Make rape by Black bvlls legal punishment.

[Sneaky lurker]

Raped people? Got to the BBC room.
Molested kids? Your pasty ass is forfeit, jewy boy.
Unjustified killing? Paint it all black.
Raped a cow? Now you're gonna meet the bvlls.
Raped a corpse? A team of doctors, scientists and engineers wants to talk to you.
Do that and watch crime rates jump off a cliff. It would significantly improve race relations too. Black bucks would be able to make an honest living by being State appointed rapists in controlled environments and living out their nature.
This is serious policy proposal fellas please keep it civil.

 

[BONECRUSHER]

Mutt's law.
Just shoot rapists and killers and be done with it, retard.

 

[Fishnumm]

rape is for sickos not even criminals deserve rape

sicko criminals deserve ol sparky

 

[_______________________-]

Every time I commit a thought crime I get Blacked by imaginary black bvlls in my brain

 

[Lone MacReady II]

That you PPP? As always you get a m-m-m-m-m-mutt's law.

 

[Crypt Kicker]

Anything to keep your mind on nigger dicks, huh?

 

[Sneaky lurker]

Mutt's law.

That you PPP? As always you get a m-m-m-m-m-mutt's law.

I'm not even american. Mutt's law does not apply.

Just shoot rapists and killers and be done with it, retard.

The prospect of State-sponsored executions does not strike fear on the hearts of people quite like State-sponsored buck breaking.

Every time I commit a thought crime I get Blacked by imaginary black bvlls in my brain

Case in point.

Forgot to ask: @XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG what is the libertarian stance on blacking criminals? What if a libertarian city agreed through voluntary contracts that the punishment for the crimes described in the OP is being raped by blacks?

Anything to keep your mind on nigger dicks, huh?

I am not a criminal, so it would never happen. Why are you worried about that though? How many people have you killed?

 

[GeorgeAK]

I'd rather the punishment not also punish the rest of society

 

[Begemot]

Mutt's law.
Just shoot rapists and killers and be done with it, retard.

Scared, chud? You should be....

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Forgot to ask: @XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG what is the libertarian stance on blacking criminals?

I think your thread is stupid, but because there's at least a small chance that this could be educational, I'll give a serious answer
Criminal punishment is one of the more contested areas in libertarian theory, with different frameworks leading to different answers. For instance, there are proportionality- and estoppel-style views that push towards retaliation "in kind" and might try to justify mirrored responses in extreme cases. That said, that's not a view I hold.

The way I see it, the purpose of responding to aggression (clear cases in the OP, like rape, child molestation, unjustified killing etc.) is not to mirror that aggression, but to restore the victim and internalize the full costs of that aggression. That means that restitution is primary, followed by whatever additional burden is required to account for enforcement costs, risk, and irreversibility of harm. Deterrence may be a secondary consideration, but it can't justify punishments that are untethered from justice. That is, a criminal's suffering may go hand in hand with just punishment, but suffering as such is not a self-justifying legal metric (treating deterrence as a blank check collapses punishment into arbitrary cruelty).
Once you look at your thread that way, the proposal of rape as criminal punishment kinda goes out the window. Rape does not restore anything to a victim and it doesn't map to any identifiable cost that needs to be internalized. It would be nothing but a new independent invasion layered on top of the original one.

What if a libertarian city agreed through voluntary contracts that the punishment for the crimes described in the OP is being raped by blacks?

As for contract, I hope I can help clear up a widespread misconception or strawman there. Contracts can only specify control over legitimately ownable things and transfer rights that actually exist. Nobody has a right to aggress against others, and therefore you can't create such a right by contract. Any use of force still has to be independently justified (e.g. defense or restitution), and simply labeling something "punishment" or wrapping it in a contract doesn't do that. Contracts are not some magic spell by which the underlying structure can be changed or ignored. (Everything else aside, if it's rape, it's nonconsensual by definition. If it were genuinely agreed to in advance, like some form of consensual penalty clause, then it wouldn't be rape. So the "contract" is dead on arrival if you're actually talking about rape.)

tl;dr from this libertarian perspective, nope, imposing rape on criminals is neither restitution nor cost internalization, and it relies on treating aggression as something that can be licensed or delegated when it's labeled as "punishment"

 

[Taser Confetti]

No because OP’s mom would just start breaking the law on purpose.

 

[Gandhi's Left Hook]

OP should be raped for the way they wrote the title. Stop fantazising about black cock faggot.

 

[StimulatedOrb]

This is a very jewish notion.

 

[AMHOLIO]

OP the state can't fund your fetish

 

[Sneaky lurker]

The way I see it, the purpose of responding to aggression (clear cases in the OP, like rape, child molestation, unjustified killing etc.) is not to mirror that aggression, but to restore the victim and internalize the full costs of that aggression. That means that restitution is primary, followed by whatever additional burden is required to account for enforcement costs, risk, and irreversibility of harm. Deterrence may be a secondary consideration, but it can't justify punishments that are untethered from justice. That is, a criminal's suffering may go hand in hand with just punishment, but suffering as such is not a self-justifying legal metric (treating deterrence as a blank check collapses punishment into arbitrary cruelty).
Once you look at your thread that way, the proposal of rape as criminal punishment kinda goes out the window. Rape does not restore anything to a victim and it doesn't map to any identifiable cost that needs to be internalized. It would be nothing but a new independent invasion layered on top of the original one.

Correct me if I am wrong, but all the offender has to is pay a sum and walk away free?
The reason why it's important to punish criminals (depending on the severity) is because imo that is the very definition of justice. The victims do not matter here. The suffering of the criminal is also secondary. What is important is that he dies. With the criminal being dead, he can no longer plague people and society with his atrocious actions, and their transgressions against other people are nullified.
Besides, IF all a criminal has to do is "restitute his victims" (assuming that takes the form of financial compensation), I don't see how that solves anything. He is just gonna pay the fees and continue commiting crimes.

cost internalization

What is the meaning of this?

Nobody has a right to aggress against others

Rights are man-made. Who decided that there isn't a right to do that?

OP should be raped for the way they wrote the title. Stop fantazising about black cock faggot.

OP the state can't fund your fetish

We have a lot of people afraid of this new method. That's efficiency.

 

[TheSaltySpitoon]

Why are you freakazoids so obsessed with nigger dick?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Correct me if I am wrong, but all the offender has to is pay a sum and walk away free?

No. Restitution means that the offender bears liability for the full consequences for what they did (read: all of them), including the harm itself, long term effects, and enforcement costs. This can include long term or even lifelong obligations, restrictions, and supervision depending on the severity and the risk the offender poses.
Like, a fixed penalty system where you pay a predefined amount and you're done, that's what the state does. In a free society, liability reflects the harm you caused. If the harm done by an offender is ongoing or severe, the liability is ongoing or severe as well.

The reason why it's important to punish criminals (depending on the severity) is because imo that is the very definition of justice. The victims do not matter here. The suffering of the criminal is also secondary. What is important is that he dies. With the criminal being dead, he can no longer plague people and society with his atrocious actions, and their transgressions against other people are nullified.

Wow, removing the victim from "justice" entirely and replacing it with "kill the offender". I don't see how this preference for eliminating people you don't like qualifies as a theory of justice.
Killing the offender won't "nullify" shit. The harm already happened, nothing is restored, the victim is still harmed, and all you'd accomplish is adding another irreversible act. If anything, your plan would guarantee that nothing can ever be made right.
If your actual concern is preventing future harm, then say that. That would be a question of containment or exclusion, not a justification for arbitrary punishments like rape. Shit like that won't make the victim whole, it won't reflect any cost, and it won't solve the problem you're pointing at.

What is the meaning of [cost internalization]?

It means that the offender bears all the costs they imposed on others, instead of shifting them onto everyone else. The alternative would be that everyone else is effectively subsidizing aggression, just like you have in the current legal systems all over the world. In a libertarian society, proper liability makes aggression high-risk and unprofitable.

Rights are man-made.

Call them whatever you want, you still need a distinction between justified and unjustified uses of force. If you reject that entirely, then there's no real difference between crime and punishment. All you'd have is a preference on who gets to do what.