Yes a group would emerge, but as I've and other ACists admit, that majority of Agencies would have to be invoking the morals of voluntarism. If they didn't, you wouldn't have ACland. If they are using violent coercion it's just a new state and ACland would not have come to pass.

Unless the majority of people believe in those ideals, ACland ain't hapenin. And if the legal system doesn't embody those ideals, ACland ain't hapenin.

If your new security agency plays by the rules of non-violence, it can compete if it offers good and services for the right price, just like any other business.

But playing ball here simply means negotiating to use fair courts. Sounds easy enough to me.

If you ain't hurtin nobody physically, you ain't got no worries.

Looks like the security agency business will have a definite tendency toward cartelization. Whichever firms get the biggest fastest will become the de facto law and control their market and most everything else.

Again, the smaller your security firm, the more vulnerable you are. Doesn't seem all that free market suddenly.

Play ball with the big boys or else, kid.

Violent coercion by itself does not imply a state imo. This definition of state is far too large and applies to any number of things. You changed the definition from "monopoly on legit use of violence" to "everything but AC".

People can opt into other firms if these do not satisfy their demands, the biggest firms should be flexible in order to satisfy their customers. Large firms fail all the time and it shouldn't be any different here, in theory. Size doesn't matter as much as co-operation. You do have to "play ball" with the majority though.

That's just it. The bigger the security firm, the greater part of the "majority" it constitutes, and accordingly the more power it has (over the legal system no less), which can be leveraged into making itself an even bigger security firm, and so on.

Or else supposed "voluntarists" like Rubeskies will brand your customers Somali pirates with no rights whatsoever and do whatever they want to them. (?)

Either you are with us, or you are with the pirates.

I have a question for the "zomg AC will explode under the threat of organized crime and people running highly violent, purposely sub-optimal businesses" crowd.

How are these criminals, who are supporting insurance companies that will only use corrupt courts, supporting themselves? There's no illegal drug market, there's probably a much smaller black market for stolen goods (because the people that had the stuff stolen are more motivated to get it back than cops), many more people are armed, leaving less easy targets, and there's much more work to be had, so people are far less likely to need to turn to crime to support themselves.

Would a defense agency make enough money defending criminals, and only criminals, in corrupt courts to stay in business and compete with the honest companies?

I think it's pretty demonstrable that dishonest businesses, while they can thrive temporarily, are not a long term viable business model.

As for the "omg what if they wanted to kill teh gheys". That stuff is just silly. "omg what if the gubmint wanted to kill teh gheys" is an equally valid question.

And? You say this as if they are mutually exclusive. Like if the mobster can just get a note saying "acquitted" no other arbitrator would consider the case. Again, the judgement itself is not a magical artifact.

If you think just writing the words on a piece of paper makes things magically legitimate, I have a piece of paper you might be interested in.



So, since this is clearly "lawful" I expect that you will cheerfully and willingly comply.

You're missing the point. The question was over whether the mobster would have to agree to be arbitrated by an someone else.

Succeeding in business by exploiting the inherent nonsensicalness of an opt-in judiciary is not sub-optimal.

As motivated as those whose goods are stolen may be, they are unlikely to take measures more costly than the items themselves to insure/recover them. This is the basis of one of the business models for organized crime in ACland. Just make your organization too expensive to pursue, and the for-profit police and court systems will not do so. If you happen to get caught anyway, have Acquittals R Us on retainer.

The society in a state of anarchy has no answer to this other than, in so many words: "You must choose from the oligopoly of approved courts," which of course makes it no longer an anarchy.

Not just criminals, pretty much all defendants. And yes, I think there are enough of those to keep Acquittals R Us in the black.

Acquittals R Us is NOT a dishonest business. They always deliver.

So double jeopardy is not a problem in ACland?

He wouldn't.

I'll just go ahead and expand on this now instead of later. A free market arbitration ruling is just an opinion and carries no inherent force in and of itself. Therefore there's no reason a person cannot be tried in absentia. There's nothing coercive, especially if he's given an opportunity to present his case and declines.

How is that voluntaryism?

Not one I would seriously worry about. Reputable arbitrators will know if a case has already been tried by another reputable arbitration firm and will probably decline to retry the case absent grounds for appeal.

What's involuntary about it?

I missed this. So if he doesn't agree to these other arbitrators then they can rule on him as long as they don't enforce their ruling.

Now I get it. You just don't pay attention.

AC != anarchy in the sense that you're using it. There's still a set of social structures, you just get to choose which ones you're a part of. You're not forced in to one based on where you live, with no regard for whether it does what you want. The only universal rule is to leave other people alone. Don't hurt them, don't take their stuff.

No, they don't deliver, since nobody will agree to use them. It's not that ****ing difficult a concept. Why would I ever agree to go to that court, as an insurance agency? Alternately, why would I interact with another insurance agency that insisted on dealing with taht court? They're as good as admitting they cater to criminals.

These dishonest courts then have no business, because only 1 side is ever willing to work with them, and nobody else ever respects their opinions. The insurance companies that insist on dishonest courts can never resolve legitimate claims from their clients, because they can't make agreements with the other insurance companies. I could go on, but I think it's pretty clear this is an unsustainable business model.

Please to be applying your logic to both sides of the issue, and stretch it out to its logical end point, instead of stopping when you reach the conclusion you were aiming for.

Lol. You can choose your own path in ACland, as long as the oligopoly of approved courts says it's okay.

And guilt or innocence with respect to the universal rule of ACland is decided by your friendly overlords at the Frontier Justice trust.

Even if I accept your sarcasm, how is this worse than the state, where you can go your own way as long as the approved monopoly state says it's ok?

"I can't make a valid argument against it, so I'm going to call it names"

Again, if a court regularly makes ridiculous judgments, they will go out of business. No group will contract with a court if they can't guarantee a fair result.

Arbitration and enforcement are two separate functions IMO. I'm not sure "enforcement" as you're speaking of it is compatible with a free market in the first place, really. Certainly not the type of enforcement we have in the status quo. There are some actions that currently fall under enforcement that would be legitimate in a free market, but not all of them.

A clearly guilty defendant would gladly use them rather than the prosecution's court in which conviction is a certainty.

No, Acquittals R Us admits to satisfying a huge market demand for a guaranteed verdict of "not guilty" in the free market court system.

As clear as mud.

The top priority of a clearly guilty defendant in court is to exit there ASAP. A firm that satisfies this demand will get his business. He couldn't care less about how "respectable" his firm appears, or if it's "talked about" by sweet old ladies at their tea parties. As long as he's out on the street again without breaking any other laws, he is more than happy.

1. The defendant will likely be represented before he commits a crime
2. His victim will also be represented
3. Their representatives will likely have a preexisting agreement of what court to use when their clients have a disagreement
3a. This court will never be a biased one, for obvious reasons
4. If a company insists on using biased courts, then they will likely be unable to work with other insurance companies
5. Because of 4, that company is pretty useless to their clients.

Is this clear yet?