investigators to do the work necessary to find whodunit.

So, your wife is murdered and you have to pay to actually have the crime solved? And considering this is time-intensive, skilled labour from a private corporate firm, probably pay quite a bit? That's pretty harsh, particularly considering the expense already incurred due to the death, funeral, loss of income, etc.

If they were to discover who the killer was, I'd guess people would be informed of who did what, and why not to associate with that person.

But... that's it? Oh, hey everyone, this guy is murderer, just shun him or something.

If a citizen who recognized Wheem the murderer decided that he deserved punishment, would the citizen be within his rights to go out and execute Wheem?

 

[RalliX]

the body would be collected

By whom?

I imagine the person who found the body would report it to the firm of most convenience.

Or if the family or friends of the deceased were to start worrying about where the dead person was, I guess they would hire some investigators to find out where the deceased was. The collection would be initiated by the investigators, and perhaps they would store the corpse in a morgue. Perhaps a morgue would be called first.

Most people don't just shrug and walk off when they see a corpse. At least, I hope so. Heck, I bet these companies would be willing to pay a finders fee to encourage people to report found corpses, providing them with business leads.

Identified by a private investigation firm, then the people who have interest in finding his killer would hire those or other investigators to do the work necessary to find whodunit.

So, your wife is murdered and you have to pay to actually have the crime solved? And considering this is time-intensive, skilled labour from a private corporate firm, probably pay quite a bit? That's pretty harsh, particularly considering the expense already incurred due to the death, funeral, loss of income, etc.

Well we have a few things to consider. I would assume that these investigators would have to work on a supply and demand basis(nothing else to go by). I guess the amount and quality of service would depend heavily on how much you could fork over for it. Some positives to consider are that there would be no taxes to speak of, and there would likely be insurance you could buy for this sort of thing.

And if the family in question cannot afford to pay for private investigation, I suppose their only other alternative would be charity organizations devoted to this purpose. None of this sounds very solid I guess, and to a small extent I'd say that this would be because we have never had the chance to try out such a way of doing things for ourselves.

If they were to discover who the killer was, I'd guess people would be informed of who did what, and why not to associate with that person.

But... that's it? Oh, hey everyone, this guy is murderer, just shun him or something.

If a citizen who recognized Wheem the murderer decided that he deserved punishment, would the citizen be within his rights to go out and execute Wheem?

Unless Wheem were to seek penance from the  friends and family, I think they would put pressure on the public not to do business with him. This could result in him being ousted from grocery stores, be cut off from financial institutions, and basically anyone who didn't want to do business with a purported murderer would cause him trouble.

As for whether this guy were to be killed for it, well I wouldn't say that murder for murder is a good policy.

 

[Austupaio]

Well, we could quibble over details, but honestly I'd say that you and I agree over the important aspects so I won't keep throwing nitpicking details at you.

I will end on this note though; libertarians are always on about the founding fathers and you know, I don't Ben Franklin's ideal society was one where your family could be murdered and you can't afford to have it investigated if you're poor, and even if you do manage to cobble together the funds, the only punishment for the criminal is that his social status might be affected.