Under punishment systems, an offender has a strong incentive to seek to escape apprehension. Under a system of restitution, on the other hand, such efforts would serve only to increase the offender's eventual burden, since the latter includes the costs of investigating the crime, apprehending the perpetrator, and prosecuting the offense (p. 5.5:65). In fact, the shrewdest criminals might find it in their self-interest to turn themselves in at the earliest opportunity, and then to refrain from obstructionist legal tactics in the ensuing trial. For this reason among others, such a system would be far more efficient and cost-effective.

While this discussion has focused on criminal cases, the principle of restitution applies to civil disputes as well. The principle requires that each party to a dispute bear the costs incurred as a consequence of his or her actions. In particular, therefore, the losing party in a civil suit would bear responsibility for all legal and court costs entailed by that suit.

How would the government be financed?

The issue of government finance illustrates vividly the stark contrast between conditions in a free society and those with which we are familiar in statist systems. As we have seen, a liberal government is highly streamlined, limited to the single function of upholding individual rights against would-be aggression. Furthermore, under the restitution principle just discussed, the expense of apprehending and prosecuting aggressors is borne primarily by the aggressors themselves (p. 5.5:65).

^Previous