How would you punish a rapist or a murderer if the crime hasn't been committed yet?
Firstly, take the 'punishment' from the equation. The goal isn't to punish, but rather to 'prevent' a reoccurrence, 'rehabilitate' if possible, or in the very best case, to 'protect' both the victim AND the victimizer from harms that would happen to BOTH should the wrongful event take place. No, you can't predict all, but where people realize that the authority is ACTUALLY trying to help, more may be less afraid of coming forward.
However, I'll give a good example of where a proactive social justice system would prevent a crime. Where an abusive spouse poses a threat, the rule-of-law won't do a bloody thing until it feels ITSELF broken. A system that truly cared about people could've, should've and would've acted in time to prevent.
Your question here seems to presuppose that the 'accused' would suffer some ill effects from being so marked before a 'crime'. Keep in mind though, that the concept of 'punishment' needs to be eliminated before real justice like this can be done. A humiliating and hurtfull process of public media disgrace and lawyers cleaning out his/her bank accounts isn't what 'justice' and 'protection' should entail either.
The adversarial trial format is patently rediculous. The flip of a coin to determine guilty or not, would be as effective and far less costly. (Look up who and what the ancient greek 'Sophists' were and compare that to what barristers are today. This will also show you why I scoff the term 'Sophisticated Society'. We are duped into believing this illogical system can actually work--when it can't.) In a much better court process, there should never be absolute 'yes' or 'no' verdicts. Some protective and rehabilitative measures should always be employed--away from the gossiping public's prurient eyes. There isn't a galley at your visits to a doctor and there shouldn't be one in a hall of justice either. Speaking of which, medicare looks after people (except in the States) and a form of justice-care should handle the costs--equitably. (No more O.J. and Micheal jackson dream teams either.)
Regarding the issue of taxes, if I so desired, I could have my employer withhold zero dollars for taxes and entrust myself to make sure that, when tax time cometh, I have the funds necessary to pay my owed taxes. I choose not to do this because it is easier to let The Man hold on to it.
For what it's worth, I am in favor of a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax.
I see that you recognize the need for a tax yet that is not what you said initially.?
I haven't backed down on my statement. People shouldn't be taxed!
People are NOT slaves. Conversely, corporate entities ARE slaves. They were created not with flesh, blood and souls, but rather with paper laws, mental concepts and (dare I say) greed. Non-human entities CAN be taxed without breaking a human's birthright of freedom.
The system I suggested in my last post outlined a way to convert 'income tax' into an 'employment tax' that the company pays. The net dollar value doesn't even appreciably change.
I ask you again, how can a government be supported without tax revenue?
Almost all the difficulties that our civilization currently faces are partially as a direct result of the poorly thought-out 'system' that we 'put up with', when we shouldn't.
Let me give you an example. You remember the Virginia Tech shootings? What did the legal system and the media purport as the cause? "One troubled individual." Bullshit! You, I, and everyone else knows that there are a vast number of other people who are similarly 'disturbed' to a more or hopefully lesser degree, perhaps you share some of the shooter's frustration, but you manage to keep a handle on it--you call it the dark side of human nature. Well, this 'dark side' is partially manufatured by the law's harmful effects on a human psyche. We don't really like being slaves.
All souls have a good conscience that should at least restrain them from intentionally harming other life. (Granted, some people don't seem to listen to theirs very often, but everyone has one.) Imagine yourself in the place of the young Korean and concider how you might rationalize pulling the trigger--to your own conscience.
His inner voice of goodness would've asked him NOT to kill--BUT--the Rule-of-Law's structure permitted him to mentally transfer the deed onto the law itself. His intent wasn't to kill people, he was focusing on breaking 'the state's prohibition' against murder, in order to make a political statement (with the human victims as collateral damage.)
"What the F--K difference does that make?" It makes for a huge change. With actions NOT being against any laws, it is impossible for a malcontent to break them--just to complain against the system. Instead, the "law" (it really can't be called that but I use it to show the function it would do.) should be written to ONLY protect people.
IE. Murder shouldn't be 'illegal' because the state has no right to place limits on free actions. BUT, people have an EQUAL right NOT TO BE MURDERED and the state promices to do what it can to protect citizens from the free actions of others. Do you understand this? A murder is free to murder--as long as he doesn't murder someone. The rule-of-law approaches an attempt to establish good order from the wrong direction. It doesn't work right because it is trying to PUSH on a rope, intead of pulling.
Return to the Virginia Tech killings. The killer wanted to make a political statement and the 'rule-of-law' enabled him to do exactly that. One could argue that the rule-of-law CAUSED the event. A justice system that offered protections only, would've stymied him. He couldn't have mitigated his conscience into thinking that he was only harming a thing--the law, instead he would only have been hurting people. He may not have been able to do it and how many people would still be alive? Additionally, the protective justice would've saved the killers life too--by not giving him the 'go-ahead' him kill. Besides, with an improved system, he might not have felt the same hopelessness that sent him over the brink in the first place.
"One troubled individual." --NO-- "One troubled society."