Freedomain Radio

Let's say Alice invites Bob on her property and then poisons him and buries him on her property. Who will investigate and prosecute the crime? Will an investigator be able to investigate on Alices property?

Well, Alice's DRO would probably reserve the right to investigate her house on suspicion of crime. Now Alice might be able to say no, but all DROs would then just drop her, which would be a complete catastrophe - no bank account, credit cards, mortgate, driving privileges etc.

Of course, the DROs would have to have mechanisms in place to ensure that this process would not be used to abuse or harass someone - like a third-party DRO would have to establish 'reasonsable suspicion' grounds for entering Alice's house and so on.

There are a lot of questions about this here from people who've not gone to my blog, so here's the article dealing with this in full:

-------------

Caging the Devils: The Stateless Society and Violent Crime

After Lew Rockwell was kind enough to publish The Stateless Society (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html), I received many emails asking the same question: how can violent criminals be dealt with in the absence of a centralized government?

This is a challenging question, which can be answered in three parts. The first is to examine how such criminals are dealt with at present; the second is to divide violent crimes into crimes of motive and crimes of passion, and the third is to show how a stateless society would deal with both categories of crime far better than any existing system.

Thus the first question is: how are violent criminals dealt with at present? The honest answer, to any unbiased observer is surely: they are encouraged.

A basic fact of life is that people respond to incentives. The better that crime pays, the more people will become criminals. Certain well-known habits – drugs, gambling, prostitution in particular – are non-violent in nature, but highly desired by certain segments of the population. If these non-violent behaviours are criminalized, the profit gained by providing these services rises. Illegality destroys all stabilizing social forces (contracts, open activity, knowledge sharing and mediation), and so violence becomes the norm for dispute resolution.

Furthermore, wherever a legal situation exists where most criminals make more money than the police, the police are simply bribed into compliance. Thus by increasing the profits of non-violent activities, the State ensures the corruption of the police and judicial system – thus making it both safer and more profitable to operate outside the law! It can take dozens of arrests to actually face trial – and many trials to gain convictions. Policemen now spend about a third of their time filling out paperwork – and 90% of their time chasing non-violent criminals. Entire sections of certain cities are run by gangs of thugs, and the jails are overflowing with harmless low-level peons sent to jail as make-work for the judicial system – thus constantly increasing law-enforcement budgets. Peaceful citizens are legally disarmed through gun control laws. In this manner, the modern State literally creates, protects and profits from violent criminals.

Thus the standard to compare the stateless society’s response to violent crime is not some perfect world where thugs are effectively dealt with, but rather the current mess where violence is both encouraged and protected.

Before we turn to how a stateless society deals with crime, however, it is essential to remember that the stateless society automatically eliminates the greatest violence faced by almost all of us – the State that threatens us with guns if we don’t hand over our money – and our lives, should it decide to declare war. Thus it cannot be said that the existing system is one which minimizes violence. Quite the contrary – the honest population is violently enslaved by the State, and the dishonest provided with cash incentives and protection.

State violence – in its many forms – has been growing in Western societies over the past fifty years, as regulation, tariffs and taxation have risen exponentially. National debts are an obvious form of intergenerational theft. Support of foreign governments also increases violence, since these governments use subsidies to buy arms and further terrorize their own populations. The arms market is also funded and controlled by governments. The list of State crimes can go on and on, but one last gulag is worth mentioning – all the millions of poor souls kidnapped and held hostage in prisons for non-violent ‘crimes’.

Since existing States terrorize, enslave and incarcerate literally billions of citizens, it is hard to understand how they can be seen as effectively working ‘against’ violence in any form.

So, how does the stateless society deal with violence? First, it is important to differentiate the use of force into crimes of motive and crimes of passion. Crimes of motive are open to correction through changing incentives; any system which reduces the profits of property crimes – while increasing the profits of honest labor – will reduce these crimes. In the last part of this essay, we will see how the stateless society achieves this better than any other option.

Crimes of motive can be diminished by making crime a low-profit activity relative to working for a living. Crime entails labour, and if most people could make more money working honestly for the same amount of labour, there will be far fewer criminals.

Those who have read my explanation of dispute resolution organizations (DROs) (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html) know that stateless societies flourish through the creation of voluntary contracts between interested parties, and that all property is private. How does this affect violent crime?

Well, let’s look at ‘break and enter’. If I own a house, I will probably take out insurance against theft. Obviously, my insurance company benefits most from preventing theft, and so will encourage me to get an alarm system and so on, just as occurs now.

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.

However, the stateless society goes much, much further in preventing crime – specifically, by identifying those who are going to become criminals. In this situation, the stateless society is far more effective than any State system.

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. Any DRO will naturally ensure that its contracts include penalties for violent crimes – so if you steal a car, your DRO has the right to use force against you to get the car back – and probably retrieve financial penalties to boot.

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.

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. Thus if you cancel your DRO insurance, your name goes into a database available to all DROs. If you sign up with another DRO, no problem, your name is taken out. However, if you do not sign up with any other DRO, red flags pop up all over the system.

What happens then? Remember – there is no public property in the stateless society. If you’ve gone rogue, where are you going to go? You can’t take a bus – bus companies won’t take rogues, because their DRO will require that they take only DRO-covered passengers, in case of injury or altercation. 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?

Obviously, those without DRO representation are going to find it very hard to get around or find anything to eat. But let’s go even further and imagine that, as a rogue, you are somehow able to survive long enough to start trying to steal from people’s houses.

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 you have to get off the street. Where do you go? All the local street owners have been notified of your presence, and refuse you entrance. 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.

So, really, what incentive is there to turn to a life of crime? Working for a living – and being protected by a DRO – pays really well. Going off the grid and becoming a rogue pits the entire weight of the combined DRO system against you – and, even if you do manage to survive their scrutiny and steal something, it has probably been voice-encoded or protected in some other manner against unauthorized re-use. But let’s suppose that you somehow bypass all of that, and do manage to steal, where are you going to sell your stolen goods? You’re not protected by a DRO, so 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.

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.

Thus it is fair to say that any stateless society will do a far better job of protecting its citizens against crimes of motive – what, then, about crimes of passion?

Crimes of passion are harder to prevent – but also present far less of a threat to those outside of the circle in which they occur.

So, let’s say a man kills his wife. They are both covered by DROs, of course, and their DRO contracts would include specific prohibitions against murder. Thus the man would be subject to all the sanctions involved in his contract – probably forced labour until a certain financial penalty was paid off, since DROs would be responsible for paying financial penalties to any next of kin.

Fine, you say, but what if either the man or woman was not covered by a DRO? Well, where would they live? No one would rent them an apartment. If they own their house free and clear, who would sell them food? Or gas? Who would employ them? What bank would accept their money? 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.

But let’s say that only the murderous husband – planning to kill his wife – opted out of his DRO system without telling her. Well, the first thing that his wife’s DRO system would do is inform her of her husband’s action – and the ill intent it may represent – and help relocate her if desired. If she decided against relocation, her DRO would promptly drop her, since by deciding to live in close proximity with a rogue man, she was exposing herself to an untenable amount of danger (and so the DRO to a high risk for financial loss!). 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.

Now let’s look at something slightly more complicated – stalking. A woman becomes obsessed with a man, and starts calling him at all hours and following him around. Perhaps boils a bunny or two. Well, if the man has bought insurance against stalking, his DRO leaps into action. It calls the woman’s DRO, which says: stop stalking this man or we’ll drop you. And how does her DRO know whether she has really given up her stalking? The man stops reporting it. And if there is a dispute, she just wears an ankle bracelet for a while to make sure. And remember – since there is no public property, she can be ordered off any property such as sidewalks, streets and parks.

(And if the man has not bought insurance against stalking, no problem – it will just be more expensive to buy with a ‘pre-existing condition’!)

Although they may seem unfamiliar to you, DROs are not a new concept – they are as ancient as civilization itself, but have been shouldered aside by the constant escalation of State power over the last century or so. In the past, desired social behaviour was punished through ostracism, and risks ameliorated through voluntary ‘friendly societies’. A man who left his wife and children – or a woman who got pregnant out of wedlock – was no longer welcome in decent society. DROs take these concepts one step further, by making all the information formerly known by the local community available to the world as whole, just as credit reports do. 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! The important thing to remember is that all such contracts are voluntary, and so do not violate the moral absolute of non-violence.

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. More incentives to work, fewer incentives for a life of crime, no place to hide for rogues, and general social rejection of those who decide to operate outside of the civilized worlds of contract, mutual protection and general security. And remember – States in the 20th century caused more than 170 million deaths worldwide – are we really that worried about hold-ups and jewelry thefts in the face of those kinds of numbers?

There is no system that will replace faulty men with perfect angels, but the stateless society, by rewarding goodness and punishing evil, will at least ensure that all devils are visible – instead of cloaking them in the current deadly fog of power, politics and propaganda.

Brilliance.

 

this may have already been covered and im sorry if it has, but what about people who are at the bottom of the social and economic ladder who cannot afford to pay a DRO? which DRO would their families turn to if their loved one has dissapeared or been murdered and they had no idea who the culprit was? i dont see who would have an interest in investigating the murder and bringing those responsible to justice if the person had no DRO? i think this is pretty important.

sven:

this may have already been covered and im sorry if it has, but what about people who are at the bottom of the social and economic ladder who cannot afford to pay a DRO? which DRO would their families turn to if their loved one has dissapeared or been murdered and they had no idea who the culprit was? i dont see who would have an interest in investigating the murder and bringing those responsible to justice if the person had no DRO? i think this is pretty important.

Well, your question makes some assumptions I don't think are justified. A DRO need not necessarily cost much money, or even any at all. Personally I think it's likely that DROs would on a very local scale take the form of something like a homeowner's association, and since DRO-like organizations might well be one of the important nexuses of society, it's likely that they would be motivated to lower costs as much as possible and provide pro-bono coverage to those who couldn't afford it (because, after all, the point of a DRO is its ability to deal with as many people as possible, which excluding the poor does not accomplish).

Your question also seems to assume that the only motivating interest someone might have to want to investigate a crime is monetary--but the very fact that you're asking that disproves that assumption. In fact your question proves just the opposite, because you care about an abstract situation concerning hypothetical people living in a society you'll never even live to see! People are motivated by a great many things, money being only one of them...

Also your question assumes that paying someone else would be the only way to investigate a crime. But did you know that before the modern convention of police departments and government detectives, people often investigated crimes on their own?

And finally I think it's unthinkable that people would be unable to afford the services of a DRO like institution. Everyone has something valuable to trade, not necessarily bound up in material goods like money. And without taxes and living in a free market, people would be greatly more wealthy than they are in most modern societies where governments fiddle with economies, take the common folks' money, and hand out special privileges to businesses, thus promoting inefficiency, nepotism, and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a relative few.

Nasikabatrachus:

 

Well, your question makes some assumptions I don't think are justified. A DRO need not necessarily cost much money, or even any at all. Personally I think it's likely that DROs would on a very local scale take the form of something like a homeowner's association, and since DRO-like organizations might well be one of the important nexuses of society, it's likely that they would be motivated to lower costs as much as possible and provide pro-bono coverage to those who couldn't afford it (because, after all, the point of a DRO is its ability to deal with as many people as possible, which excluding the poor does not accomplish).

ok not the best example. lets instead look at something closely related and examine how the poorest members of society might have private security/police to protect them. it used to be that only the rich could afford private police and security forces. under the current system even the worst off member of society at the very least has a number to call for assistance if they find themselves in danger. right now even a bum on the street can call the police for help if someone is trying to kill them or has just robbed them, etc. now i couldnt imagine that even in a free market this type of service would be cheap simply because it requires trained people to be on standby and ready to put their lives in jeopardy at any moment. what solution would you expect an anarchist society to come up with for this?

Nasikabatrachus:

Your question also seems to assume that the only motivating interest someone might have to want to investigate a crime is monetary--but the very fact that you're asking that disproves that assumption. In fact your question proves just the opposite, because you care about an abstract situation concerning hypothetical people living in a society you'll never even live to see! People are motivated by a great many things, money being only one of them...

yes. this is true. its no guaruntee though.

Nasikabatrachus:

Also your question assumes that paying someone else would be the only way to investigate a crime. But did you know that before the modern convention of police departments and government detectives, people often investigated crimes on their own?

lol. not everybody is columbo or inspector morse im afraid. most people have neither the skills, time or resources to investigate a murder. detectives train to be detectives and acquire most of their skills though experience on the job. what kind of person who can hardly afford DRO cover or private security/police is going to have the training, knowledge and manpower to investigate a homocide let alone have access to forensics labs, state of the art DNA matching equipment, fingerprinting equipment, database of criminals, etc which is necessary to solve a crime like that? most people (myself included) wouldnt even know where to begin looking and even if they did find out who did it, what are they going to do? arrest the guy?

 

Nasikabatrachus:

And finally I think it's unthinkable that people would be unable to afford the services of a DRO like institution. Everyone has something valuable to trade, not necessarily bound up in material goods like money. And without taxes and living in a free market, people would be greatly more wealthy than they are in most modern societies where governments fiddle with economies, take the common folks' money, and hand out special privileges to businesses, thus promoting inefficiency, nepotism, and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a relative few.

yes things would be cheaper but dont forget that without the govt providing and subsidising all the essential services people would have to start paying for all sorts of things which until now has been paid for through taxation. some poor idiot who has not many skills and can only work low wage jobs is now having to spend their entire paycheck not only on rent, food, clothes, car expenses, petrol, household bills, etc but also on their childrens education, healthcare for them and their family, tolls on every road they drive on, parking, police, defence, unemployment insurance, etc.

 

sven:

Nasikabatrachus:

 

Well, your question makes some assumptions I don't think are justified. A DRO need not necessarily cost much money, or even any at all. Personally I think it's likely that DROs would on a very local scale take the form of something like a homeowner's association, and since DRO-like organizations might well be one of the important nexuses of society, it's likely that they would be motivated to lower costs as much as possible and provide pro-bono coverage to those who couldn't afford it (because, after all, the point of a DRO is its ability to deal with as many people as possible, which excluding the poor does not accomplish).

ok not the best example. lets instead look at something closely related and examine how the poorest members of society might have private security/police to protect them. it used to be that only the rich could afford private police and security forces. under the current system even the worst off member of society at the very least has a number to call for assistance if they find themselves in danger. right now even a bum on the street can call the police for help if someone is trying to kill them or has just robbed them, etc. now i couldnt imagine that even in a free market this type of service would be cheap simply because it requires trained people to be on standby and ready to put their lives in jeopardy at any moment. what solution would you expect an anarchist society to come up with for this?

Well, again, assumptions here would be that police actually provide assitance to the poor.  I've read studies in the past (sorry forgotten where) talking about how police response time is directly correlated to some statistic like gross median income of any given area.  Basically, the police came real quick to investigate O.J. Simpson because he committed a crime in a high income area, but the recent ethnic cleansing in L.A. (mexican mafia wiping out poor black neighborhoods) is not responded to.  Because of the cost of post facto crime investigation, the goal of a stateless society would be to create systems which encourage prevention of crime.  Perhaps DRO's would have some sort of bluetooth or wireless panic button system, that would be meant to help prevent crime.  It could even be automated and connected to the CV/nervous system of the client and provide warning when heart levels or stress levels go up.  As a system for prevention, surely this would cost less then the armies of police that are currently employed by the state, and if you're concerned about those who can't pay for it, as your question clearly shows, then at least you would be willing to help provide these systems as charity.  Of course, you're not the only one who would be willing to do so, as I'd join you, as would many other people here and everyone else who asks such a question!

sven:

Nasikabatrachus:

Your question also seems to assume that the only motivating interest someone might have to want to investigate a crime is monetary--but the very fact that you're asking that disproves that assumption. In fact your question proves just the opposite, because you care about an abstract situation concerning hypothetical people living in a society you'll never even live to see! People are motivated by a great many things, money being only one of them...

yes. this is true. its no guaruntee though.

Guarantees are the arguments of utopians.  We claim no such thing.  You admit the truth of the statement, that is all we can go on.

sven:

Nasikabatrachus:

Also your question assumes that paying someone else would be the only way to investigate a crime. But did you know that before the modern convention of police departments and government detectives, people often investigated crimes on their own?

lol. not everybody is columbo or inspector morse im afraid. most people have neither the skills, time or resources to investigate a murder. detectives train to be detectives and acquire most of their skills though experience on the job. what kind of person who can hardly afford DRO cover or private security/police is going to have the training, knowledge and manpower to investigate a homocide let alone have access to forensics labs, state of the art DNA matching equipment, fingerprinting equipment, database of criminals, etc which is necessary to solve a crime like that? most people (myself included) wouldnt even know where to begin looking and even if they did find out who did it, what are they going to do? arrest the guy?

I actually find the idea of individuals investigating crimes to be quite absurd for the reasons you've pointed out.  But as I've said earlier, the paradigm would have to shift from crime investigation to crime prevention to keep costs down.  That said, surely crimes will happen, and when they do, the company that provides the best investigation for the best price will be the most popular.  As our current methods of crime investigation have no chance of even having an INCENTIVE for the best price, it's impossible to know how little it will really cost, except that we can know that it will cost less.  And again, if you're concerned people won't be able to pay for it.... I don't have to finish this thought, do I?

sven:

Nasikabatrachus:

And finally I think it's unthinkable that people would be unable to afford the services of a DRO like institution. Everyone has something valuable to trade, not necessarily bound up in material goods like money. And without taxes and living in a free market, people would be greatly more wealthy than they are in most modern societies where governments fiddle with economies, take the common folks' money, and hand out special privileges to businesses, thus promoting inefficiency, nepotism, and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a relative few.

yes things would be cheaper but dont forget that without the govt providing and subsidising all the essential services people would have to start paying for all sorts of things which until now has been paid for through taxation. some poor idiot who has not many skills and can only work low wage jobs is now having to spend their entire paycheck not only on rent, food, clothes, car expenses, petrol, household bills, etc but also on their childrens education, healthcare for them and their family, tolls on every road they drive on, parking, police, defence, unemployment insurance, etc.

Who's to say the people at the bottom of the income range (now dubbed the "working poor") would even need to pay for all those services you've listed?  Without government funded roads, I think it's pretty evident that urban sprawl would not exist in the manner it does today, which means people would work closer to home.  There could be new forms of mass transportation invented that would be more affordable than owning a car and paying for the roads and gas, or people could simply buy a bicycle. 

Of course, without government interference any price associated with any kind of insurance will go down, as insurance will return to use for rare emergencies, as it is with car insurance.  This means that health insurance fees will fall drastically, as people won't be using health insurance to pay for a check-up.  Unemployment insurance in a world without government caused unemployment would be REALLY cheap!

Without government caused inflation, the basics such as food, shelter, and clothing will experience falling prices more often than rising prices, leading to the basics being much more affordable due to innnovation.  Even if there are disasters (drought, floods, pirates) that cause temporary increases in the prices of goods, people will surely have goodwill organizations to provide the basics of human survival in times of crisis.

This doesn't even take into account the ammount of money people will be able to save without the government taking at least 15% of their income.  Of course, even the poor pay approximately this much, considering sales/consumption tax, the amount of money landlords include in their rent to pay high property taxes on multi-dwelling buildings, the vice taxes on alcohol and cigarrettes and drugs (vice tax because the increased price is due to the illegality of the plants), and all the bullshit fees people have to pay to do things such as register your car, your house, your pets, etc.

sven:

Well, your question makes some assumptions I don't think are justified. A DRO need not necessarily cost much money, or even any at all. Personally I think it's likely that DROs would on a very local scale take the form of something like a homeowner's association, and since DRO-like organizations might well be one of the important nexuses of society, it's likely that they would be motivated to lower costs as much as possible and provide pro-bono coverage to those who couldn't afford it (because, after all, the point of a DRO is its ability to deal with as many people as possible, which excluding the poor does not accomplish).

***

ok not the best example. lets instead look at something closely related and examine how the poorest members of society might have private security/police to protect them. it used to be that only the rich could afford private police and security forces. under the current system even the worst off member of society at the very least has a number to call for assistance if they find themselves in danger. right now even a bum on the street can call the police for help if someone is trying to kill them or has just robbed them, etc. now i couldnt imagine that even in a free market this type of service would be cheap simply because it requires trained people to be on standby and ready to put their lives in jeopardy at any moment. what solution would you expect an anarchist society to come up with for this?

Maybe if you hired each "officer" personally it wouldn't be cheap. But again the point of a security service or DRO is the ability to deal with a large number of people, and that means the financial burden on any specific individual would be small. Moreover we would expect a DRO to want to focus on the prevention of crime rather than the management of the situation, because it's far cheaper. So the costs of maintaining trained people on standby would likely be small because they would be used so seldom. Plus most people would probably have easy access to a gun, which as you might have heard is good for dealing with criminals.

sven:

Your question also seems to assume that the only motivating interest someone might have to want to investigate a crime is monetary--but the very fact that you're asking that disproves that assumption. In fact your question proves just the opposite, because you care about an abstract situation concerning hypothetical people living in a society you'll never even live to see! People are motivated by a great many things, money being only one of them...

***

yes. this is true. its no guaruntee though.

Neither is the state. In fact the poor are quite likely to be abused by the police now, so if the lack of an all-encompassing guarantee is your problem I suggest you move to Mars.

And finally I think it's unthinkable that people would be unable to afford the services of a DRO like institution. Everyone has something valuable to trade, not necessarily bound up in material goods like money. And without taxes and living in a free market, people would be greatly more wealthy than they are in most modern societies where governments fiddle with economies, take the common folks' money, and hand out special privileges to businesses, thus promoting inefficiency, nepotism, and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a relative few.

***

yes things would be cheaper but dont forget that without the govt providing and subsidising all the essential services people would have to start paying for all sorts of things which until now has been paid for through taxation.

Let me fix that:

...but don't forget that without the govt stealing people's money to provide essential services people would have the option to pay for services voluntarily which they previously did not have a choice but to pay for.

That sounds good to me. In fact it sounds better because those services would actually reflect the demand of each person paying for them. Right now, for instance, you don't have a choice but to pay for roads, but if it were voluntary then as you cut back alternatives would develop like rail or bus travel. The roads that exist might be much more efficiently laid out so people won't object too much to paying the tolls. Maybe arcologies would be built, or maybe communities would form in caves or complexes of tunnels drilled underground to nullify transportation costs. Police? Maybe you don't want police. Maybe you want a neighborhood patrol. Maybe you just want a gun, and some agency dedicated to preventing crime in the first place.

Perhaps these options are absurd and unworkable. But the fact is we'll never know as long as we don't have a choice in the matter.

I think the issue about the poor, even with the DRO system can be solved with Stefan words: "The answer is simple: "Since everybody is concerned that 'X' will not be provided, 'X' will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."

Just change the "X" to DROs.

I think it was in Freidman's Machinery of Freedom that I read about a system where defense agencies would take on destitute clients for a share of restitution if the culprit is caught. It could be like creditors who buy up debt hoping a portion of it will pay-off. The pay-off ratio would probably be quite low but this might be acceptable, especially if it was run on a not-for-profit basis or as a pro-bono arm of a DRO.

 

Some hypotheticals:

DRO firms take on investigations because it is good for their reputation, it adds to their portfolio which looks good for potential clients. I for one would sign up for a DRO with the best record of solving/investigating crimes and protecting people, *especially the poorest* - because this shows they provide a great service to all, not only an elite few. In a local community especially (even a city or county), if people knew something terrible had happened to someone, most people would chip in some money for a DRO to intervene/help anyway, OR the DRO would simply act on behalf of its own best interest (and therefore that of the community/victim) and help out pro-bono because of community pressures (looks good on the DRO's portfolio/reputation). Hell, it might even be included in the cost of others' contracts, so that a DRO covers a certain area, so when people are worried about crme - even when it's happened to a person without a DRO in a different neighbourhood - it gets covered/insured under the DRO's promise to provide a secure / crime-free environment.

If crime happens on private land where people are living/sub-contracting etc, if the land owner ignored the situation, who would want to live there in future? Wouldn't people be outraged? Who would want to stay in an area where nobody around you cared about helping the poor/victims etc? So there is incentive to provide these things. You'd most probably have people falling over eachother just trying to get access to these victims to help out. Don't you think private individuals (i.e. investigators, ex-DRO reps, security guys, random people etc etc) would also work for free to help out? What about massive charity organisations which would be many many times bigger and more influencial without government intervention, laws, inflation and taxation?

What about one off donations from large and ethical private companies (like Stefbux, Smallmart, Virgoogle and Linosoft) who are also very rich and eager to help out to improve their precious public image? What about the giant, hyper-efficient distributed networked communities which would all work together to find out who was commiting acts of violence and fraud and submit evidence to a shared central database accessable by all, so that shops, businessess and private individuals can deny service to criminals? Do you honestly think these offenders would really last long in a high-tech, highly efficient, rich, ethical, networked and non-violent voluntary society?! Do you not think that offenders would rather pay up or work hard to redeem themselves than be completely cut-off and ostracised from society? Where could criminals run to or hide when all land is owned privately and subject to these same massive social pressures? What about the elimination of highly organised violent crime thanks to the very absence of the state in the first place? What about the huge potential to profit from non-violent professional rehabilitation and voluntary re-education of criminals?

I can go on and on but there are some crude economic/utilitarian responses. The short answer: supply and demand. Hope this helps.

 

i just finished reading practical anarchy and wanted to raise a few issues i had with the idea that living off the grid is impossible as well as restitution as punishment. maybe you guys can come up with some solutions. :)

1) what about if people are using cash? surely not all transactions (especially for groceries and food) would be electronic. so anyone who has saved up a lot of cash can at least buy food whether they are covered by a DRO or not and could probably last a while doing this.

2) how would owners of private land be able to tell whether people who are on it at any given time are covered by a DRO or not? if i am on the run and i walk on a sidewalk or through a shopping mall or a park where many people walk, how does the owner even know im not covered by a DRO? unless they all had high tech facial recognition cameras then it would be pretty hard to moniter.

3) if i steal or borrow a car that is owned by someone who is covered i would be able to drive on the roads too as there is no way for the tollgate to tell who i am.

4) even if i am found to be on private property what would the security do to me? would they push me onto the next door neighbours property who would just get pissed off with them for dumping the problem on them and just throw me back onto the first persons property? would they take me out to the forest (if its not privately owned) and dump me there? would they incarcerate me? the idea that you can’t go anywhere without trespassing seems like a bit of a practical impossibility. what are you supposed to do? vapourise? teleport? :P

5) if a billionaire is found guilty of raping a woman and her DRO demands restitution of $1 million dollars which he can quite easily afford, is there any other punishment or consequences?  

 

sven:

5) if a billionaire is found guilty of raping a woman and her DRO demands restitution of $1 million dollars which he can quite easily afford, is there any other punishment or consequences?  

I'm not sure how easy it would be for a DRO to "demand" any specific amount in the way of restitution because the entire paradigm, being focused on resolving a dispute, will be focused more on mediation and arbitration. I'm not saying it's impossible, but a DRO representing a rape victim may "suggest" restitution of $1 million, which the other party may agree to, but the idea of any financial "demand" on such a violation is difficult to measure and seems just a bit "off" to me. Much easier to measure if you're talking about stuff you've already paid for and can tally up replacement costs. Of course, you could consider the victim's lost revenue from work, medical and therapy costs, emotional distress, etc. and arrive at some number and anything beyond that would need to be negotiated. As for other consequences, sure, why not? Whatever the parties can agree to as a settlement on a case-by-case basis. After a while a solid body of successful prior resolutions would form that would guide people as to what works and what doesn't.

 

Of course, I think rape in an anarchic order would be even more rare a crime than it is today. My understanding of most rapists is that it's usually a power play and not necessarily about the sex. If it has anything to do with sex, it's in the symbolism of the act in reference to the sexes of the perp and the victim. If the work that's being done here and elsewhere regarding the abuse of children has any effect over the long haul, violent power plays of all kinds are going to be minimized across the board and since a free market would more than likely empower more people to act productively, well there's another reason to think that violent crimes of all types would be pretty rare.

 

sven:

 

5) if a billionaire is found guilty of raping a woman and her DRO demands restitution of $1 million dollars which he can quite easily afford, is there any other punishment or consequences?  

 

There's also the social condemnation, which is a very important thing to consider. A billionaire who rapes somebody would unlikely be able to have commercial relationships with other people, so he's status of billionaire probably wouldn't last.

In addition, raping would increase his DRO "rating" considerably. If he relapse that person would probably be excluded from the system.