Freedomain Radio

Important question. Here's some ideas I've come up with or stolen from Stef's podcasts.

1. How would a DRO that is lying about weapons purchases and hiding weapons from 3rd party inspectors be stopped from taking over violently?

 Weapons that are used for offense are very expensive and would lead to an increase in the rates of those who are customers of the DRO. Not only would this discourage those customers from continuing to support the DRO's, but such an increase in prices would also raise enormous red flags.

2. Couldn't a DRO just lie about the "10 million dollar deal" just long enough to become organized and powerful enough to take over?

 DRO's that suddenly spend 10 million dollars would probably need to raise the rates of their clients. In order to keep customers from leaving, DRO's would have to strongly convince their customers that this raise in cost is justified. Customers might ask that a third party inspect the purchases made by the DRO.

3. What if a DRO grows quite a bit and then a new guy comes in and starts murdering people and tries to start a new state?

 Do you mean a new head of the DRO company? I do not think a DRO as a whole would mindlessly march into battle at the command of a new leader who has gone insane. However, even if this did occur, this DRO would rapidly lose its funding and other DRO's would be able to charge slightly higher rates in order to fund an effective solution to this out-of-control DRO.

4. How would competing, individual DRO's fight against a large-scale attack such as nuclear/biological weapons or a large scale invasion from a well-armed nation?

 This is one of the toughest questions for me. These DRO's might have an incentive to work together under this circumstance given that they would otherwise lose their entire businesses.

5. How many people would actually have fears or care enough to be constantly watching the DRO for any suspicious activity (I'll admit it's a cynical question to begin with, but I didn't have an answer)?

 IMHO, no political system or lack of a political system would work if a certain percentage of the population wasn't willing to do a bare minimum. Asking how a DRO system could work if people weren't willing to watch over the DRO would be the same as saying "how would a credit rating agency work if lenders never checked credit ratings." This is a very difficult question for me, though others might have better answers.

6. Wouldn't a DRO be unstoppable if they found just one corrupt bank willing to not seize the DRO's assets?

 That would badly harm the reputation of this DRO.

7. Wouldn't DRO's just turn in to large gangs, fighting each other for power? (I said that people wouldn't fund or support them if they did this, but they then noted that by this time they could just start subjugating the people under their respective contracts)

If they tried to subjugate them through contracts, there would need to be a clause in the contract that makes the contract void if the DRO's violate the non-aggression principal.

These are just my initial responses to the questions.

The number of possible answers to each question are uncountable. As are the possible permutations.

Assuming a free market, I think that at the heart of the solution is three things. An education in how to think for oneself from a moral standpoint (UPB/logic is the best answer I have seen), individual moral accountability, and communication (feedback) of which - again assuming a free market - price would be a very important factor.

I understand the fear of DRO's having jumped on it myself as soon as I heard the idea. I still hold some fear of group mentality, I think it is a healthy fear. I wouldn't be here without it. One born from hearing "sorry sir, it's company policy" or "the bible says" instead of rational thought. It's the fear of individuals unthinkingly deferring to a 'higher power' when faced with a moral 'short circuit' (actually it doesn't have to be a moral dilema but that's where the fear lies in this context).

If you look at each problem from the individual up and not DRO down you begin to see how DRO success would depend on a vast network of individuals. A network of individuals invested in the integrity of said DRO with differing, even competing interests. With communication any one of those individuals could provide an answer to the above questions. Any one of those individuals could bring a DRO down. DRO size given the above conditions has to be a reflection of years of moral integrity, and would still exist on the precipice of failure. I don't see any other way?....

I understand the compulsion to go increasingly toward the minutia of the questions.  That is fine.  But I think you'll find that, after having found the answers to hundreds of possible scenarios regarding DROs, roads, defense, police, currency, etc..., that those specifics incidents could have all been predicted if you had just defined a few axioms of human interaction. 

For example:  Instead of asking: "What would a DRO do in X situation?"  and  "How would currency work" and "What about public education?"  it would be better from a logical and time standpoint to ask "What is the best mechanism for reaching an optimal supply/demand for a product or service?"  Markets or force?

The most important things to answer are the fundamental premises. 

For example: "If people are too selfish/stupid to be trusted to trade voluntarily, how can it make sense to give some of them a violent monopoly?"  Logically, they can't be trusted with one.  If people are selfish, then in a statist world selfish people will have legal rights over others and their property.  Thus the problem of selfishness increases under the state.  Vwalla!  The literally infinite set of questions about what the state "should" do become utterly irrelevant.

The deeper questions are more efficient :-)

I think it's very unlikely DRO's would control every aspect of life like government does.  Take Craigslist for example...... there's obviously a certain level of trust in strangers there that they'll pay you and not brandish a weapon at the business deal.  If more people became mistrusting of possible sales prospects, they'd either stop using Craigslist, or use Craigslist and a DRO service (or the owners of Craigslist might add approval ratings) to ensure the best chance of safe transactions.  If that happened you could just refuse to sell to anyone under a certain approval or first time buyers, etc.....

How many of you when a friend asks to borrow money ask to write out a contract?  If you do, it's safe to assume there's not much trust in that relationship.......

masonkiller:

Oneironaut:

 

4. DROs are liable to cooperate with each other in defense of a large-scale attack to protect themselves and their market. DROs may possess nuclear weapons too, or perhaps an entrusted committee of some sort, which would serve as a massive deterrent for any nation-state to invade.

Even I have a fear on this one. Attacks with small arms are much, much slower than attacks with WMDs. How could DRO's possibly have a system to ensure that use of WMD's on other DRO's or communities would be prevented?

Would you do business with a known mass-murderer?  Just think if one DRO gassed or nuked an entire populace?  They would immediately have no income stream since all their current clients would drop them; genocide would be cutting their own throat.  Also, DROs are not geographically dependent; some of the customers of the aggressor DRO would be consumed in an attack on their competitors' clients.  Plus, the point of one DRO in waging war against another is to destroy the business organization but keep the income base in tact so they can have it for themselves.  Killing off the clients they failed to win through fair competition would be exact opposite outcome of why a supposed DRO power-grab war would be launched.  

Just like nation-states will not absolutely destroy one another.  They will fight only until the ruling apparatus ceases to exist, surrenders, or is replaced by one sympathetic to the invaders (such as Italy in WWII) so that the successful invader can now step into the power vacuum or co-opt its replacement; a populace will not be annihilated since it's control, not destruction, is the point of the war.

A freely given monopoly still does not violate moral principles, it is only when coercion to end competition or non-availability of an option to opt out make a DRO coercive.  So if one DRO gains 100% market share through voluntaryist practices then no one's rights have been violated but they will have to provide a consistently good level of service at acceptable prices in order to prevent competition from springing up or people simply "living off the grid."

And to question #3, that of a new DRO simply strong-arming, or "murdering" as the question puts it, in order to gain clients by force...  This is impossible.  How many people (meaning the employees of this aggressive DRO) would murder for a company?  Would employees of Coca-Cola raid and pillage Pepsi factories in order to safeguard their company's future?  No, because Coke, along with a DRO, will not have the power to brainwash/publically educate (but I repeat myself) their customers and their customers' children into thinking that this DRO was the divinely appointed agent for their safety and security and superior to all others.  

Now imagine that one of your supervisors came and told you to drive across town and start murdering as many as possible in the offices of their most powerful business rival or you're fired.  Not only that but your competition has made contingency plans against this exact scenario and are at least as well-armed and trained for combat as you and they have also made compacts for mutual self-defense with other players in the industry like second and third tier competitors...how many people without extensive years of brainwashing and conditioning would prefer stepping into the breach over a sacking?