Freedomain Radio

I just uploaded the third episode of my video series Law without Government. 

This one is called The Bargaining Mechanism, and explains how consumer preferences for law and justice are reflected in the policies, decisions and agreements of the arbitrators and protection agencies (i.e. PDA's / DRO's).

In case you missed the first two, here they are:

Comments are appreciated.  Thanks.

I was very impressed by your clear presentation in "The Bargaining Mechanism", but I was simultaneously troubled. You have chosen perhaps the most difficult case to address, and, while I accept the strength of the mechanism you have outlined, I find it hard to swallow the argument that a killing can be so coolly decided over a profit and loss account. I don't know how this would work, because it seems that the agency against the imposition of the death penalty would lose all its customers if it allowed one of them to be murdered. I can't help thinking that some kind of supra partes moral arbitration would be needed and, if disputed, no death penalty incurred. I think you might risk alienating people with this scenario if even a hardened anarchist like myself is having a hard time with it, but I would be most interested to hear what others have to say. Many compliments anyway for your courageous and diligent work. 

Theodoric:

I was very impressed by your clear presentation in "The Bargaining Mechanism", but I was simultaneously troubled. You have chosen perhaps the most difficult case to address, and, while I accept the strength of the mechanism you have outlined, I find it hard to swallow the argument that a killing can be so coolly decided over a profit and loss account.

Thanks.  I chose the most difficult kind of conflict - one about principles - on purpose.  This one is aimed more at my fellow libertarians than the first two.  I think there's a tendency on the part of some of us to make an almost blanket assumption that in an anarchic society, the laws will be largely libertarian.  I don't disagree with this, but (with the exception of David Friedman, who inspired this video) I have not seen an explanation of how just having competing courts will tend to lead to this outcome, or even a formulation / recognition of the question.  

We tend to limit the analysis of conflicts to conflicts about circumstances, and overlook conflicts about principles, when this is key to understanding exactly how consumers' opinions on justice actually translate into the laws that are enforced.  After all, there are many hot-button issues that are not likely to be 'settled' any time soon - capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia, etc - and we need to be able to explain how conflicts between people with different views on these subjects could be settled peacefully.

Incidentally, what would you say is the alternative to "coolly deciding over a profit and loss account"?

Theodoric:

I don't know how this would work, because it seems that the agency against the imposition of the death penalty would lose all its customers if it allowed one of them to be murdered.

Well, this is symmetrical.  If the agency in favor of the death penalty cannot get its side enforced, it will lose customers as well. I don't think either side would lose ALL their customers.  So it comes down to which side would lose the most. 

Theodoric:

I can't help thinking that some kind of supra partes moral arbitration would be needed and, if disputed, no death penalty incurred.

What do you mean by supra partes moral arbitration?

Graham Wright:

Incidentally, what would you say is the alternative to "coolly deciding over a profit and loss account"?

I really have no idea Graham. I will have to sleep on it, likewise for the definition of my vaguely worded supra partes arbitration. I am troubled by the premises but I can think of no workable alternative at present (even assuming that such a thing may exist). 

Graham Wright:

Well, this is symmetrical.  If the agency in favor of the death penalty cannot get its side enforced, it will lose customers as well. I don't think either side would lose ALL their customers.  So it comes down to which side would lose the most. 

I don't think this is necessarily true. I think an agency that favours killing might still meet the approval of its customers if it manages to secure some death penalties. This is because I see the solution as more radical and certainly entirely irreversible so the burden of proof would be far higher than for the other agency. Anyway, by the time we arrive at a stateless society don't you think people's bloodlust will have lessened considerably due to the peaceful parenting they have necessarily received before we are able to implement a condition of anarchy?

 

Theodoric:

Anyway, by the time we arrive at a stateless society don't you think people's bloodlust will have lessened considerably

Yes, probably.  But other kinds of principled disagreements could be handled similarly.  Substitute a disagreement about capital punishment for a more trivial disagreement, like about the size of a fine for a mugger.

Theodoric:

due to the peaceful parenting they have necessarily received before we are able to implement a condition of anarchy?

Bit off-topic, but yes, more peaceful parenting would surely help us achieve a more peaceful society.  

I don't see any reason to consider peaceful parenting to be a necessary prerequisite for anarchy though, if that's what you're implying.

These were nice presentations for introducing anarchical society ideas. I have some things worth considering.

Video 1:

Rather than just property rights, there are other necessary environmental attributes for social order. These are transparent identification and social characteristics of persons, registering material property, the necessary attributes of a contract individuals make with each other (you mentioned arbitration as one of them), how to homestead or register real estate, a court trial, restitution, and a communication network (the internet is an example). Make it clear that individuals that run these mediating agencies share the same rights and responsibilities as customers who are in contract with this social order.


Video 2 and 3 :

I would make it clearer that all persons are able to make restitution request electronically and publically for the harm they charge on a violator first even if they hire an agent to do it on their behalf. Then if the violator fails to pay, the victim can publish a mediating/court date for settlement. And if found guilty, the restitution request will become a requirement/enforcement of the plaintiff, in which the plaintiff can use "Dawn Defense", hirself or some other company to carry out this enforcement. Moreover, by already having a published court settlement, this avoids "Tenna Defense" being in conflict with "Dawn Defense" since there was already a trial where evidence was shown and jurors determined the defender to be guilty.

Moreover, every person does not have to choose to leave it in a 3rd party agency's hand to decide the "punishment" for them since it is really the victim that knows what will reconcile their well being or make them feel content. This will also prevent an ongoing conflict of what different 3rd party agencies think the restitution or retribution should be if they are clear that every person's restitution requirement will be subjective. Plus, there would be no need for 3rd party agencies to pay to see what retribution or restitution should take place to keep customers since it is really the current client that is paying for their own personal case. Whatever a victim chooses for restitution will be subject to social preferencing and ostracizing, so it really isn't so much on the agency here. The court agency will also be subject to social preferencing too but mostly for their reputation in mediating the case. If a customer has the restitution of wanting the violator put to death, s/he can simply pay another business to do that for hir. A mediating/court service does not have to be a "be all, do all" where they have to provide security, prison, and lethal injection. Such things are optional for entrepreneurs.

Thanks for your comments.

That seems like an interesting link, but after spending some time reading through it and the essay it links to, I'm still not really sure what its saying or what the relevance of it is.  "Social contract" naturally rings alarm bells for me, because statists often argue that an implicit social contract justifies the state.  So maybe you could explain it to me in plain English.  What is the point of this contract?  Who are the parties to the contract?  Why should I agree to it?  What will happen to me if I don't sign it?

Can you explain what you mean by the victim's desired restitution being subject to social preferencing and ostracism?

 

 

Graham Wright:

Thanks for your comments.

You're welcome.

That seems like an interesting link, but after spending some time reading through it and the essay it links to, I'm still not really sure what its saying or what the relevance of it is.  "Social contract" naturally rings alarm bells for me, because statists often argue that an implicit social contract justifies the state.

The relevance of the link was that a contract is a necessary tool for having agreements with other individuals and services and for the definition of a contract (don't read the stuff above and below it) which in general is a recorded set of information about a relationship that connects individuals with each other. Also, there is a list of necessary attributes that make a contract has stability especially when it comes to solving disputes.  If they mentioned that a social contract implicates a state, tell them it is not exclusive to a state nor does it have to be involuntary, ambiguous, and incomplete like a state.

So maybe you could explain it to me in plain English.  What is the point of this contract?

The point is it records an event that creates a relationship a person has with one or more individuals, a set of information or a material existent. For instance, how do we know who make up "Dawn Defense", and who is agreeing with their service, and what are the entitelements and clauses of this service? How would individuals know if a person is the actual  owner of a car?

Who are the parties to the contract?

The parties will be whoever voluntary want to execute an agreement for something with their identities linked to it.

 

Why should I agree to it?

It is not an ought. It is basically up to you to decide based on your cost/benefit analysis of the details of the agreement. You are free to agree or disagree to what suits your preferences.

 

What will happen to me if I don't sign it?

The same thing as any other voluntary contract. You won't be a party of it nor be obligated to it.

Can you explain what you mean by the victim's desired restitution being subject to social preferencing and ostracism?

Basically, with  the details of a restitution being accessible by other members of a social system, these people can have feedback on a person like "that was too much money Jim asked back for!" or "She did the right thing in sending that man to jail for 2 years with rehabilitation!"..."I won't sell that person anything since he believes in death penalties!"...and so forth.

 

 

 

Your videos are astonishingly good for two reasons.

First, they use everyday language that everyone can understand. This is so important. Very often we see the opposite, for example a video that uses terms like "praxeological" or "minarchist" (whose meaning is known by the already-converted but not by the target audience), and immediately loses 99% of its potential viewers.

Second, your videos don't gloss over the difficult and controversial parts, such as the disagreement between the arbitration agencies in video 2, or the death penalty in video 3. It makes sense to cover the most difficult sub-topics, after which the rest are easier.

If you are making more videos in this series, I would love to see one that covers the resolution of a conflict over an environmental issue such as air pollution. Obviously this works in a similar way to the inter-agency disagreements of video 3, but the subject matter is so different that it wouldn't hurt to provide an explanation of how it would be worked out. It would also be great to have a video that explains the incentives that exist for arbitration agencies to prevent conflicts arising, rather than having to resolve them later.

Loved the videos.

My favorite part is in the first video where you clearly explain that current DROs act as their own judge.  I wonder if the easiest vector from which to attack the legitimacy of the state is to show that our competing DRO system is a superset of the existing political systems.  Don't prevent us from creating our own competing DROs.  That's all...  Really quite simply stated.  Not very simply enacted.  

As an example, I've noticed, as I'm sure many of us have, that among Republican candidates in the debates, and pundits on political talk shows, the Federal Reserve and it's manipulation of interest rates via the money supply is coming up more often.  While many in the libertarian, austrian, etc., community have also been talking about it, I think we can agree that Ron Paul is probably the most visible voice, and that it's his presidential campaigns in 2k8 and for 2k12 that have contributed significantly to the current conversation about the Fed.

Can we find a way to change the public discourse to include the description of states as monopolist DROs?  If we manage to reframe the intellectual conversation about government such that the monopolistic nature and DRO function of the government conjoined are admitted to.

I love Ron Paul's ethics and his actions, but quite frankly strict adherence to the constitution is simply an attempt to rollback the insidious creep.  It doesn't change the nature of the structure which is monopolist DRO.

I believe Stephan is right that the moral arguments will win, but we need to tie the morality question to emotional passion against injustice and unfairness.  It has to be tied into peoples specific fears and specific frustrations.  To specific injustices and inequalities created by the current monopolistic DROs.  

Give a man a vision of being able to move to a community of like-minded individuals governed by freedom and competing DROs.  Convince the population that in a system of competing DROs he could create or sign up with a DRO that chose to resolve disputes via christian/muslim/<insert your favorite moral code here> "law" and he will be on your side.

Luckily the existing states continue to grow in size and scope, and the percentage of individuals suffering from natural rights violations by the state is growing.  That makes fertile ground for an intellectual and emotional weening off of monopolist DROs, regardless of the mechanism and philosophical justification for its existence.  Notice that democracy, monarchy, a fascist state, a theocracy, an oligarchy, a social democracy, a republic, etc. all start with the assumption of the rightful monopolization of Dispute Resolution for a bounded territory.

I would not add or take anything from the videos. They seem coherent and true on principle and though I see Derek's point from an aesthetical standpoint, it doesn't make utopia out of freedom while it reminds that the power is in the consumers' choice. I congratulate you.

I'm watching these videos right now and I'm finding them very interesting :)

ribuck,

Thank you for watching my videos.  I am glad you enjoyed them and thank you for the feedback.

ribuck:

If you are making more videos in this series, I would love to see one that covers the resolution of a conflict over an environmental issue such as air pollution. Obviously this works in a similar way to the inter-agency disagreements of video 3, but the subject matter is so different that it wouldn't hurt to provide an explanation of how it would be worked out. It would also be great to have a video that explains the incentives that exist for arbitration agencies to prevent conflicts arising, rather than having to resolve them later.

I don't plan on making any more in this series.  There is no theoretical difference between an environmental dispute and any other kind of dispute, and as you say, they would be worked out practically the same way as in video 3.  The only "difficult" thing when it comes to environmental issues is that its not so clear what constitutes a violation, who gets the blame, and who should be compensated.  But these are all practical concerns to be solved by entrepreneurs in the legal industry.  I, as an armchair philosopher, cannot really say very much about how these kinds of problems would be solved.  It is equivalent to asking me something like how the problem of pot holes in roads will be solved by a free market in roads.  I don't know, I'm not a road or pot hole expert!  The free market advocate does not even try to solve problems of this kind; he just recognises that the problem will be solved best by road entrepreneurs competing and cooperating.  I avoided "presenting solutions" in my videos and just tried to explain the mechanics of dispute resolution at the most basic level. 

So if I were to make a video about environmental disputes it would be nothing more than "Here's one way entrepreneurs might solve this problem... I don't know if it will work... somebody else might think of a better way...".  Those kinds of videos are great, but not the approach I took with this series.

Similar thing with security, to an extent.  It's much easier to imagine a free market in security than in law.  We have private security today in theme parks, nightclubs, shopping malls, etc, so it's simple to expand that.  I think it's quite clear why it's in the interest of a firm that employs bouncers to deliver a good service of conflict prevention: if they don't they'll be dropped by the nightclubs that use them and go bankrupt.  There's not a lot else to say.  Individuals and firms (perhaps indirectly through insurance companies) hire the type and amount of security they desire, and the security companies compete for customers.  Maybe there will be integration of insurance / arbitration / security firms.  Maybe there won't be.  Maybe there'll be 10 security companies in the whole world market for security.  Maybe there'll be 10,000.  I don't know.  It's all speculation and it all comes down to saying that the optimum arrangements will emerge in free market conditions, as we know they always do.

 

 

 

 

imfreeman:

Loved the videos.

My favorite part is in the first video where you clearly explain that current DROs act as their own judge.  I wonder if the easiest vector from which to attack the legitimacy of the state is to show that our competing DRO system is a superset of the existing political systems.  Don't prevent us from creating our own competing DROs.  That's all...  Really quite simply stated.  Not very simply enacted.  

As an example, I've noticed, as I'm sure many of us have, that among Republican candidates in the debates, and pundits on political talk shows, the Federal Reserve and it's manipulation of interest rates via the money supply is coming up more often.  While many in the libertarian, austrian, etc., community have also been talking about it, I think we can agree that Ron Paul is probably the most visible voice, and that it's his presidential campaigns in 2k8 and for 2k12 that have contributed significantly to the current conversation about the Fed.

Can we find a way to change the public discourse to include the description of states as monopolist DROs?  If we manage to reframe the intellectual conversation about government such that the monopolistic nature and DRO function of the government conjoined are admitted to.

I love Ron Paul's ethics and his actions, but quite frankly strict adherence to the constitution is simply an attempt to rollback the insidious creep.  It doesn't change the nature of the structure which is monopolist DRO.

I believe Stephan is right that the moral arguments will win, but we need to tie the morality question to emotional passion against injustice and unfairness.  It has to be tied into peoples specific fears and specific frustrations.  To specific injustices and inequalities created by the current monopolistic DROs.  

Give a man a vision of being able to move to a community of like-minded individuals governed by freedom and competing DROs.  Convince the population that in a system of competing DROs he could create or sign up with a DRO that chose to resolve disputes via christian/muslim/<insert your favorite moral code here> "law" and he will be on your side.

Luckily the existing states continue to grow in size and scope, and the percentage of individuals suffering from natural rights violations by the state is growing.  That makes fertile ground for an intellectual and emotional weening off of monopolist DROs, regardless of the mechanism and philosophical justification for its existence.  Notice that democracy, monarchy, a fascist state, a theocracy, an oligarchy, a social democracy, a republic, etc. all start with the assumption of the rightful monopolization of Dispute Resolution for a bounded territory.

Thank you. Great post. I really like this approach and I do feel it's a neglected "line of attack" that we have against statism. It great to try and stop states from getting more power, or even (employing some wishful thinking) shrinking their power. But we can also take a step toward a free society by advocating replacing territorially large states with smaller ones ... i.e. highlighting and educating people about the right of secession. Secession right down to the individual level is of course voluntarism / anarchy, so if we can make a principled argument for secession, and the masses really understand and accept that principle, it will be a giant leap towards liberty. Because if you think a nation ought to be allowed to secede from a larger federation or union if it's citizens demand it, to maintain any consistency you have to agree that a county should be allowed to secede from a nation, and a community should be allowed to secede from a county, and ultimately individuals should be allowed to secede from any authority whatsoever.

The inconsistency of the statists who oppose "breaking up America" but also oppose a world government is too obvious even for the most brainwashed to fail to see, when it is pointed out to them. And the tyranny of advocating that a bunch of people can't live on their own and do their own thing is also incredibly obvious when it is pointed out. So yes, I think it would be great to get people thinking about what the problem is with a group of people just saying to the state 'we're going to ignore you now and do things our way', effectively ending the DRO monopoly.

JegSomHeter:

I would not add or take anything from the videos. They seem coherent and true on principle and though I see Derek's point from an aesthetical standpoint, it doesn't make utopia out of freedom while it reminds that the power is in the consumers' choice. I congratulate you.

Thank you!  It means a lot to me to read comments like these.