I Will Be Boycotting the NHUnderground Forums

[MaineShark]

And that's also very subjective.

Restitution always is, because it deals with real harms, not like the punishments meted-out by the State, which don't.  Even when a real violation is mentioned, forcing the victim to pay for locking the offender in a box doesn't actually deal with the harm that was done.

Would the store owner be justified in enslaving the child for 100 oz of gold? No. Should he even have the ability to do so? No. This is where third party arbitration comes in to settle disputes. While the owner is permitted compensation for his loss, he does not have the right to agress for more than the value of damages. Since it's difficult to be unbiased in this situation, if a deal can't be reached, arbitration is necessary.

Granted, most store owners won't go crazy over a kid and a candybar, but neither should they have the ability to.

Oh?  How do you know what damages the store owner suffered?  Maybe he's been stolen from many times, and had a nervous breakdown as a result of the kid's theft.  You are not in a position to say what harm was caused.

Arbitration is a tool that civilized people use to reach agreements in certain situations.  It is not any part of morality.

Joe