Freedomain Radio

So, I came across this video, and I am curious about FDR's thoughts.  It appears to me that the guy making this video has a very limited understanding of the DRO, and his reasoning and questions seem to reflect this.  Am I missing sometihng, or would you say my suspissions are correct?

Practical Anarchy! a book for you and me!

That was my first thought as well. Are we missing something?

So, if you look through the inaccuracy in the video, he does bring up an interesting point.  In this theoretical DRO model, in terms of justice, what does happen to a person who drops their coverage and actually murders someone?  Obviously, they are ostracised and they do not have any way to legally buy food or live.  However if they do find a way to live off of the grid, what does this DRO model suggest in terms of justice.  For someone who has DRO coverage and commits murder, they are basically ostracised and will starve to death OR they can work off their debt in a rehabilitation facility. 

However, for someone who drops that coverage, this is not an option because their murder did not cause their DRO to pay off anyone, so they contractually owe nothing for the murder.  From what I am understanding, if that person can find a way to live off of the grid, then there were no reprecussios for the murder.

Thoughts?

The contract you sign with the DRO could easily contain clauses obligating you to something conceptually similar to a "non-compete".

"Joining this DRO, I, the undersigned, fully acknowledge and consent to be bound by the coverage limitations for a period not to exceed _______ months, should I choose to terminate my coverage prior to it's natural lapse date"

There may be problems with this approach too, or there may be better or more nuanced ways of crafting such a clause. I'm not a lawyer.

The point is, really, that these sorts of "what about.." questions, are not really questions at all, but defenses.

If the maker of the video was seriously interested in solving the problems of a truly free society, he'd sit down with himself and brainstorm for an hour to come up with possible solutions to this problem, rather than firing off a rejection letter.

 

Hmm, good stuff.

 

Why does he assume that no punitive measures can be taken if she ignores the claim by the DRO?

The DRO has the right to take measures against her, ostracize her even,  if she ignores the claims against her.  A DRO can divulge services and enourage others to do the same to an individual who is not cooperating. Once again, the DRO is not aggressing upon Mrs. Jones. 

Similarly, if I sell a TV on ebay and don't ship the item, the buyer can file a claim against me. I don't have to respond to the claim/email. Ebay would be forced to ostrasize me from their services. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this. We don't  have to philosophize this too much. We have real world examples.  If I continue to ignore Ebay they may report me to a credit agency, take any funds they may have access to (money in a paypal account, etc). 

g0at:

Why does he assume that no punitive measures can be taken if she ignores the claim by the DRO?

The DRO has the right to take measures against her, ostracize her even,  if she ignores the claims against her.  A DRO can divulge services and enourage others to do the same to an individual who is not cooperating. Once again, the DRO is not aggressing upon Mrs. Jones. 

Similarly, if I sell a TV on ebay and don't ship the item, the buyer can file a claim against me. I don't have to respond to the claim/email. Ebay would be forced to ostrasize me from their services. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this. We don't  have to philosophize this too much. We have real world examples.  If I continue to ignore Ebay they may report me to a credit agency, take any funds they may have access to (money in a paypal account, etc). 

Well put.

He makes a lot of assumptions. I think his broader point was about not being able to force people to have a DRO. He make the claim that If they have not agreed to a social contract, as say a personal protection plan from a DRO, then  how can you get them to agree to be questioned, If they have never entered into a contract? He makes the claim that he sees no way to get them to comply other than the initiation of force, and that such a system would have to assume guilt in order to validate said force....again he makes a lot of assumptions. 

From this video, I can see where people are already making the DRO idea come off institutionalized when it is really a for hired service where owners and operators of it will also have to be part of an overall social contract if people want to avoid certain groups having special status or powers over a population and having no amenability. The process of charging someone for a violation does not have to be a process where a DRO does everything for you nor must send a charge on your behalf. Such scenario is really optional like in the manner of hiring an agent (a contract within a social contract) if you can afford one. In addition, it would be troublesome and look bad on an arbitration service or DRO to force non-contruactual individuals to comply especially without a trial. Such coercion would only open up a can of statist worms.

 

The charging process can be where the victim, their heirs, and other members of a "Natural Social Contract" can charge another member for a breach themselves or through the use of an agent with a restitution request (a contract) over a communication network/internet. And if the violator doesn't want to agree to this contract to pay the request, a trial decision process (another contract) will be the next step of this social contract the plaintiff can hire to reach a verdict. And if the event of the violator harming the person is determined to be factual, the restitution request will become a requirement. The status of this trial and restitution would also be published. Yes, the initiation of force can be involved in this requirement like a person stipulating  to hire a bounty hunter if the violator fails to pay or tries to run away, or negotiating with the violator's job to extract part of their income to you. But such force is a reaction to a violator's initiation of force that started the whole thing. Plus, such force by victims or their heirs can be  expected voluntarily in the social contract the violator is already in. Never the less, having a social contract that requires the details of these processes and contracts published for all to see, helps others ultimately judge by  Social Preferencing of both disputants involved.

 

Also, individuals may not want to interact with someone who is not a member of a social contract they are in if there exist sufficient differences. But like his example, if some non-member harms a member, what the author of this video should not overlook is "Ms. Jones" may already be a member of either a state or another anarchical social contract where the victim or the victim's heirs can use the dispute settling process Ms. Jones is part of or convince Ms. Jones to settle the conflict in the social contract the victim is in (like the settlement of an anarachical system may be less harsh than a state). Moreover, the social ostracizing of Ms. Jones would also be a way to deal with her non-compliance.

 It's irrelevant how the future would solve this problem. All that matters is eliminating the current belief that initiation of force is a moral way to solve problems. A lack of imagination about how to solve a problem doesn't mean that the problem should be prolonged.

SpyroChiro:

It appears to me that the guy making this video has a very limited understanding of the DRO, and his reasoning and questions seem to reflect this.

The fundamental philosophical error in the video, which Stef has dealt with in the past in other contexts, is his statement at the beginning:

billburns2:

The concept of dispensing justice is one of the few instances that libertarians are obliged to explain to us exactly how their theory is going to work in practice.

This is quite a misunderstanding of freedom. While, with centrally-planned solutions, yes, you can go ahead and explain exactly how your slaves will do what you tell them to (and this is presumably the solution that he prefers), that is not the case with freedom. There are no plans we intend to impose. He may choose what he wants.

This philosophical error is exactly why he starts telling us exactly how the DROs will work and exactly how they will fail, in the exact case anyone was exactly mystified by exactly that.

The false self should not be engaged with any other purpose than to show others the negative social consequences of it.  

there is no such thing as anti-DRO; the opposite of a DRO is a successful competitor.

not even state provided security?