Unfortunately, dominating a good portion of the news this week was an awful story of a man caught raping a woman. I don’t think details of the particular case are of much importance here, so let’s just look at the outrage that has come from the coverage.

Obviously, being caught in the act by two men, there is no doubt of the offender’s guilt. Now I don’t want to take away from the rightful outrage of the unthinkable, disgusting, and violent acts of this cowardly, pathetic excuse of a human being. But, this outrage could be mostly silenced (apart from that of the victim and her family, as that will probably last forever) if we, as a society, thought justice was served. If this guy went to prison for 15 or 20 years, wouldn’t that make a lot of women (and their families) feel at least some relief that one rapist is off the streets? But, after the sentencing of this man, does anyone really feel a sense of justice? From what I have seen and heard, most people feel pretty upset with the outcome our “justice” system has produced, and rightfully so.

We see an upper class white kid get off almost completely free (relative to any comparison to sentences for rapists), and there is no doubt we, at the very least, have to question whether there is a problem in this so called justice system. We have all heard stories of biased judges helping, and hurting, whom they please. I understand that rape is a horrible disgusting act and anyone found guilty of it should be put to punishment only seen fit by the victim. I think, if we have the state and this corrupt bias system doing it, no one, especially the victim, will feel any sort of justice. That is the problem I’d like to look at.

When the state has a monopoly on a market, that power is bound to be used to the advantage of some and the disadvantage of others. When you give men authority over other men you cannot believe that everyone given that power will use it for “society’s” benefit. You have to know that is a naïve pipe dream. Man naturally does what is best for him and helps those he feels compelled to help (even if others don’t agree). Sometimes our actions have unintended consequences. We are not usually made aware of them, but they are happening. The problems we are facing with bias judges and the obvious favoritism the system creates are the natural unintended consequences of the state’s monopoly on a given market.

But, without the state, how would we handle such aggressions and violations of our most basic rights? Well, if we can agree we have ownership over ourselves and our bodies, shouldn’t we, as individuals (even voluntarily cooperating with others), be responsible for seeking retribution for violations against our bodies and property? Or couldn’t we at least free the market and bring competition to a market that has been dominated by a corrupt entity for such a long time? Doesn’t that sound like an idea you could get on board with?

If we really want to stop hearing about cases of obvious bias we need to recognize that these men have no authority over others, that they are simply other men with their own biased opinions. Shouldn’t the victim be the one who has final say whether justice has been served? With that, what if the victim didn’t want any sort of retribution and just forgave the offender? Who is the state to force retribution when their property was not violated (although I may argue the state believes it does have claim over your body and property, but that’s for another time)? We have to accept the idea that we have ultimate authority over ourselves to relieve ourselves from the corrupt system that rules over us.

Let’s look at what would happen if the state played no part in the justice of this crime, and what other solutions there could be.

If the offender is captured (detained), it should be up to the victim (if alive), or their families, to seek retribution for violations against their body or property. But, without the state who would hear such a case? Who would rule a verdict and how could it be enforced? We, the people, have always and will always have disputes. So, how do we handle them now, if not involving the state? We talk things out, we leave the situation, and if things are heated enough it could get violent. What if we can’t work it out though, what if we want an arbiter, someone to hear both sides and give us an opinion as to who they see is right? If people need this service enough, they will be willing to pay or trade for it, right? If they are willing to do that, wouldn’t someone be willing to offer that service in exchange for goods? Wouldn’t multiple arbiters come about looking to make money offering their services creating a competitive market? It would. With your money, you actually have the power to vote. Now as a consumer, you have say over which arbiter gets paid. But couldn’t this lead to just as many private sector arbiters being as bias and corrupt as the state officials? Well, probably not.

If you saw a judge of a private court give a rapist a free pass would you ever agree to hire that arbiter when you are the victim? No. That arbiter would already be closing shop if his services were rendered voluntarily. An arbiter in a competitive market can’t be biased towards a certain group in fear of losing business, as people aren’t going to agree to meet with a corrupt arbiter. So, they would have to rely on other principles, such as honesty and a general understanding of rights, aggression, and a non-bias foundation. From there people determine which arbiters succeed, and these could always be changing because when there is demand in a market, competition doesn’t stop. At that point, the most successful arbiters would be basing their opinions on a strong foundation of morals that society has come to agree with along with being known as one who can be an unbiased ear.

Now it is likely the offender of such an awful crime (expecting at least equally harsh punishment as retribution) may not go willingly to arbitration. Well, when you have a victim (with DNA evidence if need be) and two witnesses you probably won’t need much more to get a guilty verdict from an arbiter. Especially being able to show you’ve tried to get them to appear in person. So, once you get that guilty verdict, as the victim, you have the right and responsibility to get justice. Now, when I say that it is the victim’s responsibility that doesn’t mean they can’t enlist voluntary help of others. They could even hire someone or an entity to do it for them. But, the victim makes that decision, not some monopoly that says they can provide justice; whether you agree with the outcome or not doesn’t really matter.

Now, recall that in the story circulating the news that the offender was captured. So now, in this scenario, the victim does have the ability to take retribution and justice from the offender. Are we all going to agree with what this girl does to her rapist? No. Some of us may think it’s too harsh, some may say not harsh enough. But, one thing we should all agree on is that we cannot imagine what that girl is going through and what she would perceive as justice. I could not for one second begin to honestly say I understand what she’s feeling. Anyone thinking they can, without being subject to that kind of violence, is delusional. Again, with that understanding, it makes more sense morally and logically to let the victim take justice into their hands and use market options to get the answers and justices they seek.

If a rape victim cannot seek real justice for the violations of their most basic human rights, if the state claims some right to say justice was served, are they not saying they have some claim to the victim’s body as well? Doesn’t that sound as bad as the rapist telling her what is going to happen to her body? I would say that if the state is not going to help the victim in, or even stop the victim from, seeking justice it is just as bad as the crime it is letting go, if not worse.

I do not believe that all of my ideas are perfect, and they could definitely be improved upon. What I am certain of is that if we want to see real change we have to talk about it. We have to gather ideas and create conversation to help spur innovation. If nothing else I just want to bring a new conversation to the table. What if we rely on the ideas of self-ownership, non-aggression (except in cases of self defense), voluntary trade, and peaceful cooperation to come up with solutions to problems we face as a society and as individuals? If you find any of these ideas interesting, you have the whole world at your fingertips, please look them up. I can also appreciate any ideas to counter this context because I do not think any good ideas goes about untested or without dissent. This corrupt system we have today has been around for far too long. We have evolved so much as a society; I think we can come up with better ideas than the lackluster “justice” system we are forced into today.