All right, Stephan Molling from Free Domain, a great question from freedomain.locals.com.
Lovely community.
I hope you were joined.
You can do so at freedomain.com slash donate.
All right.
So the question is, how do you deal with murderers in a free society?
How do you deal with murderers in a free society?
So I'm going to unpack this at a number of different levels, and we're going to go deep, like a knife wound.
We're going to go deep because there is an implicit premise involved in how does a free society deal with X, whatever X is.
How does a free society deal with the education of children, the provision of health care, the protection of property, the defense of a nation?
How does a free society deal with these issues?
Now, implicit in this is the belief that a statist society deals with these things.
And a free society, a stateless society, has to do it better.
So if you say, well, how does a free society protect your property?
It's like, well, how's your property being protected at the moment?
Well, it's not.
In fact, it's being kind of pillaged, right?
Because they can raise property taxes, drive up home values, which default increases property taxes.
There's asset forfeiture.
There's taxation.
There's unfunded liabilities.
There's national debts.
There's taxes on everything that you do.
And you cannot functionally use the court system to protect your property.
There's squatters' rights.
If you've ever tried to get the government to help you protect your property, you realize that it doesn't, really.
I mean, I remember decades ago, a guy I worked with was telling me about his brother who had a very expensive car stolen that had GPS in it.
And he went to the cops and he said, listen, I need you to go and get my car back before it gets chopped up or shipped off to wherever.
And the cops were like, yeah, just file an insurance claim.
Like, we're not going in, right?
And I mean, everybody's got tons of stories like this.
If something, like you can imagine, right?
So if something gets stolen off your porch, right?
Some Amazon packers and porch pirates come.
What happens?
Let's say you go to the police and you say, oh, here's the footage and blah, blah, blah.
Do you expect to have your property protected and returned to you or restitution or anything?
Well, of course not, right?
So the idea that governments protect your property at the moment and saying, well, you know, if I need a substitute, right?
I need a substitute.
So if you're drinking a bottle of water and somebody says, oh, you should drink something else, then you say, well, but I already have my water, right?
I already have my water.
You're really going to have to prove to me that whatever you want to substitute for this lovely, delicious, cold mountain stream glacial runoff water, whatever you want to replace it with, it's got to be way better because I already got this water, man.
Why would you want to replace it with something better?
If you say to a guy who's really lonely, desperate for a girlfriend, hey, I have a way of getting you a great girlfriend.
He'll say, I'm interested, right?
But if you say to a guy who's happily married, I have a way to get you a great girlfriend, then it's like, no, I already have this thing that works.
I'm already happily married.
So I don't want a great girlfriend, right?
So if you say, how does a free society handle education?
Then there's this belief, well, we have education already being handled in a government society.
So you got to show how it's going to be better, even better in a free society, right?
If you're starving, what your question is, how do you get food?
I need food.
Right?
That's your question.
If you already have a giant buffet, right?
If you already have a giant buffet, and then people are saying, no, no, no, we can get you better than a giant buffet, then people are going to say, well, holy crap, I mean, I already have a giant buffet.
You've really got to sell me on how this is going to be better, right?
And so if you say, well, gee, how are murderers handled in a free society?
There is, of course, the implicit baked-in premise that murderers are somehow being handled in the present society.
Right?
Now, how does the present society deal with murderers?
Well, of course, the present society doesn't even know if they are murderers until a very lengthy and laborious court process is gone through.
The solution for murder rate is well below 50%.
It used to be very high, and it's well below 50%, 20%, 30%, 40% in some places.
So murder clearance rates are very low.
And also, people are unjustly charged with murder, you know, tons of DNA exoneration, you know, years or decades after the fact.
And that's just those people who keep pushing, right?
It's not the people who die in prison or don't push or don't have the DNA evidence.
So how is murder dealt with at the moment?
Well, there's a law against it.
Okay.
How well is that law pursued?
How just are the arrests and trials and imprisonments, right?
Because you know the way it goes, right?
Is that even if somebody is unjustly imprisoned, right?
Then what will happen is they will be threatened with the death penalty, like in some places, right?
They'll be threatened with, well, we're going to charge you with first-degree murder.
We're going to seek the death penalty and we're going to kill you.
Unless, unless you plea out.
And if you plea out, maybe we'll reduce it to manslaughter, imperfect self-defense, something, right?
Or even second-degree murder or whatever, something which is obviously a long sentence, maybe even a life sentence, but not a death sentence.
So how many people are justly convicted in a free society?
And that's just one of many, many things that we're talking about.
If the police kill someone, how many times is that justified?
I mean, body cams have shown that it certainly does have justifications, but there is also the cops can lie about it, and it's very tough, you know, if there's no body cams.
If the cop says, well, he drew his gun or he drew what I thought was a gun or whatever it is.
Turns out he was reaching for his wallet.
It was dark.
I couldn't tell.
It's kind of tough, right?
So even agents of the state can kill people and get away with it.
I'm not saying any of this is impossible in a free society.
It's just that the idea that it's being handled now, but it needs to be even better in a free society, is not correct.
Now, if we look at murderous, which is the unlawful killing of another, right?
The unlawful killing of another human being, and we take away sort of the costumes and the military and the pomp and the circumstances and the folded flags and the caskets and the 21-gun salutes and all of the pageantry, then let's say the invasion of Iraq killed a couple of thousand Americans and killed 500,000 Iraqis.
That's a lot of fucking murder because Iraq, while being ruled by a vile dictator who had, of course, been helped out by the U.S. quite a bit, it was not about to invade or destroy America.
Right.
So, if you look at that, then murder begins to take on, well, a bit of a different light, right?
That's half a million.
That doesn't even count all of the people bombed and killed in, gosh, you name it, right?
South America, Central America, the Middle East, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Korea, and so on, right?
Doesn't count.
All of that.
There are estimates that, of course, post-Second World War, millions and millions and millions of people have been killed by Western powers and America in particular.
And that's all murder.
America has mostly friendly neighbors to the north and south, has the biggest oceans on the planet on either side.
It should be able to get by without slaughtering millions of people because it's not being invaded in that kind of way.
There is significant reports that Venezuela emptied out its prisons and shipped its criminal, feral, prison-violent population into the United States, which was all facilitated by the American government, particularly the Biden administration.
And the welfare state was used as bait.
People were brought in and they were let loose in the interior where they murdered a lot of people.
So is that your government protecting you from murder or allowing criminals and paying criminals to come to your country and kill you?
If you look at England, I mean, obviously, rape is a horrible crime, rape against children, one of the worst crimes of all.
And the government in England covered up and facilitated the rape of hundreds of thousands of little white girls and Sikh girls in particular in England.
If you look at the 10 million slaughtered in the First World War and the 50 million slaughtered in the Second World War, the quarter of a billion slaughtered by governments outside of war, just in the 20th century alone, the 100 million killed by communism, that's a lot of fucking murder.
When you read about murders and murderers, the amount of incompetence that the government has in trying to deal with murderers is truly remarkable.
I mean, even things like Bernie Madoff, there were tons of people saying that Bernie Madoff, like a con artist, ran a Ponzi scheme.
Bernie Madoff's returns were statistically impossible.
And the government was informed for many, many years prior to the arrest and conviction of Bernie Madoff that he was a sketchy, slithery, tentacle-fingered theft magnet son of a bitch.
Well, how did that work out?
If you look at the incompetence in things like the poor Paul Bernardo Carla Homolka case, and if you look at the various Syria killers and how many people warned the police, how many people gave evidence, how many people cried out to the police to do something.
There was a young woman, a girl, a little girl, who was abducted and raped and murdered in Ontario some decades ago.
And it was someone that she knew, because her coat hook was hung too high for her to reach in the home.
It was someone that she knew who also knew that the parents would be away because she was home alone.
And the police for decades pursued and tried and incarcerated a guy who turned out to be innocent when pretty much only, I think only three phone calls were made the morning that the parents left the girl or left and so that the girl was going to come home alone.
And two were to family members who had alibis and one was to another guy who didn't have an alibi.
And that was the guy.
So if they had simply, and they had the phone calls, right?
They knew the phone calls.
So they'd simply talk to the guy who knew because the parents phoned him and said, oh, we're going to be away for the day.
And so all they had to do was, and the girl knew him.
So, I mean, just things like that.
And of course, you know, sometimes the police are efficient.
And I get that it's sort of a selection bias.
But the amount of incompetence that goes on in police work is astonishing.
And the amount of bribery and collusion and so on and the amount of unjust persecutions, you know, everyone's kind of heard these stories of, oh, you know, the cop got mad at me.
The guy slept at the, you know, I did, I did something to the cop's wife or I, you know, the cop got mad at me and was harassing me to the point where I had to leave town like it did because every time I'd go out, he'd pull me over, he'd harass me.
Right.
So this kind of stuff is legion.
The cops, of course, have the perfect right to lie to you, and you can't lie to the cops.
And the cops can search just about anything if they get their dog sniffers out there.
And they're like, oh, do you smell something white?
And the dog gets excited.
Oh, okay.
Right.
So cops plant evidence.
So again, I mean, there's good cops and there's good work, but there's a lot of really shady and negative stuff that is going on.
So if you just look at, say, 3 to 350 million people murdered by governments under statism, and then you say, well, but how would a free society deal with murderers?
Well, it wouldn't pay them.
It wouldn't force them to become murderers through the draft, right?
And individual murderers, you can protect yourself against in a free society, because you can have weaponry and you can have, of course, your cameras, and so catching them will be relatively easy.
I mean, basically, the only crime that exists in sort of modern surveillance societies and technology societies and so on, the only crime that really exists is that which is allowed to exist.
If you look at Maduro, sorry, not Maduro, if you look at the guy, Sebukele, who came in in El Salvador and dropped the murder rate like 95% just by arresting people who literally had carved tattoos of their murderous histories on their face.
It wasn't that complicated.
All of this is everything that exists in terms of criminality is allowed to exist.
And of course, we all know anarcho-tyranny, right?
And this was identified by Soljanitsyn many years ago, where if some guy is attacking you and you use a knife to protect yourself, then you're charged with terrorism because the criminal doesn't know any better and you are unjust in protecting yourself and doing the wrong thing and so on.
And so the fact that people who use self-defense are regularly charged with crimes and sometimes get worse sentences than those who attack them.
There's countless examples, of course, in England of criminals getting lesser sentences than those who protested against it or fought back against it.
You're not allowed to carry weapons and you can't defend yourself.
Or if you look at something like COVID and the COVID, the COVID tyranny, of course, caused a lot of people to commit suicide and become criminals and so on.
And if you look at the vaccine and you say, well, for those who had very low risk of death from COVID, there's arguments that the death from vaccine was higher.
And so that was something that was very much pushed and bullied and sometimes kind of enforced by a government.
So could you count that as a kind of murder if the information is withheld and so on?
Sure.
Sure.
And it's sort of, you understand, I could sort of go on and on with this kind of stuff.
Kids who are trapped in government schools and bullied to the point where they either kill others or kill themselves is a form of institutional or environmental slaughter.
If you look at, this is a show I did many years ago with Dr. Mary Ruart, R-U-W-A-R-T, it's a very fine researcher.
And she pointed out that the FDA was brought into being largely as a result of thalidomide that resulted in a relatively small number of birth mutations and deaths.
It was an anti-morning sickness, quote, medicine turned out to have significant genetic corruption problems.
And in order to, like in response to a few 100 deaths, the FDA, and this is like 15 years ago that I interviewed her, the FDA had been calculated to have cost 5 million American lives by banning life-saving medicines that were legal everywhere else from the American market.
That's a kind of murder.
If you prevent people from getting a hold of medicines that are legal in Europe and other places, other places with strict regulatory controls, beta blockers and things like that, then yeah, that's if you're withholding medicine from people that otherwise would save their lives, that's a kind of murder.
So again, we could sort of go on and on with this stuff, poor government roads, bad signage, oversignage leading to roads not being cleaned and roads not being maintained, leading to traffic deaths and so on.
So yeah, there's tons of sort of examples of ways in which governments directly or indirectly get hundreds of millions of people killed, which is a kind of murder.
And then they pay people to murder others by the hundreds of thousands or millions in wartime.
So when you say, how would a free society deal with murderers?
It's like, not pay them, not enforce murder, not initiate wars and cause the murders of hundreds of thousands or millions of people, just for hundreds of millions of people, really, all around.
Yeah, this isn't even, of course, to count perhaps the most egregious one, which is abortion.
Abortions are not only legalized, but are funded and paid for by governments, resulting in the highest death count in all of history.
Just in America, Roe v. Wade has killed more babies than all of the wars throughout human history.
So, yeah, maybe not fund it, maybe not pay for it, maybe not enforce it, maybe not lure tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dangerous criminals into your country and then disarm you and punish you for protecting yourself.
I mean, just, you know, a couple of thoughts, right?
Because there's this belief, well, you know, you got to show, you got to show how you're going to do better than the government if you want to sell me your system.
Like, I already have a nice car.
If you want me to upgrade to an even nicer car, ooh, you know, I'm pretty comfortable with the car I have and this is whole new technology and so on.
You know, I already have an iPhone 16.
If you want me to go to an iPhone 17, you really got to sell me because it's really pricey, right?
But it's a higher sale because it's a whole different technology, which is free market rather than statism.
So I just sort of wanted to point that, like, don't fall into the trap.
And I sometimes do as well.
So, you know, this is a reminder for us all, I suppose.
But don't fall into the trap of believing that you have to sell a better solution for murder than currently exists.
Now, if you look at murderers, and of course, this is a, this covers a lot of violent criminals, but we can sort of focus on the murderers.
If you look at murderers, then they have particular brain structures.
Violent criminals have particular brain structures that are pretty easy to identify in a brain scan.
Now, what I mean by this is that, you know, there are people who lack empathy processing and so on.
And of course, the people who lack empathy processing and maybe have, you know, the warrior genes and all that kind of hair trigger stuff and maybe are, you know, the sweet spot for criminality is around IQ85.
Oh, there's another one.
After the George Floyd and Black Lives Matter riots and protests and depolicing, the murder rates of blacks went through the roof, which is another kind of state-sanctioned and sometimes state-subsidized murder.
A lot of murders come from single-mother households, and single-mother households are paid for and enforced by the state.
And you can't have a man there and you get money only if he's not.
So again, this is, the government is exacerbating the problem of murder.
It's not dealing.
If the government did nothing, murder would be better off because you could at least have self-defense.
So if you were to look at these brain scans, you would see, oh, this person's got a very anomalous empathy processing center.
You know, when I show them pictures of people being tortured, the happy centers of the brain light up rather than the horrified centers of the brain light up.
And that doesn't mean that everybody who's like that is a murderer, but pretty much everyone who's a murderer is like that.
And even if they're not murderers, right, people who don't have empathy, right, empathy is like this complex wiring together of 13 different brain sections during infancy and toddlerhood, and you can't fix it later, right?
You can't fix it later.
If you don't get the empathy wiring when you're young, you just don't get it.
And so in a free society, you would want to see if the child was being raised in such a horrible, violent, cold, neglected environment that they were not developing empathy, right?
You'd want to see that and you'd want to intervene in society.
Now, does government ever do that?
Nope.
Government does not do that.
I mean, the technology is relatively recent, although you could kind of test people for many things earlier.
But the government doesn't do brain scans and say, ooh, you know, this kid is really developing a pretty monstrous and cold-hearted stuff.
And we're going to have to intervene.
And then you would put incentives in place to make sure that intervention was going to happen and work to reverse or undo the damage as best could be done.
And you'd try and find it pretty early, right?
So there's no incentive in that.
But see, government needs criminals.
Government needs criminals to justify its own existence, to threaten and terrorize the population and to keep people jumpy and clamorous of the need for safety, right?
And so on, right?
And the people who are really bad, violent, dysfunctional parents, they don't want to be outed as child abusers.
And they would, of course, there are all of these horrible groups that would just simply sue to prevent this kind of stuff as being, I don't know, racist or I don't know, sexist against single mothers or something like that, right?
So you just can't get any sort of facts and so on.
But, you know, violence is a problem that has specific causes, right?
You can just look at my bomb in the brain series.
And it has a specific cause and a specific ideology and an evolution.
And we certainly have the technology to see it beginning to form, right?
Lack of empathy and violence and so on.
We certainly have the ability to watch it form, to see it form.
And we certainly have the capacity to change it, to prevent it, to see when there is violence occurring.
We have very much the capacity to detect it and to fix it, to reverse it, to remediate it.
And that may involve taking the child from the parents, but I mean, I have so little problem with that and so much advocacy for that, it could scarcely be expressed in a relatively short podcast.
So a lot of murderers come from highly abusive households, and there's significant history of reading about this.
Germany actually took children and gave them to pedophiles as part of a sort of social experiment of like, God knows what, right?
So how do you deal with murderers?
Well, you have a society where the costs of murderers are borne by the murderers and their parents.
So if someone becomes a murderer and you do a brain scan and it turns out that they were raised in such a way that they didn't have empathy, then you would also charge the parents.
Now, does that mean you charge the parents for every crime?
Well, I'm fine with that if there can be causality proven, right?
So if there's a brain scan that's done at birth and the brain is healthy, and then there's a brain scan done of a murderer and their brain is damaged by a clear effects of child abuse, then sure, yeah, you would charge the parents.
And what that does, of course, is it gives the parents a great incentive to make sure that they don't produce murderers.
So they take their kid, oh, it's a brain scan.
Let's make sure the kid's developing empathy and so on and all that kind of stuff.
And yeah.
And I say, oh, but it's unjust to charge the parents for the actions of the adult child.
Well, why not charge both?
I have no problem.
Again, assuming that causality can be shown, I'm not just everyone.
Somebody could have a brain tumor, right?
It's not the parents' fault if they become a murderer at 35 because they get a brain tumor that destroys their empathy centers or their neofrontal cortex or their restraining bolts, so to speak.
Okay, yeah, we don't charge the parents, right?
But if the kid is healthy, developing well, then parental cruelty is shown and the parental cruelty destroyed the empathy centers.
And right, then, yeah, then you turn someone into a kind of pit bull, right?
You trained up a violent person and so on.
Now, of course, again, this would not really happen in a free society because parents who were training a child to become a violent criminal would have the child taken away from them, right?
Obviously.
I mean, that's not, I mean, if that's controversial to you, I almost don't even know what to say, that if parents are abusing a child to the point where the child becomes a violent criminal or has violent criminal tendencies and so on, then, yeah, I mean, you would take the child away and you would work to reverse the damage and you would charge the parents because they are crippling a child and releasing a dangerous predator into the wild.
I mean, obviously, if a man tortures and abuses his dog and then releases it at the playground where it attacks children, then the dog would be taken away and the man would be charged with the resulting crimes.
This is not controversial to anybody who, I mean, I hear parents, right?
But no, that's no problem with that.
I'm totally, totally fine with that.
In fact, I'm very keen on that kind of stuff.
Parents who create violent, abusive children and adults should be charged.
Yep.
And the intervention should happen as early as possible, and the children should be taken away, and the parents should be charged.
And any decent parent wants to raise a peaceful, empathetic child and strong, you know, strong, peaceful, reasonable, empathetic child.
And so they will bring their kids in, get the brain scans.
Oh, how's development going?
Well, if there are any issues or questions, you would be referred to a specialist who would help you.
And then there would be another scan a month later looking for improvements.
And if there weren't, right, then you would question the child and you might even put recording devices in the home that would be activated by cries of pain or something like that.
I mean, who knows, right?
I have no problem with invading privacy with people who are abusing children because we need to protect the children, right?
So you would have agencies and you would have parental responsibilities and so on, because society pays a lot for criminals.
Criminals cost society huge amounts of money.
Who pays for that?
Well, taxpayers and the unborn in terms of national debts and so on.
But the individual who make bad decisions don't pay themselves.
And especially with modern technology, it's not even that modern brain scan has been around for a while.
But with modern technology, it's very easy to figure out which children are being abused.
And the people who would have to sanction murderers don't want murderers to sanction.
Because if you're being sold protection from murderers, the fewer murderers there are, the cheaper the protection you can be sold.
And therefore, the companies that are selling you, like the companies that sell you fire insurance, really want to make sure that you have fire alarm systems in your home, right?
And you don't have open flames in the home.
You don't have a big fire pit.
So they're looking for where they want to make sure that you have non-flammable insulation and all that kind of stuff, right?
Separate exits so you don't die.
So life insurance companies will charge you less if you don't smoke, if you maintain a healthy body weight and all kinds of stuff, right?
So all of that's pretty understandable.
So insurance companies want to avoid what they have to insure or what they're paid to insure.
And so companies that want to protect you from criminals want to make sure that there are as few violent criminals as possible, which means that they will involve themselves in child raising to the point where brutal parents producing violent children or violent adults will be sanctioned and the children will either learn better skills or the children will be taken away and the parents will have their asses thrown in jail, which would be a good thing for the world as a whole or whatever, right?
Now, if somebody does murder, of course, then they're identified through sort of the most modern techniques of investigation and so on.
And they're found and they're tried.
And if they're found guilty of murder, then they are removed from society.
How are they removed from society?
Well, through ostracism.
And of course, people would sign contracts, right?
Which says, look, if I'm found guilty of killing someone, I agree to submit to the punishment.
And people who don't want to sign those contracts will not be allowed to participate in society, right?
Economic ostracism, right?
So there'll be contracts which penalties, right?
Penalties for, here are the penalties if you do bad things.
And people sign those contracts.
And then it's not jail.
It's the enforcement of a contract.
I agree to be taken out of society to make society safe.
I agree to pay restitution from my assets and so on.
So people will just have contracts or even if they don't have contracts, then they would still be economically ostracized from the society until they made restitution or whatever it is.
So yeah, they were just taken out of society, restitution where possible, and that's how it would deal.
And so society would deal with it.
And that's actually how you deal with it.
Prevention and accurate and effective cure.
And, you know, would a free society have the death penalty?
It seems less likely, unlikely, because you get subsidized labor from people who go to prison.
And so the restitution could be helpful.
And wouldn't it be nice to have criminals to pay for law enforcement?
Now, of course, I get, well, yes, but you could just throw people in jail to get free labor.
I get all of that.
So there'd have to be checks and balances.
But checks and balances are only possible in a free society.
Checks and balances are only possible in the free market.
They're not possible with government because government can just ignore stuff, right?
Oh, only Congress can declare war.
Like every president declares a military action, right?
And war and all of that, right?
So that is not feasible.
I say, oh, we'll get checks and balances through the government.
It's like, no, you won't.
No, you won't.
So anyway, I hope that helps.
Freedomain.com/slash donate.
If you find this kind of information useful and helpful, I very much appreciate that.