So he paid for an acquittal that every honest court in the land will disregard? So when the victim's security provider picks him up and takes him to a real court, he's still going to be guilty, amirite?

My specific question was in my post, and your entire reply was handwaving.

You are the one arguing for the case of the state last I checked.

Acquittals R Us would not be run by libertarians and would be charged with crimes themselves. Assuming that they are too strong, we have a new state to be dealt with. Read way back to the Hatfield/McCoys.

Let's go back to the original thing quoted, that was totally misunderstood by Strawn. All this means is that: whatever act (often a victimless crime like smoking a joint in your backyard) that is forbid/prohibited by the state ends in enslavement or death when resisted.

Libertarian punishment theory accounts for actual crimes like rape or murder. A black market like drugs just reflects the difference between victimless and real crimes. Nobody sells assrapings on the corner. There is very little illegal trade of alcohol today because Prohibition ended.

As I already explained, and you ignored without addressing much less refuting, Acquittals R Us is an honest court: it rules exactly as promised every time.

Depends on whether double jeopardy or kidnapping are allowed in ACland.

How so? I looked and looked and still can't find an instance of handwaving by me in that post. Please be specific so I can correct myself, because I despise handwaving.

I think Strawn is saying that:
1. A villian can choose a defender (or even rep himself) who chooses not to cooperate.
2. If villian is detained by victim's rep, then why should the villian be forced to comply with rules and procedures he has already disavowed

I think he's wondering where the alleged villain's right to determine who he deals wirh ends.

It does make me wonder what would happen to both innocent people put through a process they think is unjust and how exactly crimes are investigated without witness compulsion.

The alleged villain's right ends when he refuses to sign with one of the many security firms that cooperates with all the others. If he chooses not sign with a societally accepted security firm, he's taking a huge risk. He's basically saying that he wishes to live outside society (like a pirate) and that he's willing to take those risks, which include forfeiting his rights.

To live in society, all people will have to belong to one of the security firms that cooperates with all the others. So, example:

Characters: Villain, Witness, Victim and each have 3 different security firms.

The Villain commits a crime against the victim and the witness sees it.

The victim's security firm says to the villain's, "Hey, we think your client committed a crime, let's get this to a fair trial." The villain's security company negotiates with the victims to get the case to a fair court that both sides can agree on.

Now here is where the witness comes in. The victim's security firm says to the witnesses security firm, "Please have your client come testify in this case. Since your clients will testify as witnesses in my cases, my clients will testify in your cases when they witness your firms victims."

You see how they both benefit from having their clients take the stand?

So they are probably going to go broke hella quick defending each and every one of their clients after they are "convicted" in courts with reputations as just.

I understand that is how it is supposed to work and that is great, but:

Witness says to their security firm - this SOB villian is a badass and I don't want the risk of getting involved or witness says what's in it for me?.
No party can compel someone to get involved (at least a state can marginally compel someone to participate).
You might say well then the witness is blacklisted etc. but is that ethical?

I'm also not sold on being forced to drop out of society if you don't like the choices of security firms. How is this different than a state other than having more choices? Nothing says you are going to be satisified with your local options. Think there is ethical issues there as well.

I don't think, also, that a blacklist would be particularly effective. I think there would be piles of people willing to deal with outcasts albeit at a premium. Maybe that is the cost of living with your own code.

Well, in state society, you are forced to testify and then try your luck with the witness protection agency. You can refuse but you will got to jail.

In this system, a witness can also refuse to testify but different security firms will have different penalties for not testifying. These penalties could be something as simple as a raise in monthly rates for the person since he doesn't cooperate.

But security firms could also have a clause in their contracts that say "If testifying will put my client in tangible risk of violence, then they don't have to testify."

But basically you're right. No person should ever be forced to testify if it will put them in danger. That is a problem with the state that ACland might help solve. It is BS that you should be forced by the state to put yourself in danger simply because you happened to see something. That's so F'd up.


Yes, it's no utopia, but as you said, more choices is better. Nobody disputes how bad a monopoly is. At least you will have choices. But not it is not a utopia. Choices will help reign in much of the corruption and oversight of a monopolistic justice system.

As you said, this would be incredibly expensive and I question the sustainability of it. BUT, if you live outside society but you don't harm anybody, you don't really have much to worry about. But if you start harming people, the only defense you will have is violence. But this is no different than now.

It's just that if you are blacklisted and you get into a dispute with somebody who isn't, you're screwed. You have no legal backing to prosecute. People are going to take massive advantage of you since you have no recourse.

Only if double jeopardy is allowed in ACland.

Who's your auto insurance agency?

Why don't you choose somebody who will never find you at fault?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_insurance

He is being tried in the victim's court (where the complaint was made) unless he and/or his protection agency can come to agreement with the victim's company on a 3rd party court.

pvn, it would be nice if you explained yourself even a little bit because these two posts below are pretty far out there. What do you mean "enforcement is not compatible" or "arbitration ruling is just an opinion and carries no inherent force." If these firms are toothless to enforce the rulings how are they useful? I'd be a lot better off with the mafia.

I'm not familiar enough with that business to advise you. Sorry. There's probably a forum for it elsewhere on 2+2.

Does the defendant have a contract with the victim's court binding him to its rulings, or will they just do a non-voluntary snatch and grab state-style?

You can't even so much as conjecture why there are no insurance companies that never find their customers at fault? Really?

The auto insurance example is pretty horrible since the monopolistic state is the only reason you can't just tell someone to **** off after you slam into them.

That doesn't make sense at all. Your own security firm will likely have agreements with others that they cooperate with other ones. If it is shown that you hit and run someone, your own firm will get you, or the other firm will and your costs of capture come out of previously paid premiums.

When the specific question is why don't you choose an insurance company that never finds you at fault and the answer is that insurance companies are regulated by the state and that failure to use a state sanctioned insurance company is a crime punishable by arrest by state security forces, that's not an analogy that's directly transferrable to a stateless society.

Crazy run on sentence man. It makes no sense to me but I am trying to catch up.

Yeah, I got about half way through that and realized I was in trouble but was too lazy to do anything. My point is that you cannot point to the current regulation in the auto insurance industry as proof that insurance/security companies will work the same way in AC land. The insurance industry has evolved to the point where it is because the state regulates insurance companies and forcibly imprisons those who choose substandard insurance companies or none at all. Without a state actively coercing people who choose not to follow social norms, I'm not entirely convinced that individual for profit insurance companies will be able to enforce those regulations as efficiently if I do choose to go with Acquittels R Us.

Hmm, insurance companies, actually any corporation, are a bit different without a state involved. The end still loses me. What regulations ought to be enforced? Who would agree to an arbitration company that is known to always side with the aggressor? Strawn has obviously gotten you guys off track and I am still reading through.

It was just meant to be an off hand remark to this post. Obviously choosing an insurance company in a regulated statist environment will be much different than choosing a protection company in an AC environment.

Hmm, okay. I think that the point I was making way back is that it will be beneficial for both parties to cooperate. I will try to explain more as I have time. RL is kind of crushing me.