Yeah because murderers are well known for their rationality.

You seem to be under the impression that the insurance companies won't care if they get a reputation for, say, not tracking down murderers and kidnappers. Even if tracking down these criminals is directly unprofitable, NOT getting them is long-term MORE unprofitable because they lose customers, probably all of them. Firms that show more intelligent long term planning - ie, not alienating their customers - will survive, tending to the optimal security model (but realistically, not hitting it, as that's a moving target, and nobody is perfect).

I'm wondering why strawn thinks that insurance companies are just waiting for the stateless utopia to implement this awesome business plan of taking people's money and not giving them anything in return.

Maybe you should forward this idea to GM. It would be more profitable for them if they took people's money and didn't bother actually delivering cars. After all, getting all of those parts from all over the world, assembling automobiles, shipping them to dealers, etc is an expensive proposition. If they could just cut all that stuff out and stick to the "accepting checks from customers" part, they'd probably wouldn't be bankrupt AMIRITE?

What if Bob decides to rob a bank?

What if Bob decides to spend all his money on hookers and blow and has none left for security?

Why is Bob my problem?

Well, there have been many times in history where the state has broken down and a period of anarchy has ensued. But what generally happens is that because the initial void created by the sudden collapse of the state is a very tumultuous time, it is quite easy for another group to seize power and create a new state. THIS, is obviously not what ACers want yet that period is certainly called "anarchy."

So two things then need to happen for stateland to become ACland. First, many many people need to believe in the voluntarist philosophy. Second, these people need to be ready when the state falls to step in and offer the goods and services the state had a monopoly on right away so as to ease the transition. If people can see a viable alternative, they won't rush to create a new state (which is what seems to usually happen).

I think just having enough people believing in ACland will ease the transition and get people excited about the possibility of it that entrepreneurs will rush in and fill the gaps left by the state.

BUT, J Neil Shulman wrote a book about this called Alongside Night where he sees another step that needs to take place. The writing is atrocious and he kind of goes to some pretty interesting extremes (which gets the book labeled Sci-Fi), but the idea is that "moral" ACists create an underground economy (counter-economics) that offer "illegal" private defense, private courts, private currency, and any other items you want to sell and trade using sound money and tax-free. This way, when the state does collapse, there will already by an economy in place to ease the transition.

It might be a bit of a stretch but it's still an interesting idea.

Well, for there to be a civil war, what people are usually fighting over are decisions made by the state or the workings of the state. With no state, people are forced to direct their hatred at individuals and smaller groups. Will there be conflict? Of course. But I think it will be rather small and localized rather than on a grand state level scale. And IMO, this is the best we can do. People will always hate each other, the best we can do is localize and control the violence and hopefully give people the moral and defensive framework to defend themselves from violent coercion.

But as far as rights, there will certainly be grey areas like pollution etc., but it isn't like there aren't massive grey areas over rights in states. But IMO, rights will be handled in a far better way in ACland then the state for obvious reasons.

Certainly, and that's why I did my best to offer up a possible hypothetical so we could analyze it but I understand your point.

Being an ACist is tough because people love to say ZOMG wat about this? And now you're forced to give an explanation how every single service in the world is offered even though you may only be an expert on one or 2 things. It puts you in a very difficult spot. I honestly didn't know how justice would work in ACland but I had confidence that it would be better than the state run system. Not until I talked with lots of people and did lots of research did I come up with an idea of how it possibly could happen.

That's the other problem, we don't really know exactly how it would happen in ACland. We can only offer possible solutions such as I did in my previous post.

So adding up the fact that we don't know exactly how it will happen, and that we're all not experts on all services, it makes us seem like a very vague and dogmatic bunch I know.

That said, I think a big part of us seeming to not want to keep discussing a lot of things like roads is because new people keep coming and asking what seems to some like "old" questions and many don't feel like answering the same things over and over again. It isn't that the questions aren't valid or interesting, it's just that it is so much easier to offer one liners than to get into long massive debates every time somebody asks about ACland.

So I can understand the frustration on both sides.

This

Sure, as in organized crime. There is a social niche for the rational criminal.

You seem to be assuming a conclusion here.

Just because a service is required to keep your customers does not make it profitable to perform. The business model itself, like the public version it is intended to replace, is a money loser.

Insurance companies are not waiting to implement this turkey. It won't fly.

If you don't care about a high crime rate, he isn't.

lol, good, you agree with us then.

If tracking down and preventing crime isn't profitable at a certain price, why can't the security agencies charge higher fees? Surely at some price level, security is doable.

And IMO, you're really overestimating how much it would cost.

How big of the annual government budget do you think police and the courts really are? Think of all the other massive government welfare programs, all the lost bureaucratic costs and all of the foreign wars. It doesn't actually costs that much.

And since the free market will be able to offer much more efficient security than the government does, the prices will be even lower, especially considering how much cheaper prevention is.

And since everybody will be better off economically, less people will need to turn to crime making security that much cheaper.

Bumped because it's true and went largely ignored.

A vital point that analysis is missing is opportunity cost. In a free society acting economical and proper is much more profitable than it is today.

Of course, the absence of endless propaganda of how bad capitalism is and how cool being a low life is has a huge effect on people's mentality too.

I still can't see people "investigating" petty thefts. Much cheaper to add extra security to keep them from happening in the first place.

I think you're assuming the conclusion that things will be priced at a level that makes you correct.

Murders are bad. Murderers need to be brought to justice. This is something so universal that essentially all customers of security services will agree on it. Therefore, all security providers will need to provide that service. Either murder investigations will be a loss leader, or they will set their rates so that they don't lose money when they have to investigate murders - which are pretty rare, really.

If insurance companies are able to profitably price car accident insurance, along with all the associated liability claims, then they can profitably price murder and assault.

Your theory would logically extend to insurance companies NOT paying multi-million dollar liability charges when their customers cause accidents that kill people, or not offering it, which is obviously false.

Private security becomes doable at some price level only if it is not too high for the market to bear.

A thief is willing to spend a figure equal to the market value of the item he is taking minus risk premiums, a reasonable profit, etc. In order to compete with the bad guys, the security companies would have to spend something close to that PLUS the costs of bringing the criminals to justice. No one is going to pay that much to protect their property for obvious reasons.

But does it actually make money? No, it does not. The courts and police are currently being subsidized by evil government's redistribution from profitable enterprises through the larceny of taxation.

This isn't about petty crime necessarily. The earlier example of the television was for illustration purposes only.

What form do you think the justice will take?

Here's a hint: $

Apprehending the TV thief means that the insurance company now has the TV (in some cases) or the equivalent value from the thief in others, PLUS a "we had to track you down" premium. This is going to allow them to recover some amount of their costs, on top of the premiums they charge in the first place.

Frontier justice.

Frontier justice, sometimes for hire.

LOL @ the thief having a contract with Frontier Justice Inc. whereby he compensates them for his arrest and prosecution.

Uh, he doesn't have a contract with them.

Then on what basis does Frontier Justice Inc., an outfit the thief maybe never heard of, have any claim against him?

Defense against his aggression on behalf of their client. Or to obtain some sort of compensation for the aggression he committed against their client.

This being after a trial of course, which usually carries a pretty hefty price tag. Does the thief have to pay for that also?

So in your view the thug initiates transactions without consent, but people need to get his consent before stopping him?

No, but who gets to decide what nonconsensual due process will be followed to find him liable for the costs of his theft, apprehension and trial?

I don't know. Perhaps he should have thought about that before he went and robbed someone.

Of course, (rock.jpg) it doesn't really matter what the details of the process are, since it's not like the state has found the One True Way for such a process to work.

In most societies, once you're convicted of a crime, you must pay the penalty set by that society. If the legal precedent of most courts is to charge the criminal for legals fees and security fees, that's what will happen and the thief will know that when weighing the risks of committing a crime.

Somebody who embezzles knows that if he embezzles the money and gets caught, he will be forced to pay back the money plus damages plus possible jail time. Those "damages" are often set pretty high. But the amount they will be depends on legal precedent as well as being case specific.

This isn't anything new.

Criminals, especially in civil suits, are often forced to pay for the legal fees of the winner of a suit.

In most societies, a defendant must first be found guilty in order to be liable for anything.

So they catch the guy who allegedly stole the television. What sort of consent on his part is necessary for a trial to proceed against him? Does he have the right to refuse all proposed venues, or must he choose from a list provided by the prosecution? Can he insist on a court of his own in which to be tried?