Freedomain Radio

 "This situation is more or less analogous to what happens now – with the not-inconsequential adjustment that, since DROs handle policing as well as restitution, their motive for preventing theft or rendering stolen property useless is higher than it is now. As such, much more investment in prevention would be worthwhile, such as creating ‘voice activated’ appliances which only work for their owners."

I'm not so fond of this idea of having one institution act as lawyer, judge, jury, cop, and insurance company. And we're going to be economically enticed to buy appliances that won't work half the time because they don't recognize our fingerprints? But even the idea that DRO's are going to be investing in creating KITCHEN APPLIANCES? That doesn't sound like what I'm paying this cop/lawyer/judge/jury/insurance company for.

"However, the stateless society goes much, much further in preventing crime – specifically, by identifying those who are going to become criminals."

Ah, 24-hour surveillance in a digital age. It's good for you.

"In a stateless society, contracts with DROs are required to maintain any sort of economic life – without DRO representation, citizens are unable to get a job, hire employees, rent a car, buy a house or send their children to school."

So you are essentially compelled to buy insurance from a DRO? This is not coercion?

"How does this work in practice? Let’s take a test case. Say that you wake up one morning and decide to become a thief. Well, the first thing you have to do is cancel your coverage with your DRO, so that your DRO cannot act against you when you steal. DROs would have clauses allowing you to cancel your coverage, just as insurance companies have now. Thus you would have to notify your DRO that you were dropping coverage. No problem, you’re off their list."

Wrong premise. If you decide to become a thief, you will research a way not to get caught so that you don't have to bother dropping your DRO insurance. You can probably steal whatever you need using hacked computer software, anyhow, unless the DRO makes you run a keylogger at all times. So, let's choose a new premise. Suppose that you decide you don't feel like you should be forced to patronize a DRO to have your basic retail needs met.

"However, DROs as a whole really need to keep track of people who have opted out of the entire DRO system, since those people have clearly signaled their intention to go rogue, to live off the grid, and commit crimes."

If you decide you don't want to pay for a DRO, you are labeled a criminal.

"What happens then? Remember – there is no public property in the stateless society...Want to fill up on gas? No luck, for the same reason. You can try hitchhiking, of course, which might work, but what happens when you get to your destination and try and rent a hotel room? No DRO card, no luck. Want to sleep in the park? Parks are privately owned, so keep moving. Getting hungry? No groceries, no restaurants – no food! What are you going to do?"

So you decided you didn't want to patronize a DRO, and your most basic freedoms are stripped away. You can't contract with anyone, not even to eat. And apparently you have to carry a DRO card with you at all times in order to rent a hotel.

"Well, the first thing that DROs are going to do is give a reward to anyone who spots you and reports your position (in fact, there will be companies which specialize in just this sort of service). As you walk down a street on your way to rob a house, someone sees you and calls you in. The DRO immediately notifies the street owner (remember, no public property!) who boots you off his street. Are you going to resist the street owner? His DRO will fully support his right to use force to protect his property or life."

So, if you even step off your property without DRO contracts in place, you will be starved, hunted down, have a gun put to your head, and shot if you do not comply.

"You can’t go anywhere without trespassing. You are a pariah. No one will help you, or give you food, or shelter you – because if they do, their DRO will boot them or raise their rates, and their name will be entered into a database of people who help rogues. There is literally no place to turn."

The DRO will compel your neighbors to turn you in and will be sanctioned for the simple act of feeding you, when all you have done is cancel your insurance policy. It is the DRO which decides you are trespassing; your neighbor isn't allowed that freedom.

"Going off the grid and becoming a rogue pits the entire weight of the combined DRO system against you...who will buy from you, knowing they have no recourse if something goes wrong? And besides, anyone who interacts with you will get a substantial reward for reporting your location – and, if they deal with you, will be dropped from the DRO system."

More enticement and coercion.

"Will there be underground markets? No – where would they operate? People need a place to live, cars to rent, clothes to buy, groceries to eat. No DRO means no participation in economic life."

Just to reiterate.

"The penalties for opting out of the DRO system are almost infinite, and it is safe to say that it would be next to impossible to survive without a DRO."

You decide you don't think you should have to pay a DRO just so you can eat, but it is made impossible for you to survive, and all sorts of nasty punishments could be waiting for you. And if you and your wife BOTH decide you don't want a DRO...

"Now both the husband and wife have chosen to live without DROs, in a state of nature, and thus face all the insurmountable problems of getting food, shelter, money and so on."

Let that sink in. Insurmountable.

"There are really no limits to the benefits that DROs can confer upon a free society – insurance could be created for such things as:

* a man’s wife giving birth to a child that is not his own
* a daughter getting pregnant out of wedlock
* fertility problems for a married couple
* …and much more.

All of the above insurance policies would require DROs to take active steps to prevent such behaviours – the mind boggles at all the preventative steps that could be taken!"

There is no limit to the number of things you could be coerced into buying insurance for. Yes, the mind boggles at all the preventative steps that DROs could take to make sure your daughter doesn't get pregnant. So the DRO might be the reproductive health care provider, as well? Drug use will certainly be in the DRO contracts, thus criminalized. No health insurance if you use heroin. Higher insurance rates if you own a gun or eat lots of red meat.

"The important thing to remember is that all such contracts are voluntary, and so do not violate the moral absolute of non-violence."

So, if I opt out, I am starved on my own property or shot on my neighbor's property. Yet this is all voluntary.

"So in conclusion – how does the stateless society deal with violent criminals? Brilliantly!  In a stateless society, there are fewer criminals, more prevention, greater sanctions – and instant forewarning of those aiming at a life of crime by their withdrawal from the DRO system."

By definition, you are a criminal if you opt out of the DRO system.

Thus, I have just proven that Stefan's model DRO system cannot turn into a government. Because...it already is one. You have "taxation" through compulsory insurance buying. You are surveilled 24/7. You get a gun put to your head if you opt out. And they'll be raking in the dough. They're taking in money for every kind of insurance imagineable, arbitration, contract advice (they'll even provide on of their own lawyers to helps you negotiate the contract with them), and policing. And the different DRO's will be colluding every step of the way, competing on only very minor issues. So, at minimum, a full-service DRO will require an actuary, an advocate, armed enforcers, and a judge.

How is it moral that I am intentionally starved, hunted down and shot for refusing insurance? Stefan, do you want to use violence against me to keep your insurance rates low? But it's even worse, rather than empowering the state to use violence against me for non-payment of taxes, you would destroy public property so that you can put the gun to my head YOURSELF.

Here's the neat thing about DROs, I could be one.  You could be one.  Your best friend could be one. 

For instance, if two of my friends are disputing something, they could come to me to unbiasedly arbitrate their dispute.

Now, I understand that sometimes Stef presents the DROs as these giant corporate monoliths, that will solve all your problems.  Maybe they could.

But, I figure DROs can come in many shapes and forms, the whole off the grid thing probably wouldn't be too bad, or rather, not as outcasty as it sounds.  For all I know, it could just be not working with whatever a conventional DRO is.  Suppose I let my buddy John act as my agent-DRO or DRA, just a guy who covers for me, or whatever.

The whole thing seems kinda convoluted, and hard to believe, I understand that.  If I've learned anything from the boards, it's to say this "At least they wont be throwing you in cages and raperooms."

nickhk:

Here's the neat thing about DROs, I could be one.  You could be one.  Your best friend could be one. 

For instance, if two of my friends are disputing something, they could come to me to unbiasedly arbitrate their dispute.

Now, I understand that sometimes Stef presents the DROs as these giant corporate monoliths, that will solve all your problems.  Maybe they could.

But, I figure DROs can come in many shapes and forms, the whole off the grid thing probably wouldn't be too bad, or rather, not as outcasty as it sounds.  For all I know, it could just be not working with whatever a conventional DRO is.  Suppose I let my buddy John act as my agent-DRO or DRA, just a guy who covers for me, or whatever.

The whole thing seems kinda convoluted, and hard to believe, I understand that.  If I've learned anything from the boards, it's to say this "At least they wont be throwing you in cages and raperooms."

Well, that's the thing. In a small society, being off the grid or with just a few neighbors you'd be alright. But if you are in any sort of advanced society you will be interacting with hundreds, maybe thousands, of people in one way or another. And if it's compulsory to pay for a DRO to insure and protect you, what's the point in getting rid of the state? I mean, I'm still going to have compulsory car insurance, obey speed limits, and let the paid enforcers employed by road owners search my car if they think I'm high. So it just seems like de facto taxation to me if I want to participate in society.

sweatingbanshee:

Well, that's the thing. In a small society, being off the grid or with just a few neighbors you'd be alright. But if you are in any sort of advanced society you will be interacting with hundreds, maybe thousands, of people in one way or another. And if it's compulsory to pay for a DRO to insure and protect you, what's the point in getting rid of the state? I mean, I'm still going to have compulsory car insurance, obey speed limits, and let the paid enforcers employed by road owners search my car if they think I'm high. So it just seems like de facto taxation to me if I want to participate in society.

Yes, I am inclined to agree that there may be some places with gestapo-esque management, like some HOAs now.  But to think that every single metropolitan area will be some sort of authority zone I think is a bit short sighted.  If there are enough folks who want to just live, have their things, and be unrestricted, there will be a place for them.  Probably many places.  It's really a supply and demand situation.  If enough people would rather have freedom and still live in a high density area, there will be one, or three or seven.

For instance, if insurance is no longer mandated by the government, some folks are just going to drop it.  The cost of ensuring all drivers have insurance would need to be balanced with the worth of insuring that drivers on roads have insurance!  Rates would lower, because some folks would just stop carrying insurance.  I know I would.  Lower rates mean more folks would keep insurance, just in case.

I feel, that as the guns of the state are unloaded and removed from the room, authority wont be authority like it is now and was before.

I don't think neither I nor Stef can see into the future (Edit: however, he has claimed to have been to the future.  Podcast299), I'm fairly certain no one can.  Stef's DROs are just an example, a well fleshed out example, but it's not like he's set DROs in stone and proclaimed "THIS!  This is how the future must work!"

The whole DRO thing needs to be viewed from a perspective of "Well, there's no state."  Take a look at your own life as an example.  If you removed every piece that was tarnished by the government, what would you be left with?  I know my life would be wildly different right now.

Of course the DRO system can turn into a State. I do not see how this is even an issue though.

Would you prefer to have a State or the small possibility of a State?

You do not need to devise a perfect system (to think you could do so would be an argument for Statism), it just has to be better than what is.

I do not see why this is even dicussed. The best way to argue against the State is not to attempt to justify why your system cannot turn into a State, simply demonstrate that the State is completely immoral.

Dan M.:

Thus, I have just proven that Stefan's model DRO system cannot turn into a government. Because...it already is one. You have "taxation" through compulsory insurance buying. You are surveilled 24/7. You get a gun put to your head if you opt out. And they'll be raking in the dough. They're taking in money for every kind of insurance imagineable, arbitration, contract advice (they'll even provide on of their own lawyers to helps you negotiate the contract with them), and policing. And the different DRO's will be colluding every step of the way, competing on only very minor issues. So, at minimum, a full-service DRO will require an actuary, an advocate, armed enforcers, and a judge.

How is it moral that I am intentionally starved, hunted down and shot for refusing insurance? Stefan, do you want to use violence against me to keep your insurance rates low? But it's even worse, rather than empowering the state to use violence against me for non-payment of taxes, you would destroy public property so that you can put the gun to my head YOURSELF.

If you think of a DRO as having authority over people, then yes it would be another government.

On the other hand, if you see a DRO as an organization that only succeeds based on catering to a market of clients I think that a DRO is no longer a governement. If a DRO is for dispute resolution, it is not an end all and be all of an anarchist society but one part of a possible society. I for one would not want my insurance agency to be the same as my DRO. Otherwise I would have to concern myself with possible bias toward the insurance agency if any dispute came up. I also see DROs being used more on a contract basis. They would not be the security company I contracted with to protect my home, but would likely be used by my insurance agency to make a claim against the security company when someone takes my property.

The more the parts of a working society are separated and replaceable, the less likelihood of widespread corruption and coercion can take place. A king was legislator, judge, and executor. Parlimentary systems have separated that out a bit, but do not allow themselves to be replaced piecemeal. I see a DRO as an example of a justice system that can be switched with another depending on the parties involved.

Tsudico:

Dan M.:

Thus, I have just proven that Stefan's model DRO system cannot turn into a government. Because...it already is one. You have "taxation" through compulsory insurance buying. You are surveilled 24/7. You get a gun put to your head if you opt out. And they'll be raking in the dough. They're taking in money for every kind of insurance imagineable, arbitration, contract advice (they'll even provide on of their own lawyers to helps you negotiate the contract with them), and policing. And the different DRO's will be colluding every step of the way, competing on only very minor issues. So, at minimum, a full-service DRO will require an actuary, an advocate, armed enforcers, and a judge.

How is it moral that I am intentionally starved, hunted down and shot for refusing insurance? Stefan, do you want to use violence against me to keep your insurance rates low? But it's even worse, rather than empowering the state to use violence against me for non-payment of taxes, you would destroy public property so that you can put the gun to my head YOURSELF.

If you think of a DRO as having authority over people, then yes it would be another government.

On the other hand, if you see a DRO as an organization that only succeeds based on catering to a market of clients I think that a DRO is no longer a governement. If a DRO is for dispute resolution, it is not an end all and be all of an anarchist society but one part of a possible society. I for one would not want my insurance agency to be the same as my DRO. Otherwise I would have to concern myself with possible bias toward the insurance agency if any dispute came up. I also see DROs being used more on a contract basis. They would not be the security company I contracted with to protect my home, but would likely be used by my insurance agency to make a claim against the security company when someone takes my property.

The more the parts of a working society are separated and replaceable, the less likelihood of widespread corruption and coercion can take place. A king was legislator, judge, and executor. Parlimentary systems have separated that out a bit, but do not allow themselves to be replaced piecemeal. I see a DRO as an example of a justice system that can be switched with another depending on the parties involved.

I would agree with you if the DRO wasn't handling the policing and the court system as Stef visualizes it in this article. In that article, it is heavily implied that people will have no choice but to purchase DRO service in order to interact with a community in any way, even to leave their own property.

Dan M.:

....even to leave their own property.

You may be unintentionally strawmanning his argument.

The concern is not in regards to, "do you have a right to leave your own property?" but in regards to, "do you have the right to enter the property of others?"

DROs as Stefan conceives of them are States by definition but not because of anything you have said Dan.

A State is an agency which issues and enforces the right to property through violence.

The only way a DRO would be legitimate (i.e. not a State) is if it restricted itself to protecting property and not the right to property (unless that right has been granted unanimously).

Given the arguments he makes to justify capitalism, it seems Stefan does not understand the difference between these two ideas (property and the right to property), which is why on a basic level he does not understand what a State is.

There was no contradiction when Proudhon said, "Property is Theft", "Property is Impossible", and "Property is Freedom". I will leave it at that.

MrCapitalism:

Dan M.:

....even to leave their own property.

You may be unintentionally strawmanning his argument.

The concern is not in regards to, "do you have a right to leave your own property?" but in regards to, "do you have the right to enter the property of others?"

 

That's my point. There is no public access to any property. So those two questions are functionally identical. You have to sign up for a DRO to step off your lawn. That's a de facto tax. Plain and simple. If I can't leave my property without paying a fee, I don't care if that fee is to a DRO or a state. It's the same damn thing.

Dissilusionist:

DROs as Stefan conceives of them are States by definition but not because of anything you have said Dan.

A State is an agency which issues and enforces the right to property through violence.

You are using "state" differently than I do and differently than Stefan does. A state extracts a fee for the privilege of exercising personal liberties and asserts the authority to invade your property to investigate crime by coercing your agreement. That's that conception of a DRO as Stefan describes it here.

The only way a DRO would be legitimate (i.e. not a State) is if it restricted itself to protecting property and not the right to property (unless that right has been granted unanimously).

 

Given the arguments he makes to justify capitalism, it seems Stefan does not understand the difference between these two ideas (property and the right to property), which is why on a basic level he does not understand what a State is.

 

There was no contradiction when Proudhon said, "Property is Theft", "Property is Impossible", and "Property is Freedom". I will leave it at that.

I don't understand this distinction you are making between property and property rights. I view property as that which you claim to own or have rights to.

What property do you think may be legitimately protected? Whatever is in your hand? A room? The interior of a home? A yard?

I would say that any man who claims the right to shoot another man over access to his yard is claiming statehood unto himself.

I would suggest reading What is Property by Proudhon (or Googling it) to understand the difference between the right to property, and property.

Suffice it to say, the classic argument Stefan makes saying that you cannot argue against property since it is a performative contradiction only applies to the "concept" property and not the right to property.

I posted on a thread on Mutualism somewhere and I go into this distinction in great detail.

The reason why Stefan uses an incorrect definition of the State (one that does not describe what it does in its entirety) is because he either is not aware of, does not understand, or has chosen to ignore the difference between these two "concepts". It is like calling a zebra a horse. Yes you get the general idea of what it does, but not the entire picture. What it ultimately comes down to is when is someone initiating force, since the State is an agency who claims the ability to initiate force in a geographic area. If you do not understand that the right to property (not property itself) is the threat of the initiation of force (not defensive), then his definition is the logical conclusion from the false premise.

I thought I would give you the definitions of the words to try to reduce confusion. It should be obvious why Stefan's argument only applies to the first and not the second.

Property- A state of exclusive control over an "object"

Right to Property - A "moral" claim to the exclusive control of an "object" (usually not currently under one's control)

Strictly speaking the only property that can be validly protected without entering into a social contract is that which you have physical contact with or direct physical control over in some manner. This is the only a priori justified position. The right to property only comes into valid existence upon the creation of a valid (voluntary and explicit) social contract. Since Capitalism does not reflect a valid social contract, then any right to property claimed under the system is invalid. Using the homesteading argument to jump to the right to property instead of property is a classic trick that many Capitalists use to skirt the issue, Stefan being one of them.

Dissilusionist:

I would suggest reading What is Property by Proudhon (or Googling it) to understand the difference between the right to property, and property.

 

Suffice it to say, the classic argument Stefan makes saying that you cannot argue against property since it is a performative contradiction only applies to the "concept" property and not the right to property.

I posted on a thread on Mutualism somewhere and I go into this distinction in great detail.

I read some of that thread and skimmed some of Proudhon's ideas. I don't believe there are inherent rights to anything. There is only a right to what you will defend and what people find it in their interests not to challenge. But, the distinction I am pushing at with you with regard to this distinction in property is just how much are you "occupying"?

The reason why Stefan uses an incorrect definition of the State (one that does not describe what it does in its entirety) is because he either is not aware of, does not understand, or has chosen to ignore the difference between these two "concepts". It is like calling a zebra a horse. Yes you get the general idea of what it does, but not the entire picture. What it ultimately comes down to is when is someone initiating force, since the State is an agency who claims the ability to initiate force in a geographic area. If you do not understand that the right to property (not property itself) is the threat of the initiation of force (not defensive), then his definition is the logical conclusion from the false premise.

I don't believe there is a "correct" definition of the state. I personally define the state as legitimized coercion. A right to property is legitimized coercion, yes. In my opinion there is legitimate coercion. But I do think that the question of who actually initiated force is an important question. Merely presiding in someone's yard is not an initiation of force, as much as some would like to pretend that it is, and defending property with legitimized force is essentially statehood. I certainly support it, to an extent.

I thought I would give you the definitions of the words to try to reduce confusion. It should be obvious why Stefan's argument only applies to the first and not the second.

Property- A state of exclusive control over an "object"

Right to Property - A "moral" claim to the exclusive control of an "object" (usually not currently under one's control)

Right, but what precisely do we mean by exclusive control? Can I exclude people from the entirety of my yard as I circle it with my mower, or do I only own the piece my mower is on at any given moment? Am I in exclusive control of my home? No.

I believe there is no exclusive control except over the very space which you immediately occupy. But I do claim a moral right to defend that which I have gained, but find it immoral to restrict access to my property that does not cause me harm. I admittedly find morality to be pretty subjective.

Strictly speaking the only property that can be validly protected without entering into a social contract is that which you have physical contact with or direct physical control over in some manner. This is the only a priori justified position. The right to property only comes into valid existence upon the creation of a valid (voluntary and explicit) social contract. Since Capitalism does not reflect a valid social contract, then any right to property claimed under the system is invalid. Using the homesteading argument to jump to the right to property instead of property is a classic trick that many Capitalists use to skirt the issue, Stefan being one of them.

I would say that not even self-protection is objectively valid, though I obviously prefer to protect myself and all of the things that I value. I do agree, certainly, though, that a right to the fruits of one's labor does not automatically follow from self-ownership or from NAP.

You are one of the most sensible people I have encountered on these forums to date Dan.

Yes, strictly speaking one could claim that the posession of one's body and any "objects" in physical contact with the person is not a priori valid and therefore does not constitute property. However upon entering into a discussion using one's body and "objects" either you have legitimate control over your body and the "objects" or you do not. If you do not, one could argue that I should not continue the discussion since you are acting imoraly by your own standard. This is rhetorical of course, and basically depends on if one accepts argumentation ethics or not.

I agree with you that morality is not "objective" and my assertion of this stems from my metaphysics (my post on the philosophy section should explain that).

I am afraid that your claim to protect that which you have created and is not currently under your direct control must be justified further if it is to be more than a preference. I think that this type of right to property is very sensible and I would not personally condem someone for initiating force against someone who "stole" the fruits of someone's labor but alas it is not a priori justified, it is a personal preference. Not all initiations of force are as bad as others, "protecting" what you made is still initiating force but I personally think it is not as bad as assaulting a man on the street. Of course, the presence of a mutual contract would provide the necessary justification to respond with force unwaveringly. At this point you are no longer the initiator.

Hopefully my comment near the end as to what I mean by exclusive control (direct physical contact) cleared up your previous questions regarding that point.

Thanks for clearing up my questions on property. I do believe that a right to what you are directly controlling is the only thing that can be assumed as valid under strict NAP.

I agree with you about protecting property. I believe it is initiation of force but it is my preference that it be justified. So I don't hold to strict NAP.