More on what a British Libertarian Party ought to do, or not. Crime? (Part 5)

I’m a bit un-deconstructed, I’m afraid. I think a crime occurs because someone decides to commit it. This of course cuts the ground right from under the feet of all the fascist legislators, and their fascist pressure-group-friends and brown-nozers; these together have created 4,000+ new “crimes” in ten years, nearly 100% of which can be committed by ordinary conservatives while going innocently about their daily business.

I think that practically all of these can be deleted, along with some earlier bureaucratic inventions.

The obvious candidates for decriminalisation are “drugs” (an abridgement of the right to life), prostitution (ditto plus attenuation of a property-right in one’s self, in particular acting to disadvantage women, and poor ones at that) and many aspects of land and building use and disposal. Some of these have been already referred to by commentators on posts these last days. Recent laws about “hate-speech” and “racially-motivated” nonsense and the like must go also; the Law has for long been strong enough in regard to libel and slander anyway.

I think a Libertarian party would want to go for a much stricter definition of the key crimes, which mostly come down to property issues anyway, whether in oneself, one’s family or in chattels. The rest can go into the dustbin of socialist historical fiction, and the penalties for the remainder could become exemplary.

I do not personally advocate the return of the death penalty, at least under the current dispensation. However, it would be a matter for voters to decide. But in the present circumstances in which supposedly sovereign individuals do not have the right to take the life of another human, nor the means, then they cannot delegate upwards or downwards that right which they do not currently possess.

I’d like to resurrect Auberon Waugh’s concept of the “Udenopticon”, an anciently novel interpretation of penal servitude, emcompassing at once openly stark mercilessness and also potentially highly redemptive qualities – unlike the bleeding-heart “liberal” (wrong use of the word by the users themselves!) probationary establishment within the Enemy Class of today.

4 responses to “More on what a British Libertarian Party ought to do, or not. Crime? (Part 5)

  1. I think re-defining crime in terms of those that involve aggression against other people or the property would be the easy part to agree on. The more difficult question is what you do about “crime management” as the establishment now refers to the job of the police and courts.

    An awful lot of what policeman do today is pretty wasteful but where would you begin to reform the system? Even your own namesake in the Tory party wants to reform the criminal justice system, but with no idea how to pick apart the bureaucracy.

    And what about gun ownership and self-defence? For sure, people in the countryside ought to be allowed to own guns and have their rights to defend themselves emphasised (since currently they have very little police coverage at all and are at the mercy of any criminals that venture out to them). But what about in the cities? Would legalising weapons be a dangerous move likely to cause violent crime to spiral in the short term or even in the longterm?

  2. I’ve previously posted in favour of the reintroduction of corporal punishment, as has left-libertarian Chris Dillow.

  3. The main principle must be to simplify.

    I believe that the Law could and should be reduced to a very slim volume.

    Legal gun ownership is very clearly necessary – to me at least. Unfortunately there’s a mountain to climb in convincing the people in this country.

  4. Pingback: Children … update: DISGUSTING, criminal, stalinist abuse « The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG