Freedomain Radio

I give up, sorry i couldn't help you.

You refuse to see the difference between voluntarism and violence, and I can't make it clearer.

AESTHETE:

Stefan Molyneux:

No one is forcing you to have or demand a DRO. It's the DROs job to make it easier and more pleasant for you to have a DRO,

isn't this a lot of people's arguments for why we need governments?

and i don't see how DROs are more voluntary than governments.
i mean, you can't really live without a DRO, just like you can't really live well off the grid now,
so in that sense, you must choose at least one DRO, which is precisely how you argue AGAINST governments.

Some people will have such a good reputation that they won't need a DRO just as some people right now have such good health that they don't bother to get health insurance.

let me organize my comprehension of DROs...

DROs have economic incentive not to use violence,
not to lie, not to do negative government-esque actions in general.
You choose which DRO to get involved with, but a DRO is necessary for basic living needs.

they do charge for their services, but they don't 'tax', in that they don't use police men to collect the charges,
as our government does.
they have economic incentive to use the money they get from their customers for only what the customers contractually pay for.
they have economic incentive to be honest about how they're spending the customers' money.

which is not the case for any government.
they do use police to collect charges,
and they do charge for secret services that the 'customers' are unaware of.

is that correct?

if it is,
then generally, this system is certainly superior to what we have now,
and maybe the best system possible.

sorry i frustrated you, stefan.
the purpose of these arguments is to strengthen my stance in favor of the free market.

DRO's would be like governments except market driven and not artificially driven. Some would be exactly like governments today. Can you imagine what a DRO that caters to murderers and rapists would be like? It would be run gestapo like.

 The size of a DRO would be determined by the size of the clientel that like its format. In the US you might have 38% that back the government fairly strongly. A DRO with that 38% backing would lose close to the entire other 62% of its clientel.

 Some DRO's might be area based but many would co-exist. Can you imagine now becoming a Canadian citizen in the USA? You have to move and all the problems associated with it. Changing from DRO to DRO in some cases would be like changing car insurance now. Right now car insurance companies make you do things or penalize you but it can't be considered immoral in the way that governments can be considered immoral.

AESTHETE:

You choose which DRO to get involved with, but a DRO is necessary for basic living needs.

I don't see why. Could you spell out your logic that leads to this conclusion please.

CCS,

DROs would not be like governments; they would be like supermarkets. Most urbanites shop at the local supermarket for their food but only from efficiency and convenience. Some keep chickens and a produce garden instead.

You can't do that opt out with the government.

Heuristic:

AESTHETE:

You choose which DRO to get involved with, but a DRO is necessary for basic living needs.

I don't see why. Could you spell out your logic that leads to this conclusion please.

as far as i'm aware, stefan has talked about how hard it is to live off the grid in the DRO system.

AESTHETE:

Heuristic:

AESTHETE:

You choose which DRO to get involved with, but a DRO is necessary for basic living needs.

I don't see why. Could you spell out your logic that leads to this conclusion please.

as far as i'm aware, stefan has talked about how hard it is to live off the grid in the DRO system.

With cautious strangers or people who won't just trust you outright, yes, it would be tough.  But people would be able to make arrangements without DROs if they felt like it.

Stef was talking about the difficulty being an "outlaw" for example someone who breaks contractual commitments then runs away to avoid penalty. But I'm not talking about that. If a person deals honorably and honestly and therefore has a good reputation and does due diligence on the reputations of those he dreals with then he might go indefinitely without signing up with a DRO.

The limiting case is someone who reads the commonest DRO contracts and says, "I have no problem with that!" If he then follows the principles outlined there because he practices them anyway, why does he need to sign up with a DRO? It is like living in a community where concealed carry is legal; you don't need to carry a concealed weapon to benefit from the deterrant umbrella effect.

I'm worried that you took my statements as authoritative, as though I'm an expert (haha) merely because I write with the assurance (some might cruelly say dogmatism) that comes with being older than you. When I say this and that IS I'm merely working out what makes sense to me as far as I can see and then stating it categorically like a baseball batter striking the ball with maximum force to send it as far as possible. Since DROs are an hypothetical construct then if you can construct a better hypothetical then you're the expert.

sorry i havn't read all the posts here yet but could a person in an anarchic society take out a contract with a security company who would then be responsible for the saftey of that person, so if something happens to the person then they would be bound by contract to investigate and if they did not do this a friend or relative could take this case to a DRO?

I would imagine that more than one person in that area would subscribe to that security company so it would not be a case of bodyguards following someone around, but, more like a general preventative effort, (hopefully not using CCTV seeing as this is one of the things the government is vastly overusing) 

anatomyofareflex:

sorry i haven't read all the posts here yet but could a person in an anarchic society take out a contract with a security company who would then be responsible for the safety of that person, so if something happens to the person then they would be bound by contract to investigate and if they did not do this a friend or relative could take this case to a DRO?

I would imagine that more than one person in that area would subscribe to that security company so it would not be a case of bodyguards following someone around, but, more like a general preventative effort, (hopefully not using CCTV seeing as this is one of the things the government is vastly overusing) 

Well policing forces can indeed be privatized, I mean security guards are low-income cops for the property's area essentially. But there are operational expenses to be considered, meaning if you live in the boonies, it's going to be very difficult for an organization to view that as a market. In which case the inhabitants have two choices really: a) a co-op must be forms to pool their resources to justify bringing in a company or to appoint a volunteer for the task b) just go without. The latter may sound plausible at first but I get visions of biker gangs terrorizing the countryside. the same can be said for small towns where the amount they would have to charge would negate the possibility. This co-op itself could be representend by a DRO maybe, and the DRO could set up a general area of activity for the contracted company, servicing these different co-ops.

I say co-ops versus people going individually because individually only makes sense when dividing resources makes sense. This way they have an informal mechanism for reaching consensus on which DRO or policing force to bring in.and pay in bulk. in larger cities this is a bit moot, since the amount of customers means a broader market meaning multiple policing forces are probably already in town, allowing each person to go it individually if the wanted, although an entire building might go for one system so that emergency numbers originating from inside the building would still function (or have a default DRO/police paid from a shared fund, rent, or old-fashion bill for such cases, depending on what the people who live there wanted to do)

on the convo above, the big selling point for civilizations based on association (versus Max Stirner's "society") is that you can leave them if you want to. A government is like a geographic DRO monopoly that you're forced into contract with, they pick the prices, they decide to take over other industries at whim and you can't go and start your own. Decentralization (like that found in anarchism) allows people to "mix and match" power structures as they see fit. Also, they don't NEED a DRO, if something else comes along that can do what a DRO does and more, people will realize a DRO is a company, and not feel beholden to it, and switch to the new thing, compare that with the state.

years from now, I see high schoolers sitting in a classroom reading about us in their history books, puzzled as to why we felt that only the state can do what it does. It will be something hard for them to understand.

sorry for the diatribe, it crept up on me
 

ash:

What characteristic does a DRO have that prevents it from one day evolving into a government?

stef has a several youtubes on this question
 

but the most obvious problem is that there are other DRO's who would stand to lose in that situation and in order to raise capital, the evil DRO would have to raise prices to the point where they go somewhere else before it was raised (assumnig you could really raise an army based around the morally questioning imprisoning of people). Also the point shouldn't be to avoid any system that may lead eventually to central authority, we have to assume that it will come back in some form, and that we just need to be better about dealing with it when it comes back.