Freedomain Radio

Hi Everybody!

I have been lurking and reading and listening for a while now, but recently a thought has occurred based on 2 factors:

1. Statism will collapse, it is only a question of when.

2. DRO's will appear and will be an essential part of a free society, this is also just a matter of when.

So, the thought is, why now start one now? Obviously it will be small in the beginning, but if built on rationally ethical and moral principles, people will come to recognize the DRO as a valuable resource, and its utility, popularity and strength will only grow with time.

I have read the theory behind DRO's (Stef's books, various articles, wikipedia, etc) and I believe I have a fairly solid grasp on it. The question that is the topic of the post is: does anybody have any suggestions where to look for practical suggestions or examples on how to start?

I was gonna post on this, but i'll make it your reply.

WE NEED DRO'S NOW.

My example: a woman lands in a small town in an exspensive airplane. The airplane is owned by her friend and is dropping her off before it continues on to a larger city, intending to return later in the day. She needs to find local transportation to get to the local jail where she meets her husband who was arrested for a 'white-collar crime' (so she tells us, also there are no local taxi services). Since my coworker and I will be working all day, she asks to rent his car for the day, since we have no idea when we will be back. She and Mr. Exspensive airplane guy give us their identification as a collatoral on the rent. But it is still a difficult decision, as neither of us know her, or weather she has good intentions or not. In the end we decide it will work out for the better, and it does.

My coworker openly admits the failure of the government protection system when he admits that if she steals his car he will probably never see it again.

Here's how I think a DRO could have helped. Our problem is that neither parties know anything about the intentions of the other party. I would have been awesome if she could have pulled out her DRO card, and we could have done the same. Then my coworker could have called his DRO, told them what he intended to do, given them her DRO information, and they could have run some numbers and given him approval (or not). She could have done the same and had at least an idea of the kind of people she was dealing with.

Maybe, maybe  not. Just my thought.

you cant start a dro because you will be shot and/or thrown in prison

Setting up a DRO would be a great idea except that I'm pretty sure the state would be extremely threatened and move quickly to shut it down or make it ineffective through regulation.

As far as state interference goes, they have a monopoly on the use of force. That's not what a startup DRO could do, this would come only much later after one is established, and even then only in special cases. I would assume a startup DRO would fly under the radar, at least initially. If I can keep it under the radar until statism starts to collapse, by then the state will have much bigger problems to contend with. That's my starting premise for now.

MrCapitalism:

Here's how I think a DRO could have helped. Our problem is that neither parties know anything about the intentions of the other party. I would have been awesome if she could have pulled out her DRO card, and we could have done the same. Then my coworker could have called his DRO, told them what he intended to do, given them her DRO information, and they could have run some numbers and given him approval (or not). She could have done the same and had at least an idea of the kind of people she was dealing with.

 

Indeed, it should work like that, however it sounds like something that would happen once the DRO is established and has gotten fairly large. It would certainly have to be large enough to have 2 fairly random strangers both in the same database.

For now I am trying to think about how to get one started. I think the basic questions would be what is the target activity, and how would one go about it. For example if 2 clients come to me with a grievance where one seeks 10,000 of damages from the other, how would one establish the guilty party, and how would one convince them to pay up? It doesn't sound like something that would work to start.

I'm also thinking of studying existing examples, like eBay. If you think about it, eBay is in effect a limited scope DRO.

It would certainly have to be large enough to have 2 fairly random strangers both in the same database.

I disagree with this point. My only concern is that the two DRO's need to communicate with eachother, like banks let you use eachother's ATM's.

I've always thought the best way to start a DRO is to compete with the 3 credit bureaus in the U.S. by providing dispute resolution services as well.

Fivemileshigh:

For example if 2 clients come to me with a grievance where one seeks 10,000 of damages from the other, how would one establish the guilty party, and how would one convince them to pay up? It doesn't sound like something that would work to start.

If two clients voluntarily choose a private court to resolve a dispute, then they would likely contractually agree to the outcome of the "trial". Dare I suggest that you could use the state's civil courts to resolve the issue of someone who doesn't accept their duty to fulfill that contract? Does that defeat the purpose of the DRO? Without the state, the only tools to fight the person who doesn't pay up after a resolution has been determined is to attack their reputation and hope that that will lead to ostracization.

I think a global reputation system/database is the first step, and it's a tricky one. But I definitely think there's a demand for it as you guys pointed out. There is no way to know if the person you're dealing with is shady or not unless you get some references.

MrCapitalism:

 

I disagree with this point. My only concern is that the two DRO's need to communicate with eachother, like banks let you use eachother's ATM's.

I've always thought the best way to start a DRO is to compete with the 3 credit bureaus in the U.S. by providing dispute resolution services as well.

For starters I would have to assume I'd be the only DRO in a given area, at least in the beginning, and that in the beginning I would start with 1 client.

The credit bureaus idea might be interesting, however the entire banking system is statist (i.e. based on coercion on some level or another) from top to bottom, I'm not even sure how a voluntarist organization would interact with them.

aerocabin:

 

If two clients voluntarily choose a private court to resolve a dispute, then they would likely contractually agree to the outcome of the "trial". Dare I suggest that you could use the state's civil courts to resolve the issue of someone who doesn't accept their duty to fulfill that contract? Does that defeat the purpose of the DRO? Without the state, the only tools to fight the person who doesn't pay up after a resolution has been determined is to attack their reputation and hope that that will lead to ostracization.

I think a global reputation system/database is the first step, and it's a tricky one. But I definitely think there's a demand for it as you guys pointed out. There is no way to know if the person you're dealing with is shady or not unless you get some references.

Using the state as the "backbone" of a DRO (by way of using the state to enforce a DRO decision) would be at least counterproductive. The idea is to create an organization that provides services of value. By contrast, a lot of what goes on in the state courts nowadays is Peter trying to use the gun of the state to rob Paul. The way I understand it, a DRO would provide something that the users want. This would be a mediation/insurance service that they would voluntarily abide by because it's in their rational self interest to do so. To get back to the eBay example, it is in the rational self interest of all users to jealously guard their positive feedback rating because that makes future trades and profits possible. eBay itself would probably step in only as a last resort, and at the request of at least one of the users.

The question really is, how does one apply such principles to a wider market, and what market would that be?

The enforcement could work like those TV courts judge Judy etc. basically both parties agree to the mediation and to any potential outcome of the mediation. If the person that is fined refuses to pay you can sell the debt to a collections agency just as any other company would. That would help recoup losses, and effect there credit report, you could also keep your own records of the non-compliance.

I think it could work. . it's just a questions of getting it off the ground just like any buisness

rpellow:

If the person that is fined refuses to pay you can sell the debt to a collections agency just as any other company would. That would help recoup losses, and effect there credit report, you could also keep your own records of the non-compliance.

Collection agencies exist because they are given legal right from the government to take possession of other people's property by force, no? This legal right takes away the risks in collecting thereby allowing collection agencies to profit. Would a collection agency buy a debt if it meant that they had to take property by force without the backing of a giant state? I'm not sure that collection agencies belong in a voluntary society or could exist if they aren't backed by the threat of the state or some other large force.

aerocabin:

rpellow:

If the person that is fined refuses to pay you can sell the debt to a collections agency just as any other company would. That would help recoup losses, and effect there credit report, you could also keep your own records of the non-compliance.

Collection agencies exist because they are given legal right from the government to take possession of other people's property by force, no? This legal right takes away the risks in collecting thereby allowing collection agencies to profit. Would a collection agency buy a debt if it meant that they had to take property by force without the backing of a giant state? I'm not sure that collection agencies belong in a voluntary society or could exist if they aren't backed by the threat of the state or some other large force.

I dont think they have that right, they have various means of attempting to claim debts but they cannot use force, they work by buying a debt from a company for less than the debt is worth usually.  So if you owe me $1,000's and i don't think i'll get it from you or dont want to deal with it, i will sell it to a creditor for ~ $600, the creditor now owns that debt and will attempt to contact you to retrieve it, usually calling you a bajillions times a day, and going to a collector automatically screws up your credit score, so that if/when you attempt to get any credit, buy a house, car, get a credit card, rent an apartment etc, it is on file. Then If/when the creditor gets the $$$ from you they make that money. Also if you die and your estate goes into probate, all creditors must be payed before any of your beneficiaries receive inheritance. (you have 10grand when you die, so the collector gets that 1k and your child gets the $9k

This might be a oversimplification but this is how i understand it to work

aerocabin:

rpellow:

If the person that is fined refuses to pay you can sell the debt to a collections agency just as any other company would. That would help recoup losses, and effect there credit report, you could also keep your own records of the non-compliance.

Collection agencies exist because they are given legal right from the government to take possession of other people's property by force, no? This legal right takes away the risks in collecting thereby allowing collection agencies to profit. Would a collection agency buy a debt if it meant that they had to take property by force without the backing of a giant state? I'm not sure that collection agencies belong in a voluntary society or could exist if they aren't backed by the threat of the state or some other large force.

I dont think they have that right, they have various means of attempting to claim debts but they cannot use force, they work by buying a debt from a company for less than the debt is worth usually.  So if you owe me $1,000's and i don't think i'll get it from you or dont want to deal with it, i will sell it to a creditor for ~ $600, the creditor now owns that debt and will attempt to contact you to retrieve it, usually calling you a bajillions times a day, and going to a collector automatically screws up your credit score, so that if/when you attempt to get any credit, buy a house, car, get a credit card, rent an apartment etc, it is on file. Then If/when the creditor gets the $$$ from you they make that money. Also if you die and your estate goes into probate, all creditors must be payed before any of your beneficiaries receive inheritance. (you have 10grand when you die, so the collector gets that 1k and your child gets the $9k

This might be a oversimplification but this is how i understand it to work

Fivemileshigh:

The question really is, how does one apply such principles to a wider market, and what market would that be?

 

You don't think it starts with a global reputation system?

aerocabin:

You don't think it starts with a global reputation system?

I don't see how you can start with that. Would you get everybody in the world to sign up and have their reputation registered or recorded? How could you convince everybody to sign up? The global reputation system seems like something that would be an end result, something to come in later stages. In the beginning, only participants in a transaction would have their reputations assessed by other transaction participants, and as a result of those transactions.

Would you plan to initially hire a lawyer or will you be looking at writing the contracts yourself?