Freedomain Radio

Let's suppose that there is a person living in a society with a DRO system, and this person acts in a way that results in him becoming so ostracized that he effectively cannot participate on any level in that society. Now, what is this person going to do to survive? He can't interact with anyone in this society, and is probably unwilling to leave his home. Would crime be able to support him?

Instead of buying food, he would just steal it, possibly at the point of a gun. A greengrocer isn't going to put his life at risk by trying to stop someone with a gun from taking a few vegetables. At least most wouldn't. So, if this person gets all that he needs to sustain himself through robbery, how would a DRO system deal with that in a non-violent way? There are no police to coerce him into changing his behaviour, and he has already been ostracized as much as possible. Assuming nobody breaks the NAP, the only way I could think of resolving this issue is through incentives given to this person to rejoin the society and "play nice". But this undermines the whole process of ostracism, if people know that all they need to do to rejoin is threaten people with crime.

Thoughts?

DePerc:

the only way I could think of resolving this issue is through incentives given to this person to rejoin the society and "play nice". But this undermines the whole process of ostracism, if people know that all they need to do to rejoin is threaten people with crime.

Why would DROs wait for those threats before bothering to offer a way out of ostracism ?

 The DRO's would have a security branch operating like a police force, that would arrest and incarcerate a person who threatens others with violence. I imagine these would be restitution centers, where a person would have to work off the damages they have caused, and would thus fulfill the obligation created by their behavior.

Alternatively, if the offender lives in a gun carrying community, he risks his own life brandishing a gun, and threatening violence upon the innocent, where other community members will now shoot him, in self defense or defense of other innocents, as he is the one who violated the Non Aggression Principle, and he will die or be gravely wounded, as a consequence of his own action. Self defense does not violate the NAP. Initiation of force does.

DePerc:

the only way I could think of resolving this issue is through incentives given to this person to rejoin the society and "play nice". But this undermines the whole process of ostracism, if people know that all they need to do to rejoin is threaten people with crime.

 Umm...........I don't understand?

Any thoughts on the rest of my answer?

Mr. C:

Why would DROs wait for those threats before bothering to offer a way out of ostracism ?

I suppose they wouldn't. But could there be a situation where a person would not be allowed back into society under any circumstances? Mass murder? Torture? If so, how would a DRO system deal with this? If the only way it can deal with this problem is through incentive to rejoin, then effectively noone can be permanently ostracized.

An aside to that, I was also thinking about the severely mentally ill. If a mentally ill person causes harm to another person, or their property, and the DRO pays the victim for the damage done, is it moral for the DRO to seek resitution from this severely disturbed person? Is he responsible for the harm he/she has done? Should he/she be exempt from paying restitution? Or would this just be a situation where the DRO would have to absorb the cost?

blondie:

 as he is the one who violated the Non Aggression Principle,

As far as the NAP goes, would someone only have to violate it once and forever after be able to have violence done against them under "self defense"?

blondie:

 these would be restitution centers, where a person would have to work off the damages they have caused, and would thus fulfill the obligation created by their behavior.

Isn't that how the current system works, where people deemed to be "harmful" (in one way or another) are locked up for the good of the community until they've "paid of their debt to society"? My impression of the DRO system was that justice was essentially dealt through ostracism.

 

blondie:

 

DePerc:

the only way I could think of resolving this issue is through incentives given to this person to rejoin the society and "play nice". But this undermines the whole process of ostracism, if people know that all they need to do to rejoin is threaten people with crime.

 Umm...........I don't understand?

Let's assume this person isn't in the process of violently robbing someone, in which case self defense would be justified. It was my impression of the NAP and the DRO system that if he's just sitting at home and isn't currently being violent, then bringing police to his house to arrest him would be violating the NAP. Correct me if I'm wrong in this assertion. But if this is the case, then the only non-violent way to change his behaviour would be through incentives given to him to rejoin the DRO system and participate in society in a peaceful way. And if this is the only way that a person like this can be dealt with, then the process of ostracism is null and void because anyone could do anything and just have to not get killed in the act in order to apply sufficient enough pressure on the DRO's for them to offer him a way back into society.

I hope that makes some sense. I'm still quite new to these ideas and I'm still grappling with some of the specifics.

DePerc:

 

blondie:

 as he is the one who violated the Non Aggression Principle,

As far as the NAP goes, would someone only have to violate it once and forever after be able to have violence done against them under "self defense"?

 

 Oh, no! I meant at the moment he is threatening the greengrocer with a gun for not willingly selling to him.

 

DePerc:

blondie:

 these would be restitution centers, where a person would have to work off the damages they have caused, and would thus fulfill the obligation created by their behavior.

 

Isn't that how the current system works, where people deemed to be "harmful" (in one way or another) are locked up for the good of the community until they've "paid of their debt to society"? My impression of the DRO system was that justice was essentially dealt through ostracism.

ROFL! I don't know what prison systems you have in Australia, but that is not the case in the US. Here, you do not make restitiution, but you are locked up and subjected to rape and sundry other violence. Not only that, but we have people locked up here who have done no harm to others. They simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, in possession of something that is nobodys' business but their own, or knowing or related to the wrong people. There is no attempt at rehabilitation or restitution, despite the propaganda the gov't puts out. And we all know it.

DePerc:

Let's assume this person isn't in the process of violently robbing someone, in which case self defense would be justified. It was my impression of the NAP and the DRO system that if he's just sitting at home and isn't currently being violent, then bringing police to his house to arrest him would be violating the NAP. Correct me if I'm wrong in this assertion. But if this is the case, then the only non-violent way to change his behaviour would be through incentives given to him to rejoin the DRO system and participate in society in a peaceful way. And if this is the only way that a person like this can be dealt with, then the process of ostracism is null and void because anyone could do anything and just have to not get killed in the act in order to apply sufficient enough pressure on the DRO's for them to offer him a way back into society.

Actually "Incentives", is not just saying "OK, I'll behave from now on". For the most part, he will have to take ownership of his acts.Refusing to do so is what will actually get you ostracized. If he can stay locked up in his home and not need anything (a form of ostracization), he'd be ok, physically,but this is not likely, as he would need food & water, and would probably go stircrazy(cabin fever) with no electricity to power entertainment or communication. He would likely give up willingly, and if not, you could wall in his property, so he can't conduct raids. I think this would comply with the NAP. What do you think?

 

 

DePerc:

But could there be a situation where a person would not be allowed back into society under any circumstances?

I don't think so, but perhaps.  They can accept being confined in exchange for being able to trade.

DePerc:

If a mentally ill person causes harm to another person, or their property, and the DRO pays the victim for the damage done, is it moral for the DRO to seek resitution from this severely disturbed person?

I think you're confusing seeking with forcing.  DROs, along with anyone else, can seek whatever they want.  However, I don't think the situation you proposed would be much of a problem, as mentally ill people who are at risk to harm others wouldn't be free to walk around on others' property on their own.

I would like to point out that it's perfectly fine if you think that my particular methods for choosing a good DRO are flawed; after all, you and I can choose different sorts of DROs if they come about in our lifetime.

As you can see from my responses, there's a lot of freedom to act if all you have to avoid is NAP violations and get some (but not all) customers.  I'm sure you can come up with your own ideas for some companies that would solve the problems you know about and would be able to handle unexpected problems while complying with the NAP.  Anarchy isn't here yet and my lifetime is limited, so I don't spend much time thinking about DROs, but if you come up with any interesting solutions, I'm happy to look at them.

Thanks to everyone for all the replies. I think all my questions have been adeguately addressed. For now... :)

blondie:

The DRO's would have a security branch operating like a police force, that would arrest and incarcerate a person who threatens others with violence.

 

By whose authority would they do this?

I compleatly understand what you are saying but i doubt this situation would ever arise unless the person choose to go into a life of crime because they would never be compleatly ostracized. This person could either choose to work off the grid taking whatever jobs possible or s/he could simply have her/his dro not release his/her rating which would pretty much send this person off the grid agian, there is pretty much no reason why sombody would be forced into a situtaion of crime. But asuming some people will do amoral activites anyways the dros protecting the shops or whatever would first be insuring the shop so there would be no reason for any 'noble stands' of stupidity to insue from the employes so it would be unlikly anybody would die. On top of that, that dro and anyother dro's insuring shops in the area would put effort into detaining and reforming this person, the dros would also likely work together since they have a common goal but even if they didn't it prolly wouldn't be to diffucult to catch the theif because the shop would cammras and such security divices beacuse they would have to pay less to the dro to have better sercurty.

Also this is all asuming the shop dosent have very very sufficant sercurity measures that could stop the thief in the shop, if it did it would be highly unlikely that the thief would ever even consider stealing because s/he would know s/he would be caught.

 A "criminal class" can only exist if some entity (like a state, for example) protects it.  L Neil Smith explains this far better than I can.

Mr. C:

Why would DROs wait for those threats before bothering to offer a way out of ostracism ?

I can imagine there would be some, if not many, clients who would feel if a DRO were monitoring them enough to detect ostracism, it would be an unwarranted invasion of their privacy.

People resort to stealing today in a statist society.

In the USA, a robber will be put in jail temporarily, then be released back into society.

The only way to prevent criminals from committing crimes is to shoot them. I know this sounds cold, but that is truth.

Washington DC has a higher violent crime rate than Texas per capita. There is a pretty obvious reason if you ask me. In Texas, you are much more likely to get shot if you ATTEMPT to rob a store or commit a murder.

In a stateless society, you have to hold yourself to be more responsible for your own life. Texas, Montana, Indianna, and other states with very lax gun control show that criminals are more deterred by the threat of instant resistance by an armed-citizen than they are by the police. It is common sense that if you had to rely on dialing 911, you would be dead before the cops came to save your sorry ass. The criminal most likely would be long gone before the police can do anything to catch em.

Being able to defend YOURSELF is the best protection you have against criminals.

MrPractical:

Washington DC has a higher violent crime rate than Texas per capita. There is a pretty obvious reason if you ask me.

Washington, D.C. has strict gun-control.

Furthermore, public thoroughfares provide easy access to private property.

In a stateless society without "public" property, it would prove costly and cumbersome to commit crimes.

 Ostracism breeds conformity?  Let's say I want to steal, kill, etc, yet I still want to live in society.  I guess I will just have to conform to societal norms like not killing and stealing if I want to continue enjoying the benefits of societal living.