Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-30-2009, 08:38 AM   #101
tomdemaine
Just tries harder
 
tomdemaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Social Justice Rogue
Posts: 20,071
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
We can forget about "petty" crimes for now, thanks. Hopefully a new and improved iteration will do, as it's getting late.

The same rule applies of comparing damages to cost of apprehension and conviction. Bigger crimes are available as freebies to harder-to-bust criminals on the basis of strait up dollars-and-cents budget calculations.

If the damages are large enough, or the prosecution inexpensive enough, then the case goes forward. If the damages are small enough, or the prosecution expensive enough, then the security firm stays out (or loses money). Criminals know this ahead of time and can do the rational calculation.
Yeah because murderers are well known for their rationality.
tomdemaine is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 09:00 AM   #102
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,618
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
We can forget about "petty" crimes for now, thanks. Hopefully a new and improved iteration will do, as it's getting late.

The same rule applies of comparing damages to cost of apprehension and conviction. Bigger crimes are available as freebies to harder-to-bust criminals on the basis of strait up dollars-and-cents budget calculations.

If the damages are large enough, or the prosecution inexpensive enough, then the case goes forward. If the damages are small enough, or the prosecution expensive enough, then the security firm stays out (or loses money). Criminals know this ahead of time and can do the rational calculation.
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).
Zurvan is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 11:01 AM   #103
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

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?
 
Old 04-30-2009, 11:07 AM   #104
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
What if Bob does not have a security firm, but instead relies on informal associations to pursue vendettas and settle scores?
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?
 
Old 04-30-2009, 01:01 PM   #105
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by vixticator View Post
It was what he meant and said. Maybe I am merely mixing up some specific idea of "ACland" with "anarchy" because you can have the absence of a state. Do ACers think the state is necessary before people have these values, or that it is better than anarchy at least?
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.

Quote:
But you still have the problem with what the terms coercion and self-defense mean. These terms are not self-evidently one thing or another. We all have a general idea what they mean, I don't mean the words have no meaning... but specifically you have a lot of difference of opinion. Same problem exists in the state ldo and also leads to internal conflict or civil war.
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.

Quote:
Sorry if I keep going off into tangents, just streaming ideas as they pop in my mind.

Edit: People have to stop saying "X won't happen in ACland" but admit that it will, the difference being that solving for X is a much simpler and efficient task. Then we have to decide if this is actually true or not for issues like justice, defense, the "problem" areas. Presupposing that it is better does no good.
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.

Last edited by Rubeskies; 04-30-2009 at 01:02 PM. Reason: tl:dr
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 01:05 PM   #106
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
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).
This
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 01:06 PM   #107
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdemaine View Post
Yeah because murderers are well known for their rationality.
Sure, as in organized crime. There is a social niche for the rational criminal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
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).
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn View Post
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.
Insurance companies are not waiting to implement this turkey. It won't fly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn View Post
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?
If you don't care about a high crime rate, he isn't.
Strawn is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 01:10 PM   #108
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Insurance companies are not waiting to impliment this turkey. It won't fly.
lol, good, you agree with us then.
 
Old 04-30-2009, 01:15 PM   #109
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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 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.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 01:31 PM   #110
PtMx
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 823
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by sards View Post
The problem that it is unprofitable to catch and prosecute petty thieves in ACland is not really a problem. If the frequency of petty theft starts to get out of control, the defense firms will be forced to begin investigating and prosecuting these crimes at a loss and will have to make up the losses with higher fees, etc. Eventually society will reach an equilibrium point of petty theft vs. enforcement level. That level of theft will probably be lower than it is today (as other posters have mentioned, cops don't do much at all to stop petty theft today.)
Bumped because it's true and went largely ignored.
PtMx is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 01:35 PM   #111
Nielsio
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 23,400
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by PtMx View Post
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.
Nielsio is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 01:59 PM   #112
SL__72
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SL__72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,485
Re: Inclined to Liberty

I still can't see people "investigating" petty thefts. Much cheaper to add extra security to keep them from happening in the first place.
SL__72 is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 02:25 PM   #113
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,618
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
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.
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.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 03:16 PM   #114
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubeskies View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SL__72 View Post
I still can't see people "investigating" petty thefts. Much cheaper to add extra security to keep them from happening in the first place.
This isn't about petty crime necessarily. The earlier example of the television was for illustration purposes only.
Strawn is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 04:06 PM   #115
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,618
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
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.
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.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 04:21 PM   #116
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
What form do you think the justice will take?
Frontier justice.

Quote:
Here's a hint: $
Frontier justice, sometimes for hire.

Quote:
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.
LOL @ the thief having a contract with Frontier Justice Inc. whereby he compensates them for his arrest and prosecution.
Strawn is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 04:25 PM   #117
SL__72
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SL__72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,485
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Uh, he doesn't have a contract with them.
SL__72 is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 04:31 PM   #118
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Then on what basis does Frontier Justice Inc., an outfit the thief maybe never heard of, have any claim against him?
Strawn is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 04:37 PM   #119
SL__72
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SL__72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,485
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Defense against his aggression on behalf of their client. Or to obtain some sort of compensation for the aggression he committed against their client.
SL__72 is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 04:45 PM   #120
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

This being after a trial of course, which usually carries a pretty hefty price tag. Does the thief have to pay for that also?
Strawn is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 04:50 PM   #121
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Then on what basis does Frontier Justice Inc., an outfit the thief maybe never heard of, have any claim against him?
So in your view the thug initiates transactions without consent, but people need to get his consent before stopping him?
 
Old 04-30-2009, 05:01 PM   #122
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn View Post
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?
Strawn is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 05:06 PM   #123
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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.
 
Old 04-30-2009, 06:36 PM   #124
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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?
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.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 07:02 PM   #125
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubeskies View Post
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?
Strawn is offline  

 
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive