¿Fiscales, para qué?

El Murray Rothbard "de a de veraz" en uno de sus libros (entre otras cosas) destruye la figura del fiscal. En los problemas judiciales entre privados, el Estado no puede ser juez y parte, debería ser solo juez y por eso propone eliminar el "ministerio público". Si una persona mata a otra, solo debería intervenir un "abogado" que represente a los deudos de la víctima y otro que defienda al acusado.

La existencia de los fiscales como motores de las acusaciones crea por lo menos dos problemas: que el fiscal decida no dar curso a una demanda (o que la cajonee) y el otro problema es que ningún familiar de la víctima quiera accionar contra el acusado y que el fiscal actúe de oficio.

"THE CENTRAL THRUST of libertarian thought, then, is to oppose any
and all aggression against the property rights of individuals in their own
persons and in the material objects they have voluntarily acquired. While
individual and gangs of criminals are of course opposed, there is nothing
unique here to the libertarian creed, since almost all persons and schools
of thought oppose the exercise of random violence against persons and
property.

There is, however, a difference of emphasis on the part of libertarians
even in this universally accepted area of defending people against crime.
In the libertarian society there would be no “district attorney” who
prosecutes criminals in the name of a nonexistent “society,” even against
the wishes of the victim of crime. The victim would himself decide
whether to press charges. Furthermore, as another side to the same coin, in
a libertarian world the victim would be able to press suit against a
wrongdoer without having to convince the same district attorney that he
should proceed. Moreover, in the system of criminal punishment in the
libertarian world, the emphasis would never be, as it is now, on
“society’s” jailing the criminal; the emphasis would necessarily be on
compelling the criminal to make restitution to the victim of his crime. The
present system, in which the victim is not recompensed but instead has to
pay taxes to support the incarceration of his own attacker—would be
evident nonsense in a world that focuses on the defense of property rights
and therefore on the victim of crime."