Freedomain Radio

Is there a particular reason why the DRO combines the insurance agency and a private arbitration system? Why would this consolidation be beneficial? Or is the combination just for semantic brevity?

Thanks in advance..

There is no danger as I see it in combining the two, if one arises I could see the funtions spliting, like the functions of justice and arbitration splitting.

Could also let the free market choose for us. Demand for consolidated services versus separated services should drive the supplies for either.

I think I understand the intention to get the message across but I have doubts on the necessity to get people on board with the idea of a stateless society.

Remember that Stef's DRO model is not the answer, its an answer. The free market will determine which services will function how, it is the combination of the choices of millions of people, not the prescription of one. The DRO model is designed to provide a starting point as to how these problems might be solved in the future, without a government, and I think you can agree that its a damn nice solution, it makes perfect sense and its efficient. The truth is though these services in the future could look nothing like what Stef describes, or they could look exactly how Stef describes. The value of his DRO work in the present is to show that it is not only possible but preferable to function without governments.

The main reason I think it would occur that way is for cost reasons; ordering in bulk always saves money, and since there would be less need to transmit sensitive info between companies. However, there is no intrinsic reason...

@ash

I agree that it is a great solution, I would just be wary of some of the resistance certain people might have towards the combination if you are an advocate of DROs.

For instance, a lot of people are more opposed to the idea of insurance than you might think.

You may well be right of course, but that is the beauty of anarchism of course - if enough people prefer another way of resolving their conflicts, such a way will be provided for sure...

I've always been skeptical of the idea of third-party-payer systems of any kind because it seems to me that wherever you can offload the burden of risk to someone, you're much more likely to make poor choices in the moment, both personally and financially.

For example, imagine that we now had "Grocery Insurance"? Or "Home Entertainment Insurance"? -- where you pay a fixed fee to a third-party, and they give you a card that authorizes you to purchase far more than you pay in fees each month, every time you step into the store. Suddenly, that nifty pair of wireless headphones, the extra big bag of fritos, the "Law&Order" Gold Edition DVD box set, two bottles of syrup instead of one, and the eggos instead of ingredients for pancakes... all suddenly start showing up in your shopping cart on a regular basis, and over time, even more as benefit levels increase.

The DRO model, I think, would be great way to manage that problem, since premiums and benefits are going to be much more commensurate with your spending habits, lifestyle, risk tolerances, and reputation rating. But that's only possible in the absense of government. Coercion is the single greatest corruption of decision-making. Enabling the deferal of risk is a pale secondary problem, by comparison...

Just as an example, I think the differences in opinion may be illustrated in the arguments pro and con for a health related savings account versus traditional health insurance plans.

I've always assumed actually that arbitration and insurance wouldn't be combined actually.  This is because  an agency involved in an arbitration and conducting an arbitration has a conflict of interest.  This includes an agency insuring one of the parties.  This means that I, and many other people, would fear that the court would rule in its own interest (see state courts in cases involving the state for examples) unreasonably often.  It is likely that agencys would have courts that they prefer to deal with, and agree on venues for disputes between agencys beforehand.

I would not trust an insurance agency with binding arbitration because of the conflict of interest problem.  At least I would demand a right of apeal to an independant court in all dealings with a DRO as a means to prevent corruption.

Yea I agree with you there, good point.

Nathan Miller:

I've always assumed actually that arbitration and insurance wouldn't be combined actually.  This is because  an agency involved in an arbitration and conducting an arbitration has a conflict of interest.  This includes an agency insuring one of the parties.  This means that I, and many other people, would fear that the court would rule in its own interest (see state courts in cases involving the state for examples) unreasonably often.

but this will always and everywhere be against the interest of the consumer who is meant to be the company's #1 priority. the conflict of interest would have to be between the customer and someone else and the customer's interests would always win out (or the free society fails).