Freedomain Radio

 Ok, first post from a newb, I'll keep it short -

1. DRO's remain fair priced through fair market competition.

2. DRO's dispense punishment to their insurees in accordance to the policies that the insurees have agreed to.

3. In return for this agreement the the community can trust the insuree in business transactions and the like, knowing that he has the DRO to record his social interactions.

4. Competition keeps the DRO's fair priced, but like all companies that offer services mergers are inevitable, buy outs will happen, personal information will be shared, and eventually the competitve market will stagnate as a handful of super DRO's are left to manage the world population. Even before this would happen a cut throat DRO may attempt #5 below.

5. The DRO's will need better products to entice customers, and in the case of the DRO their product improvement would be simply to lower the scale of punishment for any given crime against society. Hmm.. "I can pay for the same coverage but I'll only get a year in prison for drunk driving instead of 5, sign me up."

6. So now the other DRO's have to follow suit, and before you know it there are virtually no punishments for any crime.

7. Crimes increase, the DRO's lose value as a measure of rating for civil behavior, merchants don't bother to check for DRO status because they have lost credibilty and boom, society crumbles.  

I understand that the counter argument would be that before #6 merchants would stop accepting business from holders of sketchy DRO polocies, but the one human constant that destroys all societies based on anarchy is greed.The merchants will need business to make a living, and should #6 follow #5, the may not have many options on the customers they deal with. Should they stop servicing buyers, they risk losing customers to shops that simply don't care.

So what recourse would the other DRO's take?

1. The DRO's that do not lower punishments may inact policies that punish their insurees for dealing with DRO policy holders of the "bad" DRO's. This can only lead to one thing - division.

2. The society divides based on DRO's. Ultimately the population may then geographically seperate based on where the majority of friendly businesses are, cross area trading becomes necessary, the DRO's allow is but inact policy premiums, and viola! Trade Tax is born!

Just a thought, one of many on how DRO's could not possibly work. Don't get me started on private security force skirmishes or the horrible event that a DRO establishes itself as one that uses a religion to guide it's policies.... OMG! (lol...)

Even if an anarcho capitalist society were only to last a short while, it is still worth it.

How often does the average person think about the detailed, day to day operations of a private business whose goods and services they do not use?  For example, I have no interest in Ford cars.  I haven't owned one, but a lot of people do.  I don't think about Fords or about how Ford runs their business.  It's just of no interest to me.  The important part is that I don't get a bill every month forcing me to pay money to Ford.  Ford does not force my kids to attend their training courses.  Ford does not have an army that goes around shooting up the place.  I don't have to use Ford Dollars to buy things from other businesses.  All I know is that they're a business who wants to sell me something I'm not interested in.  Gazllions of other such businesses exist and the result is the same, they don't affect my life that much.  So why would I have to solve every internal problem that the Ford company might have?  I don't.

So why is it when  someone proposes a system fundamentally based on coercion they can get together with all their aristocrat friends behind closed doors and impose it on millions of people without their consent?  How come those people can make every promise in the world to solve every conceivable problem that comes up and when they fail miserably in the godlike powers they claim to have, instead of being out of work they are given MORE power and MORE money?  Why are they never held accountable for anything, never having to suffer from their mistakes?  Why is their system not dismissed with a list of objections?  Why do not enough people say, "Bah, it would never work!"  Where's all the criticism and microscopic policy analysis of their violent system?

If you propose a voluntary system then you don't need godlike powers of social organization, you don't have to be able to solve every conceivable problem that might occur in society, all you're faced with is the same thing that Ford is, how do I get people to buy what I'm selling?  That answer will not be easy, it will be very complex. But lots of people working at similar problems don't need an ultimate master plan so long as it is based on voluntary interactions.

 Well, that's just silly. So you are completely ok with inevitably dooming the human race to either destroying ourselves through lawlessness, or the eventual tyranical corporate takeover that is bound to occur through private militaries that will be required for any DRO to maintain peace? Sounds to me like you're just clinging to a utopian ideal that is so impossible that it's easier to wish it into existance than it is to deal with reality.

Humans will never be able to coexist without governance. There are far too many stupid ones.

A government is defined as "A group within a geographical region which maintains the monopolistic right to initiate the use of force" Force meaning coercion and the threat of violence of course.

You are assuming that humans would destroy each other out of lawlessness and greed. You're argument against anarchy is "We need a government because people like to use violence to achieve their ends!".Well in reality what you are actually saying is "We need a violent monopoly because people like to use violence to achieve their ends!" Which of course, makes absolutely no sense, because the violent greedy people then join the government.

 So in short you just said:

"I don't have the answer, we won't know unless we try, anything is better than the current system, and I'm not going to bother to think about what could go wrong, so wrong that the entire population could be reduced to fee paying wards of the DRO."

A car is not the same as a policy package that rates your trustworthiness and binds you to punishments for transgressing against society. Furthermore, what exactly is binding you to even showing up to jail? Nothing.

Oh, wait, you'll never get a DRO to certify you again, which means you will be without goods and services, at least until you find a few like minded shop keepers that don't care.

Then the shop keepers who sold to violent people would be labeled as "people who helped murderers" which then they would have trouble getting goods and services.

 Sure, people who help murderers... the chain would just work upwards and eventually there would be a society of Non-DRO's and DRO's.

And in regards to your earlier post,

A. You are assuming that the government is threatening us with violence to behave. Which it is not, it can use force, including violence, to stop those that are breaking the laws.

B. There is no difference between the government using force and a DRO deploying a Resolution Strike Force to haul in criminals.

C. You are also falsely claiming that you are a citizen of your government by force. Most of us are not, if you do not like it, well... move.

D. A centralized government provides unilversal laws and punishments, mulitple DRO's would absolutley not have identical punishment policies, not to mention there would be no way to hold trials of any sort.

6. So now the other DRO's have to follow suit, and before you know it there are virtually no punishments for any crime.

7. Crimes increase, the DRO's lose value as a measure of rating for civil behavior, merchants don't bother to check for DRO status because they have lost credibilty and boom, society crumbles.

8. New DRO's are opened with stricter punishments which people purchase because they demand a more stringent rating for civil behavior. Merchants find that their losses from crime exceed the reduced crime rates with DRO's and sign up.

You want perfect justice at zero cost just like everybody else. Sorry there's no free lunch.

"A. You are assuming that the government is threatening us with violence to behave. Which it is not, it can use force, including violence, to stop those that are breaking the laws."

Everyone has the right to self defence, you, me, Obama, the Queen of England, but the government have the right to actually initiate violence. By examining universally preferable behaviours, we can conclude that noone would wants violence used against them. "Do unto other what you would want them to do to you." therefore the initiation of violence is universally immoral and evil. Say for example, I refuse to pay taxes which financially aid war, and I am doing it non violently and peacefully of course. I will first recieve a warning, which if I were to ignore, armed police officers would come to my door and try to kidnap me. If I use my right to self defence from a kidnapping, I will be beaten violently and most likely shot. If the initiation of violence is wrong for a citizen to use, then it is wrong for the government to use it. DROs do not use guns unlike the government. Anarchy recognizes violence as a problem in society, and not a solution.

"B. There is no difference between the government using force and a DRO deploying a Resolution Strike Force to haul in criminals."

You are assuming that DROs have task forces. DROs are simply the bridge between contracts and resolutions. For example say someone stole a television from me and I figured it who it was with plenty of evidence. I would contact the DRO to persuade the burglar to return the television along with compensation, or else the burglar would be exposed and socially ostracized and find it harder to function in society.

"C, You are also falsely claiming that you are a citizen of your government by force. Most of us are not, if you do not like it, well...move."

I assume that your argument is that everyone in a country is under a social contract which makes me agree to the government's terms. Well, show me where I signed this contract. Noone can sign a contract on behalf of me unless I have given them power of attorney. By your reasoning it would be moral for me to rob everyone in my neighbourhood at gunpoint. I mean if they don't like it they can just move out, right?

"D. A centralized government provides universal laws and punishments, multiple DROs would absolutely not have identical punishment policies, not to mention there would be no way to hold trials of any sort."

Wrong again. a jury could be hired for the trial.

ok... i will start with 4.

4. mergers and buyouts are possible, of course, but also at any point any person could start their own DRO and increase the competition. some people would want to start their own DROs and leave the DRO they worked for. also DRO don't manage the population. they do what their costumers want them to do.

5. u missed the fact that people would also want stricter punishments for those who aggress. this way a DRO who is too linied will lose costumers because no one would want to be protected by a DRO that would pull an ear and let the coulprit go. because of this 6 is highly highly unlikely.

1.1 the DRO can't willingly enact anything just because it decides toand go and punish people for things at will, if it does the other DRO along with the population would turn on them in na instant.

1.2 the DRO does not control anything it doesn't own. so it can't impose tax on anyone.


Since there won't be gun control in a free society it's safe to assume that a great amount of people would be packing(i know i would). private skirmishes are possible but are greatly preferable over large scale national wars, and besides such skirmishes are possible even today and do happen(gangs).A great problem i see today is that many people want protection but are not willing to protect themselves. It may come to defend urself against a DRO, but it's also possible to have to defend urself against a nation and it's no less likely. That is a thought people should get used to , that they may have to defend themselves, there is no such thing as perfect safety where there is no danger. The state gives the illusion of safety.

It's also worth noting that some people wouldn't want the service of a DRO, i see myself as such a person ;) . A rifle and a gun is all the protection i need.

And welcome to FDR : )

PS: Greed is exactly what will keep anarchy and the free market working. ;)  and it's not a bad thing, everyone is greedy, everyone wants something.

Slipstream:

Well, that's just silly. So you are completely ok with inevitably dooming the human race to either destroying ourselves through lawlessness, or the eventual tyranical corporate takeover that is bound to occur through private militaries that will be required for any DRO to maintain peace? Sounds to me like you're just clinging to a utopian ideal that is so impossible that it's easier to wish it into existance than it is to deal with reality.

Wow, that reply has scared all the crows away for sure!

Humans will never be able to coexist without governance. There are far too many stupid ones.

MrCapitalism:

6. So now the other DRO's have to follow suit, and before you know it there are virtually no punishments for any crime.

7. Crimes increase, the DRO's lose value as a measure of rating for civil behavior, merchants don't bother to check for DRO status because they have lost credibilty and boom, society crumbles.

8. New DRO's are opened with stricter punishments which people purchase because they demand a more stringent rating for civil behavior. Merchants find that their losses from crime exceed the reduced crime rates with DRO's and sign up.

You want perfect justice at zero cost just like everybody else. Sorry there's no free lunch.

No way. The hypocrisy of human nature would ensure that people would not purchase for themselves a policy that would impose harsher punishments. That's the premise of my whole argument. There are far too many dolts out there that will swarm to a "bad" DRO. Sorry, I don't see any validity in your rebuttal. Everybody wants strict law, except when it comes to themselves. Your ideal utopia can only exist if it were populated by Commander Datas.

Nathanm can be petty and call me stupid all he wants. It does not change the fact that while I consider myself to be a moral person, I only successfully coexist with the masses because of the government I live in. I am not happy wth every aspect of it. But, I am not so naive as to make claims that I would be better of with out it. None of you would either, utopia is a delusion, just like heaven. It is not possible. Humanity is imperfect, the best that we can do is manage its imperfections the best we can.

"No way. The hypocrisy of human nature would ensure that people would not purchase for themselves a policy that would impose harsher punishments."

People would want to ensure that their wrongdoers would recieve harsher punishments. The policies would apply universally.