Caros posted:

It really doesn't matter if DRO's suck to many of them. I poo poo you not, I had a libertarian defend the idea that DRO's would have access to nuclear weapons. I've had one defend he idea that contract killings were morally okay so long as you pay someone to do them, since the person who does the actual killing is the only one morally responsible. Many an-caps are not utilitarian, they don't care if it results in a freakish totalitarian state, so long as it is a 'free' totalitarian state.

quote:

In order to be a real practical anarchist, Stefan Molyneux should say "I'm starting a DRO business! Who wants to be a customer?" That would be actual practical anarchy.

Right now, it's impractical to start a DRO that actually has armed policemen employed. The government police monopoly would be threatened by such an organization, and you'd find yourself the victim of a violent State raid. A DRO can enforce rules without armed police. Enforcement through ostracism can be effective. If someone breaks the DRO's rules, then they're banned from future participation (unless they pay restitution to the victims). When there are multiple competing DROs, then all of them sensibly would refuse membership to someone who doesn't follow the rules.

Initially, a DRO would be a way for agorists to buy and sell goods and services. If I want to perform off-the-books work for cash, I can't advertise on Craigslist or other State venues, because the police might be spying. It's an even bigger risk if I'm entering a business that's regulated by the State. Working as an agorist in a State-regulated industry is lucrative but risky. A DRO would ensure that both the buyer and seller would respect each other's privacy from State enforcers. The #1 rule for any agorist DRO would be "No matter what happens, nobody complains to the State police." It's a tricky balancing act. You want to have as many customers as possible. You also need to keep out undercover State spies, or people who would complain to the State if they're unsatisfied.

Going back to the example of health care, suppose I wanted to work as an unlicensed agorist doctor. I can't advertise my services in public, because the State would shut me down. If there was a good DRO where I could advertise, then I could get customers. My customers would have assurance that I'm a good doctor. I would have assurance that my customers won't complain to the State and arrange for my arrest/kidnapping. A DRO would be useful for anyone who wants to buy or sell outside of the State slave economic system.

If DROs are so wonderful, then you should start a DRO business now and get a head start on everyone else! If DROs are so wonderful, then Stefan Molyneux should put his freedom where his mouth is and start a DRO business! Initially, a DRO would be a way for people to buy/sell goods and services outside of the State economy. People who want to work in the free market have a big problem and a big risk. There's no place for agorist buyers and sellers to meet. There's the risk that your trading partner will rat you out to the State.

Since Stefan Molyneux already has a large audience, he's in a good position to start a DRO business.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

I've mentioned it before but it bears repeating: the idea that putting a hit out on someone is morally acceptable, and actual guilt only falls on the person who actually pulls the trigger, is one that I've seen come up in the buttcoin thread in GBS. If I remember right, some reasonably well-known (within that community of idiots, zealots, and conmen) buttcoiner got arrested last year for trying to do just that after Mt.Gox imploded.

Prester John posted:

Actually it was the owner of Silk Road (The Bitcoin based drug market) whom did this. After his arrest it came out that he had tried to have six different people killed, three of whom just happened to be the roommates of someone else he wanted dead. As it turns out despite paying for all the hits with bitcoin no one actually ever died and in two of the cases the contracted killer was a federal investigator.

Edit: And in one of the cases the killer turned out to be the target himself, whom promptly faked his own assassination. Even funnier, it was a fake persona and not his real identit anyways. He then hosed off with several hundred thousand dollars.

Helsing posted:

Was he just paying anonymous internet people up front and then hoping they'd follow through? I would think you'd hold back most of the money until the deed was done or else there wouldn't be much of an incentive for the 'assassin' to complete their part of the bargain.

Or maybe these bitcoin assassins have yelp pages where you can give them negative reviews when they fail to follow through

Muscle Tracer posted:

How do libertarian DROs and so forth deal with intellectual property rights? If a man steals revolutionary self-pedaling bicycles from my factory, the theft is obvious. If a woman photographs the design specs for those bikes and begins duplicating them... well, nothing that I mixed my labor with is being taken from me. What are their rules for the Marketplace of Ideas™?

Muscle Tracer posted:

How do libertarian DROs and so forth deal with intellectual property rights? If a man steals revolutionary self-pedaling bicycles from my factory, the theft is obvious. If a woman photographs the design specs for those bikes and begins duplicating them... well, nothing that I mixed my labor with is being taken from me. What are their rules for the Marketplace of Ideas™?

Prester John posted:

Less than you would think. He was living on the cheap with 3 roommates in San Francisco and had his money hidden in various international laundering services. He had a ton of paper wealth but never really got to enjoy any of it. He was extremely arrogant and stupid though. Just a quick rundown of the massive mistakes he made:

1.) When he announced the creation of the Silk Road on Bitcointalk, he did so with an account registered through hisrealname@gmail.com

2.) He posted sections of the Silk Road code on a coding website for critique under his real name.

3.) He tried to order a bunch of fake ID's that got intercepted. When the Feds knocked on his door he admitted to know what the Silk Road was. This was months before he was arrested (he should have fled then).

4.) He gave an interview to a television station that agreed to hide his identity, but went to the station in person and without a disguise to give the interview.

5.) He was trying to be more than just a middleman broker and was buying/selling kilo's of (fake) cocaine and spreading it around his inner circle.

6.) He was living in loving San Francisco instead of a country where the government might have given less of a gently caress.

Prester John posted:

5.) He was trying to be more than just a middleman broker and was buying/selling kilo's of (fake) cocaine and spreading it around his inner circle.

Jack of Hearts posted:

This is the only part I hadn't heard about. What do you mean by fake, though? Like, baby powder, or mephedrone or the like?

Helsing posted:

Wait, a photograph? Uhh, what about a news article saying "So and so was murdered today"? Execution style killings usually don't pass by without any comment in the local press.

EvanSchenck posted:

Even if that specific detail in the argument is incorrect, the gist is correct. The USPS wasn't doing home delivery but it was required to maintain offices in isolated locations throughout the country, and make deliveries to the same. Spooner's American Letter Mail Company also transported mail from one office to another, but it only had locations in four cities: New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Baltimore. That is to say, he operated only in the four largest cities in America, all of which were relatively nearby one another and well-connected by sea and rail. Quibbling aside, Spooner's company served only the cities where delivery was absolutely cheapest, and was useless to 96% of the country's population.

Nintendo Kid posted:

But maintaining offices had little to do with anything.

quote:

Most of the country's population would be days of travel from these "isolated" offices.

EvanSchenck posted:

You just wrote that the USPS transported mail between post offices. i.e. to mail a letter you would bring it to the nearest post office, affix a stamp, and then it could be sent to any other post office in the country at a rate dependent on the distance it would travel. Covering the maximum possible area meant that the USPS had to establish and pay for hundreds or thousands of offices with personnel that would be situated in areas of low population density and would only handle small volumes of mail. These locations would therefore lose money, but the USPS as a whole was solvent because areas of dense population in the East sent much higher volumes of mail and had relatively low costs due to the shorter distances and better infrastructure, allowing them to subsidize the rest of the network. Spooner's company was competitive with the Post Office because he only served the routes that had the highest volume and lowest costs, whereas USPS had to carry a bunch of loss-making offices in the hinterland to ensure service throughout the country.


Okay, at this time I'd like you to source that claim.

Here's a link to an online version of a document from 1830, "Table of the Post Offices in the United States: arranged by states and counties; as they were October 1, 1830; with a supplement, stating the offices established between the 1st of October, 1830, and the first of April, 1831. Also, an index to the whole." If you leaf through that, you can see that even areas that were sparsely populated frontiers at the time, like Illinois or Michigan, had significant numbers of post offices around the state, albeit mostly in areas where there were actually some number of people residing, for obvious reasons. This source would indicate that the overwhelming majority of Americans were not located several days of travel from the nearest post office, and that was probably only the case for a tiny number of people who essentially lived in the wilderness on the extreme frontier.

Nintendo Kid posted:

The offices that were often rarely serviced. The USPS also wasn't really consistently solvent back then: it ran on taxpayer funding as a standard department of the government. The idea of postal service solvency wasn't really a thing until Nixon ordered the semi-corporatization and decoupling from routine taxpayer funding in the 70s.

Cemetry Gator posted:

I've been doing more digging, and dear god, Molyneux is something spectacular.

The whole DRO thing is just one of those ideas that sounds stupid from the get go, and gets stupider the more you explain it. The problem with a DRO is that I now have a customer/service relationship with the justice system. Something I currently don't have. I am expecting my DRO to provide me with justice, or to make sure I don't go to jail. But the system collapses as soon as someone else has the same DRO, right? I mean, do you piss off one customer or both? It's a lose lose situation. And of course, who represents the DROs?

So let's say, I'm a DRO, and you're my client. You broke your arm in a store, and now I'm working with their DRO to determine if they should pay for your treatment. We disagree, and bring in a third DRO. What if I dispute how that that third DRO is handling things. What if I find out that the third DRO was being paid off by the second DRO? How do I resolve a dispute as a DRO against another DRO? Do we have to bring in yet another third party? And of course, what if the second DRO finds that the second layer of third party DRO wasn't a fair and equitable resolution? Hey! Let's get another third party involved!

I'm waiting for the day when I, the CEO of a DRO harasses an employee of the DRO, and so they lodge a complaint against me which will be settled by the DRO I am a CEO for! Unless of course they get another DRO, but then that DRO is obviously impartial! Third party time!

EvanSchenck posted:

So you're saying that you don't have a source.

Nintendo Kid posted:

Nope, please consult US census data and maps of the era, and remember what people had access to for transport.

You put up a list of towns with post offices as evidence that means they were all close by, which is to be completely ignorant of population distribution, essentially.

Muscle Tracer posted:

"Listen, I'm sure there's data that supports my point, but damned if I'm going to actually verify that myself."

Gantolandon posted:

No DRO would ever care about making their customers happy. Molyneux want them to be mandatory - terminate your contract without making a deal with another one and you become a non-person who can be shot without consequences. You need them much more than they need you.

It's pretty similar how finding employment works now. You need to earn money to survive, so unless you have something impressive to offer, your leverage is pretty weak. Some people get amazing or at least decent jobs, but most have to settle with terrible ones that offer them little compensation and atrocious work conditions. It would be similar with DROs, except that your boss won't install surveillance in your home and won't become your judge, jury and executioner as soon as you sign the contract. And you can survive several months of unemployment, while you will likely get yourself killed in a week without DRO coverage.

Imagine that you are unhappy with your DRO - where can you file a complaint? Who's going to represent you against the organization that normally represents you? What happens if they decide you're a liability and terminate your contract? Provided another company even wants to represent you, your leverage is even worse: you have to sign a contract with someone and you're a risky customer who already requires arbitration. Your terms of agreement will most likely be even worse.

This would likely not happen anyway, as DROs would have plenty of ways to abuse their position.

Cemetry Gator posted:

I've been doing more digging, and dear god, Molyneux is something spectacular.

The whole DRO thing is just one of those ideas that sounds stupid from the get go, and gets stupider the more you explain it. The problem with a DRO is that I now have a customer/service relationship with the justice system. Something I currently don't have. I am expecting my DRO to provide me with justice, or to make sure I don't go to jail. But the system collapses as soon as someone else has the same DRO, right? I mean, do you piss off one customer or both? It's a lose lose situation. And of course, who represents the DROs?

So let's say, I'm a DRO, and you're my client. You broke your arm in a store, and now I'm working with their DRO to determine if they should pay for your treatment. We disagree, and bring in a third DRO. What if I dispute how that that third DRO is handling things. What if I find out that the third DRO was being paid off by the second DRO? How do I resolve a dispute as a DRO against another DRO? Do we have to bring in yet another third party? And of course, what if the second DRO finds that the second layer of third party DRO wasn't a fair and equitable resolution? Hey! Let's get another third party involved!

I'm waiting for the day when I, the CEO of a DRO harasses an employee of the DRO, and so they lodge a complaint against me which will be settled by the DRO I am a CEO for! Unless of course they get another DRO, but then that DRO is obviously impartial! Third party time!

As you can see, DROs quickly become a cluster gently caress. Basically, if we had DROs, pretty soon, every societal interaction would consist of DROs trying to gently caress each other with other DROs. And all because you broke your arm in some shopkeeper's shop.

Gantolandon posted:

No DRO would ever care about making their customers happy. Molyneux want them to be mandatory - terminate your contract without making a deal with another one and you become a non-person who can be shot without consequences. You need them much more than they need you.

It's pretty similar how finding employment works now. You need to earn money to survive, so unless you have something impressive to offer, your leverage is pretty weak. Some people get amazing or at least decent jobs, but most have to settle with terrible ones that offer them little compensation and atrocious work conditions. It would be similar with DROs, except that your boss won't install surveillance in your home and won't become your judge, jury and executioner as soon as you sign the contract. And you can survive several months of unemployment, while you will likely get yourself killed in a week without DRO coverage.

Imagine that you are unhappy with your DRO - where can you file a complaint? Who's going to represent you against the organization that normally represents you? What happens if they decide you're a liability and terminate your contract? Provided another company even wants to represent you, your leverage is even worse: you have to sign a contract with someone and you're a risky customer who already requires arbitration. Your terms of agreement will most likely be even worse.

This would likely not happen anyway, as DROs would have plenty of ways to abuse their position.

Cemetry Gator posted:

I read the article where he explains DROs, and basically, in his ideal society, everybody is rational and plays by the rules. Which is a pretty common assumption that Libertarians make.

There's a lot of unanswered questions. What do you do with the people who are literally unable to take care of themselves, like people who are insane or so severely mentally retarded? What about criminals? What do you do with them? His whole idea of a stateless society becomes very ugly very quickly.

The Mutato posted:

If there are still people leftover, then there are simply not enough people who agree with you, whether through beliefs or ignorance. And yes that is unfortunate but remember how many homeless people in the current system suffer from debilitating mental illness.

The Mutato posted:

If you are unhappy with your phone contract what do you do? Change providers when you can, and tell people about how unhappy with the service you are. There might even be a business that can help you out with the second thing. If you are a liability, then you have to pay a premium for that lifestyle. If you aren't, then a successful DRO will not want to terminate your contract.

quote:

You are assuming that DROs are going to settle their disputes directly. What is more likely (as David Friedman predicts), is that competing DROs will have contracts with arbitration agencies (ie courts) to avoid all the messiness that your describe. So that means that if you and me, members of competing DROs, have a dispute, the DROs (and therefore us) will have a prior agreement to settle the matter in a particular private court. If the dispute is between you and someone else, a potentially different private court might be use.

If you and me use the same DRO, it will actually be easier since our DRO will be able to use the court that makes its clients the happiest.

quote:

Mental illness: First option is that your family supports you. If you don't have a family that can completely support you, then there will be private charities supported by people like presumably you and myself that believe severely mentally ill people have the right to live comfortably. If there are still people leftover, then there are simply not enough people who agree with you, whether through beliefs or ignorance. And yes that is unfortunate but remember how many homeless people in the current system suffer from debilitating mental illness.

quote:

Criminals: This one is tricky. But that doesn't mean that a stateless society cannot deliver a system that is superior to the current one. Most ancaps believe that retribution will shift towards recompensation rather than punishment. If a criminal is clearly too dangerous for society, or does not have the means to recompensate the victims, there would be private institutions the provide the criminal with shelter and food in exchange for work. It would be in the criminal's best interest to agree to a contract with these companies because they would be denied service in wider society - eg. unable to buy goods from grocery stores because they have a poor reputation. Additionally these private "prisons" will have an incentive to provide favourable conditions to the "prisoner", since he will be able to move himself to a competitor if he wishes.

Nintendo Kid posted:

Nope, please consult US census data and maps of the era, and remember what people had access to for transport.

quote:

You put up a list of towns with post offices as evidence that means they were all close by, which is to be completely ignorant of population distribution, essentially.

Nintendo Kid posted:

I did verify it,

Muscle Tracer posted:

So "Well a huge number of people would be way worse off, but remember that some people are still poorly off today"?

Gantolandon posted:

I can still live without a phone provider. In Libertopia, losing your coverage for even a day can have disastrous consequences for you. Like not being able to buy food, get medical attention, go anywhere beyond your home without being thrown out for trespassing. Without DRO protection, even your belongings are a fair game - it's not like anyone is going to help you.

Getting a good offer from a DRO would be like selling your house with a profit to loving Crassus. Either you accept the lovely offer they give you, or feel free to die in a ditch. You can approach someone else and, most likely, get a similar offer from them. Of course, after a full background check to ensure you're not a liability. To add insult to injury, there is nothing that prevents a DRO, which you refused, to raid your home while you don't have any coverage.


They will use the court that will cost them the least. You don't like the fact that your privider uses Sharia Courts Association to resolve your disputes? Have fun changing your provider. For additional thrill, try to do this in the middle of the proceedings.

quote:

Which DRO is going to protect an organization that cares for a lot of mentally ill people? They tend to not behave and cause legal trouble, not to mention those that get violent and dangerous. Such charity would have to pay a fuckload of money to even get legal coverage. This along with the difficulties of trying to run a non-profit organization when the entire society is organized around an idea that everything, including police and healthcare, is expected to make a profit. Charity organizations are a poor substitution for government safety nets even currently and their expenses would only grow up. And the poor and the middle class are the ones that support them the most anyway.

quote:

Sure, let the imprisoned choose where they want to be incarcerated. Hell, let him sign a contract with the organization whose role is keeping him away from the society. What can go wrong?

What, Mr. Murderer? You want to be incarcerated in PremiumContainment Inc. facility, which is a former chickencoop made of planks and surrounded with a rusty fence? Sure, can't blame you for getting a cheap incarceration facility, you probably want to pay your debt as fast as you can. I must warn you, however, it doesn't seem very secure. Oh, this is not a problem for you? Very well...

So, Mr. Junkie, I've been told you don't like your stay in Hans Hermann Hoppe's Friendly Isolation House and would like to change your preferred prison. Would you like to reconsider? Incidentally, an anonymous informant tipped us you are planning to escape and our contract clearly says we are allowed to use means necessary to prevent that... this includes solitary confinement where you will have a lot of time to think about your unwise decision. But before that - Warden Taser, would you explain our customer the perils involved in changing your prison in the middle of incarceration?

spoon0042 posted:

Yes let's privatize the whole justice system since you know how private prisons have been so successful and free from corruption and abuse as is.


edit: of course that's the government's fault in a truly free market *vomits*

The Mutato posted:

I would love to hear why it isn't.

Damiya posted:

The Mutato posted:

Why do you think every single DRO is going to give you lovely offers? No one is going to sign up to a DRO that gives you service and uses ridiculous courts that rule in ways most people disagree with. In your case of a DRO raiding your home, there are lots of things that prevent that, such as a bunch of courts and the DRO's reputation.

The Mutato posted:

Why do you think every single DRO is going to give you lovely offers? No one is going to sign up to a DRO that gives you service and uses ridiculous courts that rule in ways most people disagree with. In your case of a DRO raiding your home, there are lots of things that prevent that, such as a bunch of courts and the DRO's reputation.

quote:

The courts that cost the most would be the weird Sharia law/anti-abortion/etc courts - you have to pay a premium because there isn't much demand for them.

quote:

This is the cost of mental ill people. This cost already exists. If no one else wants to pay it you can either pay it yourself, or convince other people that they should pay it. Since the people are already voting for a government that helps out these people via their tax money, why wouldn't they want to help them out?

quote:

These sound like really lovely businesses that would fail quickly if they weren't propped up by the state.

The Mutato posted:

Not what I said. I said that if a certain group people were worse off, then it is because people simply don't care enough. I still believe that people in general would be better off, and not just people are already well off.

The Mutato posted:

Why do you think every single DRO is going to give you lovely offers? No one is going to sign up to a DRO that gives you service and uses ridiculous courts that rule in ways most people disagree with. In your case of a DRO raiding your home, there are lots of things that prevent that, such as a bunch of courts and the DRO's reputation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pullman#Pullman_company_town posted:

Pullman ruled the town like a feudal baron. He prohibited independent newspapers, public speeches, town meetings or open discussion. His inspectors regularly entered homes to inspect for cleanliness and could terminate workers' leases on ten days' notice. The church stood empty since no approved denomination would pay rent, and no other congregation was allowed. He prohibited private charitable organizations. In 1885 Richard Ely wrote in Harper's Weekly that the power exercised by Otto Von Bismarck (known as the unifier of modern Germany), was "utterly insignificant when compared with the ruling authority of the Pullman Palace Car Company in Pullman."

The Mutato posted:

This is the cost of mental ill people. This cost already exists. If no one else wants to pay it you can either pay it yourself, or convince other people that they should pay it. Since the people are already voting for a government that helps out these people via their tax money, why wouldn't they want to help them out?

EvanSchenck posted:

Just making sure, for the claim that "Most of the country's population would be days of travel" from their nearest post office, you have no actual source. For example, you didn't read it in a book or see it in a documentary. You just looked at maps of population density for a given year. Did you compare that to a map of post office locations in the same year? If so, can I see that map? I haven't been able to find one. If you don't have an actual source, explain your process.

EvanSchenck posted:

Based on the above I would assert that most of the people in this mountain wilderness in 1830 were not more than 1/2 days travel from a post office. 25 years down the line, if they decided they wanted to mail their letters by Lysander Spooner's service, all they needed to do was travel to his nearest office, 300 miles away in Baltimore, and make sure they were mailing them to somebody in one of America's four largest cities.

Nintendo Kid posted:

Again, consult the census data for the relevant times, see historical maps, and keep in mind what transport people had actual access to. The density map was just an illustration of general settlement patterns. Your local university or county library system probably has the appropriate historic maps.