[mothballed]

Social ostracism, loss of voting rights, loss of licensing, loss of ability to volunteer for some of your children's activities, loss of job opportunities because your name is on a docket or list of sexual offenders, higher insurance rates, loss of rental options, possible difficulty obtaining a passport or getting a visa, potentially being dropped from certain bank activities during due diligence, etc

Being jailed with some books and lots of time to work out sounds nice sometime, especially during times when home life is toddlers or baby screaming at you and waking you 24/7 and all your time is spent tending to others' needs so you have no personal agency anyway, the rest does not.

[pc86]

All of those other things (except maybe social ostracism), are also backed up by the force of the state and it's honestly kind of concerning you don't see that.

Even debanking only happens because the banks themselves face fines from the state, which if unpaid leads to loss of licensure, after which continued operation leads to... jail. You only need a passport because if you try to push through security without one, you're going to jail. I'm sure if I wanted to waste my time I could follow the thread on all the other ones too.

Social ostracism is a good point. Perhaps the exception that proves the rule?

[mothballed]

I absolutely agree with you in substance. My main point is I think jailing is way overused and of usually of dubious value. It's extremely expensive, harms the victims (they literally have to pay taxes to pay for the aggressors), of dubious value in most cases, functions as criminal university, does little rehabilitation.

Of course it needn't be a centralized state per se. Somalis for example use 'xeer' law which is a scalable legal system that starts peer to peer and appealable upwards, mostly based on restitution/fines and ostracizing those who do not pay (eventually to the point, they could become 'outlaws' that have no protection from crime themselves).

I think restitution based legal system is ideal, but of course that would flip on its head the current system where the state ousts the victim and becomes the victim themselves and deprives the victim of restitution instead turning it into a big cronyism money making machine for themselves at the expense of everyone else. It would also mean the end of most 'victimless' crime, and god knows the wailing and nashing of teeth that would come when you couldn't prosecute someone for smoking a left handed cigarette because there is no victim to prosecute the case [or on behalf of].

[nehal3m]

Your moral compass?