Talk:Civil Order Pact

John, I think there is a conflict between item 4 and 6. In 4 it should be made clear that once convicted of violating someone's rights your property could be seized for restitution and your freedom can be limited based on the crime and the verdict of the jury. I see the flow but I know some will take each item as being absolute and stand alone.

There is no conflict. The mere possession of a property does not make the possessor its proprietor. If one takes a property against the will of its proprietor, he has become its caretaker. Any damage done to the property or any cost of retrieval is an addition to his debt. The practice of subrogation offers a market-based approach to restorative justice. (See also Restitution Transfer and Recoupment.) BTW you can sign and time stamp your comments with four tildes. JLMadrigal 03:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Note also that I have included "or his estate" in item 6. This gives the justice market a claimant in cases in which the direct victim is incapacitated. When an aggressor takes a life, he is automatically indebted to the estate of the deceased (friends, family, business associates, &c.). Any loss resulting from an aggression becomes part of the aggressor's debt - including loss of use, business interruption, medical expenses, collection costs, arbitration costs, &c. JLMadrigal 11:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)