Law without Government: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society

Law without Government: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 100 Comments


we’re food production is monopolized by the government it can be hard for the people to imagine how it could ever be any other way they fear they may starve without government to plan and direct food production they cannot imagine how a free market in food production could possibly work let alone how much better off they would be with that system they are too accustomed to having food provided for them by the government we are accustomed to a society where the arbitration and law industry the court system is monopolized by the government we fear chaos and disorder without government to plan and direct law we find it hard to imagine how a free market in law could possibly work in this video I’ll outline how law and security could be provided by competing voluntary institutions this is Alice Alice lives in a free society where security and law are provided not by a government but by competing firms like most people Alice demands to feel secure in her person and property she does not want anyone to aggress against her Alice also demands that if someone does commit aggression against her she will have the means to bring the aggressor to justice and receive compensation for her losses a number of competing firms exist to try and satisfy these consumer demands the firm Alice subscribes to dawn defense has a good reputation for preventing crime and for obtaining justice when crimes do take place Alice pays her security bill monthly the same way she pays for her electricity and telephone services she is on a standard package which suits her budget and her lifestyle choices she has chosen an insurance option so that if someone steals from her she is guaranteed quick compensation one evening while walking home Alice becomes a victim of aggression and she is mugged at gunpoint at the earliest opportunity Alice calls the emergency service number and is put through to dawn defense emergency response center they quickly dispatch agents to her location unfortunately by the time their agents arrive on the scene the mugger is long gone the agents examine the crime scene and gather witness statements and any evidence that might help them identify and locate the mugger as specified in their contract dawn defense pays Alice compensation for her losses enough to cover the possessions taken from her and a good deal more for her time trouble and distress Alyce’s part in this story is now over dawn defense however will want to bring the mugger to justice they will want to recover their costs and they have promised their customers that muggers will not get off lightly after doing some detective work dawn defense identifies with reasonable confidence bill as the aggressor they locate him and issue him with a written demand that he pays them ten thousand dollars as a punishment for the crime he committed against Alice bill has two choices he could admit his guilt and pay up so that dawn defense leaves him alone or he could refuse to pay bill refuses to pay claiming he is innocent dawn defense will not want to have a reputation for harassing or using force against innocent people so it will listen to his case after hearing his case if they remain convinced of his guilt they will insist on payment threatening to use force against him if necessary bill now faces the same two choices if he still refuses to pay dawn defense will send armed men round to his house to enforce their punishment what if bill has his own security after receiving the first letter from dawn defense bill calls Tanna justice the security agency he subscribes to he tells them he is completely innocent and that he is being unjustly threatened with force by Dawn defense Tanna justice calls dawn defense immediately to discuss the accusation of mugging they insist on seeing some evidence they conduct their own investigation after their investigation they might agree with dawn defense that bill is guilty in this case they order bill to accept his punishment and will not protect him from any force the dawn defense uses against him or they might reach the opposite conclusion that bill is innocent in this case they’ll stand by their client and consider the threats made by Dawn defense to be aggressive the two firms just cannot agree about what events took place so what happens now do they fight it out such a war would be costly for both sides and they would suffer reputational damage security firms that resort to war soon find themselves bankrupt as consumers switch to their cheaper and more peaceful competitors dawn defense and Tanna justice have every incentive to find some peaceful way to resolve the conflict since they cannot reach agreement about what happened the two firms agree to pay for an independent arbitrator to look at the case and agree to be bound by that arbitrator’s decision since both firms are large and well-established they have a prior agreement about which firm to go to in such cases their chosen arbitrator Benson Enterprises is a firm that specializes in resolving such disagreements between security firms Benson’s examined the evidence presented by the two sides and listened to their arguments after careful consideration they conclude that bill is guilty of mocking Alice has agreed both sides accept the decision Tanna justice stand down from defending bill now with no one to protect him bill has no other choice but to accept his punishment Benson Enterprises is a highly respected firm and no other security firm will agree to defend him now against the force threatened by dawn defense unless new evidence emerges or the reputation of Benson’s is brought into question if bill cannot afford the $10,000 punishment dawn defense will accept payment over a longer term they may insist on taking a portion of his wages until his debt plus interest is paid and they may contract with his employer to ensure they are paid on time if bill is unemployed they may insist on taking a more active role in his life they may force him to work at a place of their choosing if bill is dangerous or cannot be trusted to make the payments they may restrict his movements to a certain region or as a last resort to a certain building a secure work house where criminals are held while they pay off their debts to their victims and serve their punishment Bill’s crime against Alice will be noted by the various competing criminal records bureaus and his identity will be made public in databases and in the media security agencies now consider Bill a higher risk for committing further crimes and may take steps to protect their customers from him bill may find it difficult to find a security firm that will accept him as a customer and if he does he may have to pay higher premiums for it because of his record other business owners may refuse to employ or trade with him and landowners may not permit him to enter their land the performance of the security agencies is noted by various competing watchdog organizations that provide consumers with information about the quality of security in arbitration firms the details of the case are made available to auditors who check that the practices of the security and law firms adhere to quality standards we cannot know in advance how the security and arbitration firms will be structured we cannot know how many firms will operate in a given area or how large an area a typical firm will cover in this video the two security firms performed a number of distinct functions themselves free market competition is needed in order to know whether all these functions will be provided in-house or whether some would be out sourced or provided by distinct firms all these related industries keep the firm satisfying consumer demands for security and law true to their function of protecting individuals against aggression serving justice and maintaining order in society in my next video I’ll consider disagreements between security firms about what punishments are to be used and disagreements about what constitutes a crime our going to consider what laws and punishments we can expect to be produced by arbitration firms operating in a free market in law

100 thoughts on “Law without Government: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society

  • Man Against The State Post author

    100,000 views! Thank you to everyone who liked, shared and commented on this video!

  • Snake Was Right Post author

    I'm an ancap, but what about people who can't afford the security firm or have the shitty package? What about just plain self defense? What about if you're between firms? Would they let you on with a "pre-existing accusation"? I think that, it should work more like credit, where your firm don't necessarily start stealing things from the person who's accused, but independent agencies judge the guilt or innocence and you kind of have a credit score… I do think that if both parties have the coverage though, the two companies do have incentive to resolve peacefully. But like, how far will a firm go if I can successfully defend myself from them trying to take back stolen stuff? I would do that if I was innocent, would I have just started a war? Or would they approach me with more caution and use arbitrators from the get-go? Either way, it can't be worse than the current model.

  • Chris B Post author

    FUCK COPS NO REALY FUCK YOU FOR STEALING EVERYONE'S MONEY AND SITTING ON YOUR EVER WIDENING FAT WORTHLESS ASS EXPANDING IT WITH DOUGHNUTS THAT WE ALL PAID FOR, YOUR WELCOME. IF YOU WOMEN WANT SECURITY THATS WHAT A GUY IS FOR, HIS JOB IS TO PROTECT DEFEND AND CREATE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN. AND FOR YOU PUSSFIED MALES OUT THERE WHO DONT WANT TO ENGAGE IN BATTLE BUILD A FUCKING CLIENTELE OF A FRIENDS, PERSONALY I WOULD SAY GET A FUCKING GUN CAUSE "STOP OR I WILL SHOOT" STOPS ALMOST ALL CRIME ALMOST ALL THE TIME!!!!

  • preyfan Post author

    I believe we need to teach children better values. ๐Ÿ™‚ Also making peace and cooperation popular instead of competition and the conflicts like it is today. It feels to me like Profit is the most important thing when humans, animals and nature should be the most vital. I recommend Everybody these Channels : Infinite Waters , Teal Swan and Victor Oddo.
    Wishing Everybody the Best for themselves and Infinite Love , Peace and Balance to Everybodyyy ๐Ÿ™‚ <3

  • John Smith Post author

    This is not supposed to be a solution to our current justice system , right ? I find this a lot more disconcerting .

  • ZeroSeriesMMX Post author

    This is already reality… Most people heavily indoctrinated by political governments just don't notice it. Oh well, good things are sometimes hidden in plain sight. Time to talk to some of the Ifugaos-specializing historians to ask them about the excellent system of property rights in the 19th century.

  • Ketil Flatnose Post author

    So if punishment is issued in money, then won't the rich be WAY less heavily affected by committing a crime? Also, what if I can't afford a security firm.

  • ThreeDaysOfDan Post author

    bureaucracy would have to exist in an an cap society..

  • occasionalskeptic Post author

    Who would decide what is or isn't a crime in the first place in this society? I don't understand how this could work unless everyone had the same understanding of what actions are permitted and what aren't, but how would this uniformity come to be?

  • Corey Graham Post author

    "Such a war would be costly…" Therein lies one of the main flaws in Ancap thinking. This assumption is flawed for three reasons:

    1. This assumes that both agencies will be equally matched in firepower and numbers, which is often not the case in war. One side can have overwhelming firepower, in which case, it would be profitable to squash competitors with violence.
    2. There's nothing stopping an agency from taxing its customers to pay for the costs of war.
    3. Factions often go to war for reasons other than profit; namely, ideology. Money would be no object in a religious war, for example.

  • Jawzah Post author

    Competing private for profit companies that may sentence people to do forced labor.. ?

  • Avadhoot Potnis Post author

    Over extension of libertarian principles to present a utopia devoid of any understanding of law actually work.

  • Julio Jackson Post author

    You know what will happen with the mugging. People will file false claims of being a victim of crime and collect the compensation.

  • Julio Jackson Post author

    Jesus Christ, welcome to the Dark Ages.

  • Julio Jackson Post author

    Of course one of the firms bought off Benson Enterprises.

  • Spazz Maticus Post author

    This would devolve into feudalism.

  • John Lott Post author

    What about a governmental society going to war against a free society?!?

  • GigaMan795 Post author

    I would most definitely want a defense service that fights for me. Why would i want my actions judged by a 5th party? You need to update your ideas of what is preferable business behavior.

  • F3ND1MUS Post author

    loving your videos man, great work.

  • Wouter Drucker Post author

    What if A has contract that doesn't allow growing marijuana and B has a contract that does? How is the arbitrator going to fix this. Same for abortion, immigration, property law.

  • Dan Post author

    or alice couldโ€™ve owned a gun. simple

  • seymore glass Post author

    I'm unsure how well thought out this scenario is? NY City had competing private fire services early in its history and it turned into a farce. Repeatedly, in recent history corporate America has proved to be incapable of self-regulation. The insurance industry comes to mind which has often been shown to lie and misrepresent clients interests in order to avoid payout. Debtors Prisons, which essentially is being proposed, were proved to be a tax on the poor and took a large swath of society out of productive contribution while punishing their families. The free market has limits, as does good governance. Too much government control is fascism, too little is tyranny; the end result seems to be the same. Human nature is far too greedy to run itself.

  • Richard Black Post author

    if anyone asks who will build the roads: Walmart. a mart that sells walls
    walls can secure the southern border BUT…….what is a wall but a road on its side? ;;;;;;;)

    that was goddam hilarious to write, but really this video is done quite well, I've never learned this much about the justice system of anarcho capitalism before.

  • Greg Gatsby Post author

    So, if I can't afford justice, then I don't get justice? That's no different than what we have now.

  • Destroja Playstation Post author

    Great but what if he thinks he is being asked too much money ?
    What if Bill is innocent and doesn't have Tanna Justice, and no money to pay for Benson.

  • Destroja Playstation Post author

    Slavery sounds good XD

  • Lewis M. Henderson Post author

    I love how he presents this absolutely nightmarish system like it is good in any conceivable way.

  • BabyCakesJunior Post author

    The assumption here is glaring… You expect firms to work this hard over one poor person being mugged. How much do you think Alice pays them, to cover all the settlements and investigations and back-and-forth? Do you think everyone will be able to afford this security policy? How does coverage differ between classes?
    Then there are the watchdog groups… who is paying them, and who holds them accountable? Why doesn't Dawn Defense pay them for positive coverage?

  • Geoff Menna Post author

    Interesting, but not very realistic.
    Socialism assumes government people aren't corrupt.
    Anarcho Capitalism assumes businesses aren't corrupt.
    Neither work out well in real life.

  • producersunnyshadows Post author

    So your solution is pay protection money. So in illness you pay for health insurance then. How about the roads and infrastructure that I use everyday to get to work an go about my pleasure activities. Now what about the education of our children? Ah pay for schooling! But wait I now have all these bills I have to track and non of these payments guarantee I will get what I pay for so I have a crazy idea I will just pay a single payment to a governing body and let them be my instrument of choice for keeping me safe and healthy and allow me to enjoy my life instead of having to spend all my time doing it myself.

  • Backalley Philosophy Post author

    All of the dumb Statists in the comment section making cliche non arguments

  • thelyniezian Post author

    My issues with this one:

    1. Right off the bat you compare government provision of law to what is clearly Soviet-style state-"socialist" systems of providing food. You don't then make as if to explain how the two are more than superficially comparable, simply how an alternative system might "work". Moreover, this is suggesting a false dichotomy between state socialism (to which any form of state may be likened) and the free market. Not much comfort to libertarian socialists and communists.

    2. Obvious issue right at the beginning of your example: level of protection is dependent upon ability to pay. The more you are able to pay, the better your potential outcomes. In practice, with authoritarian governments, things are no different, though at least in principle they should not be in a progressive-taxation system where government services are provided . I do not mean this to justify authoritarian governments per se.

    3. As with pretty much anything anarcho-capitalists and other "free market" evangelists, you seem to place a high level of faith in market forces and the profit motive to work things out in the interests of social good (or at least "what people want"). Consider the following alternative scenarios:

    a. Bill decides to skip town, fly under the radar and change his identity, etc. making sure that Tanna Justice is unable to recover their costs by any means. What happens then? Perhaps Tanna goes to Dawn Defense and asks if it can provide towards recovering its costs. Dawn Defense finds some reasonable-seeming way to offset its own losses in turn, and finds that Alice was walking alone and unarmed on a dark night, thereby not taking adequate steps to ensure her own personal safety, and denies her compensation, or raises her premiums. This is no less than what is in her contract, or what any other "reputable" firm would do. (And probably not much different to how real-life private insurance providers operate.)

    b. Another less reputable security firm, Dodger and Co. Ltd., decides it is worth its while if Charlie, one of their wealthier clients, pays them money to look the other way after he has committed some nefarious deed against someone too poor to afford to pay premiums to a security firm for adequate coverage. It can risk the loss to its reputation due to the income it is receiving. (There is no government with a monopoly on force to root out this obvious corruption.

    c. Or supposing Dodger feels it can act with force against the agents of Little Security Inc. a much smaller firm with less ability to employ force? The cost-benefit analysis says it's worth it.

    d. Or supposing a firm acts in ways detrimental to a client based upon their ability to pay, because they have no other recourse without risking their safety. Say, Dodger and Co. Ltd. has another service it offers to its poorer clients: providing security for much lower premiums than most other firms, for people who can afford no alternative. Alice, unable to keep up with her premiums to Dawn Defense, cancels her contract and switches to another provider. She approaches Dodger, and signs without reading the fine print. She discovers after losing her job that there's a catch: idefinite contract lock-in. And since she can neither pay her premiums or cancel the contract, Dodger insists it recover the debt in whatever way they see fit- forcing her to give up her goods, her home, her freedom by forcing her into debt-bondage, hiring her out to whatever unpleasant work it can gain money for? In short, little better than a protection racket.

    3. With no monopoly on force, just how are these security firms expected to compete against organised criminal gangs with their own ability to use force? Or by now what are considered "legitimate" business interests such as drug cartels, which provide products which are addicting but harmful to health? In whose financial interest is it to regulate these companies if the demand is ready even despite their loss to public reputation? Again, free markets and the profit motive are not necessarily perfect. What about vigilante groups acting purely on their sense of justice, not for financial reward, and that sense of justice doesn't extent to right-anarchist views on the NAP and property rights?

    And so I may go on.

  • KMTForChina Post author

    I am not ancap but still a libertarian with a few questions, What would a crime be, who would make a crime a crime, how about punishment cruelty, can I make a Terrorist group like isis and force authoritarianism, and how about warlords?

  • Jason Garcia Post author

    Where can I find ancap info about limited resource companies theory like say water springs or hydrolic energy from dams? When company A owns the property where a spring or dam is located and is maintaining abusive pricing by monopoly of geographically limited resource, how can this situation be unblocked? The competition by company B is nullified by the impossibility of changing ownership of that land or am I missing something? Clients would not be able to get a better price unless ownership of that land passes to another more competitive company B unless company B finds a way to compete without owning said land. I dont want a perfect all situation answer I just want some insight by someone who has studied the matter or knows more than me. THanks ahead!!

  • larosenbrgr Post author

    It is an excellent idea but very oversimplified. It totally ignore the sinful nature's of the people working for the firms. Many of them will be just as corrupt if not more than the mugger and will use this system for their personal and political gain.

  • Propaganda Critic Post author

    Great video! Thanks for the insight! I'm in the early stages of my contemplations of liberty. I have much reading/listening/watching to do.

  • Home Bummingit Post author

    This violates Natural Law principles. You don't mix-up two different things, like Money and Human Life. Also your just changing government for government. You got to see "Mark Passio Natural Law".

  • Rabbi hossain Post author

    hhhhhh

  • Owen Bunny Post author

    First glance, feel bad for Bill. But then I realized that this is pretty much what happen in normal American society. Just without no public law enforcement and court

  • Libertarian Bear Post author

    What if Tanna Justice still decided to defend Bill after finding out he was guilty. They probably would gain profit from this because people would prefer a security that defends them even if they're guilty. Please respond.

  • macpack144 Post author

    Sounds like a good protection racket. No gang has ever taken advantage of a deal like this.

  • Build-a-Buddha Post author

    There several thousand 'yeah, but what if's that have already been mentioned here that tear this system apart.

    But on the plus side, thanks for new ideas for my post-apocalyptic dystopian novel.

  • Axel Andersson Post author

    What if the different companies have different morals? What if an Islamist, subscribed to the Salafist Haram Defence of America accuses a gay person, or a practicing Christian of blasphemy or heresy?

    You mentioned standard protection, what if the higher protections involve never recognising the decisions of other companies, or maybe simply never recognising the client as guilty ever? What if the ultra rich pay companies just to simply fight the actions of accusing security companies? What if a group of thugs simply commit crimes and are able to fight off the forces of lesser security companies? And who is going to fight the Islamic state of America or the Oligarchic Republic of WallMart?

  • InfinitaSalo Post author

    If a power vacuum is formed by anarchy, someone will fill it. If society is too fractured into factions, no one will stop such a rise to power. If people unite to stop it, you no longer have anarchy. That is why anarchy cannot exist and a benevolent state which is as democratic as possible must exist.

  • MetraMan09 Post author

    If this is so viable, why doesn't it exist? Sovereign entities wage war against each other all the time. Security force acquire geographic monopolies, all the time.

    Your ideology is not Darwinian.

  • Rowan Ginn Post author

    I think this video convinced me that private law would work.

  • Brian J. Post author

    Ah yes, the mcpolice will save us

  • Brian J. Post author

    This is utterly insane, a for-profit corporation cannot be trusted to protect the liberties of the people.

  • ZooDinghy Post author

    Why so hypothetical? This exists already! It's the biggest business in Italy, but they don't go by the name Dawn Defense. They are called Cosa Nostra, Camorra, Sacra Corona or Ndragheta. And these businesses know how to build up a reputation, believe me! When a friend of mine bought a house in South Italy, a "security man" approached him and asked whether he would like to use their service like all of his neighbors. My friend declined the offer and was robbed two days later. Since he pays the security company he has never been robbed again and his estate has never been set on fire again.

  • Thomas More Post author

    I am dumber for having watched this. Fuck you.

  • Bogdan Toma Post author

    Unfortunately your base assumptions ruin the whole logic from the start.
    Humans. Vile greedy creatures.
    This concept you present here exists in today's world for car insurance.
    And I can tell you that is one of the worst fields of all, filled with pus.
    All these agencies act in the same "free market" but they act for their own interest.
    Investigations are being made and most of the time their results are truncated by the interests of the companies for more efficiency, paying less.
    Oh, and the oversight committee, nice one. They are on the "payroll" of the insurance companies.
    I live in a place where this happens and there is an oligarchy decided by the companies, and we are all trapped consumers. We cannot seek justice outside.
    Recently some law from the state has been passed to force these companies a little bit, but overall, it is a system where certain interests are connected.
    You know, political interests with election campaigns being sponsored with the money grabbed from unsuspecting victims that are made to look like they have a fault.
    And this is where your logic completely fails.
    Justice for money.
    THIS IS THE WORST IDEA I HAVE EVER HEARD SOMEONE SAY. And somehow claim it is a good thing. OMG.
    With various subscription plans.
    This is nothing more than what mafia is doing with the "protection tax", but with a contract.
    And guess what, the most aggressive "protection companies" are the ones that will attract most business. But you would need half a functioning brain to understand it.
    We can go further into the video, but by god, suggestion with a straight face this idea of yours, WOOOOW.

  • qvistus82 Post author

    I don't get why you can see the government as this huge enemy and at the same time want to give power to these private companies who might use that power in any way they want, if there's no outside regulation. Since when has privatization done anything good for the people? Because of privatization you pay enormous amounts of money for your health care. And you call taxes stealing, lol.

  • Joshua Smith Post author

    Here's a thought,defend yourself by getting a black belt in jiujitsu or Krav and oh Idk and permission to exercise your 2nd amendment right,lmfao,and get a sub compact 40 cal.glock and do your own damn threat assessments by not being a victim when your walking down the street staring at ur damn phone!!!!wake up people,u get what u put in!

  • Jay Spillers Post author

    Instead of private firms or government, why not just have the citizens provide their own police service themselves? IE a citizen militia.

  • Pito V Post author

    A lot of agencies, who flips the bill?

  • NoGovNoProblem Post author

    I do like this and I believe would work great, never would happen in Bills case though, muggers don't buy insurance lol

  • Kakto Tak Post author

    So if 2 people, say Cain and Abel, have a confrontation, Cain kills Abel, and nobody is there to seek justice on behalf of Abel, Cain will get away with it?

  • Max Freedom Post author

    Well done. Important work.

  • Joh pfit Post author

    So if somome can't affort paying for securety they are fair game and every one can do to them what they want.
    Or if somome can affort an private army who is stronger then the securety firm they can do to their clients whant.
    And if there is no government and no laws who decides what is right or wrong.
    A system like this won't funktion and hurt the weakes in society.

  • Thought Bat Post author

    I can see how this could work in a mutualist society

  • NPC 17752890Af23K45GG34 Post author

    Why not just steal from the poor who canโ€™t afford protection

  • Greg Vence Post author

    Thanks. This is the last idea of Anarchy I was looking to solve. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • Mark Sage Post author

    If Bill isn't trusted with his natural rights… wouldn't it be more kind and productive for the community to just kill him? You can't set him free while taking his freedom and potential to contribute to society. You can't have both. You can't set Bill free, black-ball him from being successful and expect a good outcome. It's illogical. Either kill him…or set him free with all of his natural rights. It can't be both ways.

  • Fรผhrer des Benutzers Post author

    What if the company refuses the compensate her and simply end the contract? Who would go after the company for this?

  • The Social Democrat Post author

    Libertarianism is retarded confirmed!

  • Psychiatrysts Post author

    All of the ideas you propose and organisations would all need to be approved by discussion and consent of small groups of people until all affected groups agreed to the system. You are way ahead of yourself trying to create your own system when it is the people who should create it.

  • Firstname, Lastname Post author

    I'm a pretty conservative guy but this is clearly rubbish lol

  • Isla Is Best Post author

    This video has a nice argument, but rather anarcho-capitalism seems faulty, my argument against it is that the companies become the new form of government, thus there is no anarchy, and it's a loosely hinged federation of companies.

  • DeadEndFrog Post author

    Laws by taxes, or laws by payment. What a choice! Atleast in government poor people are protected too.

  • Monroe Corp Post author

    -How can Bill be forced into a work-camp or any uch situation by Alices security firm, though?
    -What if Bill just says, "No. I'm innocent. Don't commit any aggression against me"?
    -What if Bills security company has a business model wherein they charge higher fees but will simply never back down on your behalf?

    A world where money is King is a terrifying prospect. What we have now is bad enough.

  • soham butala Post author

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0&lc=z13qe524mnnzzzl5f04cdnrhgy3vi1zjk50

  • geheimnisvoller und belangloser Kanal ohne videos Post author

    You do realise though, it would be the reasonable decision for Tanna Justice, if they kept suppong their client, if they found him guilty. After all, if they did not, their guilty customers were likely to stop their payment of bitcoins. I do believe that Liberty is the most essential Human Right of all and that obviously includes the liberty of not being attacked while going down the street. Human Rightsโ„ข should not depend on monthly payment.

  • Fok yu Post author

    Economic reset then something along these lines. You're close keep going man!

  • Ben Loui Post author

    This Video was perfekt for showing that this would not work.

  • Lucas NG Post author

    Well this decentralized justice system is not that far from what feudal Europe had… the problem is: if one of the firms is strong enough to enforce their judgement why wouldn't they use that power to just steal money? They maximize their utility by doing so…. you could say that they would have to face the competing firms, but those firms too would have the incentive to steal money….as they compete, merge and destroy each other there would be just one giant firm that provides security to all but also steal money from all…. and that's what we call a government…read Charles Tilly, Coercion, Capital, and European States… I agree that a system without government would be better… I'm with the libertarians on that…. but I don't see historical evidence that this is attainable for defense and security… the equilibrium would never be stable…. even with institutions as big as countries there are still wars…

  • Chris Cartwright Post author

    God I hate libertarians X_X

  • Kyle Eames Post author

    Stupid ancap!

  • Alex Shaykevich Post author

    What happens to the poor? And to the children of the poor?

  • Alex Shaykevich Post author

    Bill belongs to a large, well-organised and well armed crime syndicate many of whose members he's related to. They tell Dawn Defense and Benson Enterprises to go f'k themselves.

  • GeekOverdose Post author

    I really do disagree

  • Monster Mash Post author

    if police are so damn great then surely they can compete on an open market yea?

  • Monster Mash Post author

    I think you're missing the part about private courts and their separation from private security which I think is one of the main features of anarcho-capitalist modes of justice is this decoupling of the two

  • Mr Furry The Brutal Post author

    Ask anyone in law enforcement if having 40 different non associated PDs and court systems in one area is a good idea… I'll wait here and prepare to laugh.

  • Vaporwave Vocap Post author

    It would be unjust for any security agency to use force against anyone without evidence, if the security agency abducts Bill without him having a trial, they would lose customers and people would turn to competing firms to defend themselves from that firm, I think this was the main issue of this video.

  • Guilherme Jubal Post author

    This video is highly informative, but I have an issue with one of the suggested steps: "If everyone agrees that Bill is guilty, he has no option but to pay the amount due to Dawn Defense; and Dawn Defense will enforce this with threats". I believe that if someone disagrees with the punishment given to them, the only thing that can be done to them is social ostracization. It is the only option that seems to fit in with private property ethics.

  • Kev Cook Post author

    Bill was renting a furnished property….since there are no gov't databases as a thief why would he ever disclose his whereabouts or give his birthname.

    There's no dna or fingerprint records….as rights-to-self-ownership is tantamount in a propertarian-society.

    At best they could circulate his picture around, but Bill is a smart thief and doesn't shit where he lives…..his burglary is always 2 counties over.

    Since bribery is easy, the norm really, in a free-society Bill buys defence industry information…he targets people who have defense agencies that have no "franchise" in his region.

    Also Bill's protection service offers the "rock solid alibis package"…..Bill is s model neighbor and comes with great references and character witness too.

    If you guys dumped property-rights and instead made the consumer the protected individual in society, rather than the Propertarian, you'd develop a Minarchy that worked.

    Without databases and title departments solving crimes are nearly impossible.

    It took me five minutes to perfectly destroy this videos thesis, hahaha

  • Kev Cook Post author

    In our present society the Gov't owns everything and everyone, in the most important ways (they can collect you and your things at-will and by-law)….if you analyse what's happened to Native and African people's for last 400yrs you also know the Gov't can target and create advantages/disadvantages…..they can even create designate distinctions that don't exist in the bible NOR in nature (RACE THEORY) to justify their actions…..if you analyse further what's happened to all women and poor white men you can see that our present gov't can also discriminate via class or gender.

    The further back in-time you go the less "free" things were, unless you go back to tribal times…..but they had laws too.

    No MAGA for Old Men

    All US Gov't has been based on Propertarianism…..THUS you cannot create a "free-market" that's based on property….because there will need to be databases and some group or individual who has "final say" to determine peaceful outcomes.

    The property owner is not everyone and equal in basic power.

    The consumer is the everyone-individual….not everyone owns but everyone consumes.

    Therefore Consumer-Rule as basis for Rational Minarchism and not Property

  • Rishi Swethan Post author

    Simple. In the long term, the guy that was unable to pay would be held indefinitely in the "restricted building". That's slavery btw

  • lakkakka Post author

    If there are competing companies there will be fucked up hierarchal shit in those jobs. Iโ€™d axtually end up killing people.

    Iโ€™d rather have a central government at that point. More freedom from smaller groups.

    And you just know that those companies will actually organize attacks against people who opt out from their โ€œsecurityโ€ services.
    And without governments and independent law enforcements those โ€œfirmsโ€ will figure out ways to not pay for anything either. Not to mention starting to coop and monopolize everything.

    They will lie about not attacking innocents. By lying about who is innocent.

    Congratulations you just created a mafia run society.

  • Alice Arndorfer Post author

    Is it just me or is this describing the justice system we already have lol. The firms are the lawyers, the judge is the independent contractor. Its basically all the same. Im like sitting here like the independent contractor has all the power and hes going to be bought off and people wont be able to defend themselves if they're poor.. oh wait lol… you almost had me going I thought this was supposed to be a different system.

  • Jesse Stewart Post author

    I'm a bit confused. How does a firm enforce the laws they create if they have no power over any individuals not in their jurisdiction? Moreover, how is jurisdiction even decided because there are no state lines or anything? Also, what if the firm is the one doing the wrong thing? This just sounds like… Anarchy. I'm trying to wrap my head around it.

  • TheaDragonSpirit Post author

    0::30 – Since when did the government become a farming corporation in which they tell the farmers what to grow? Mostly the economics of supply and demand influences what farmers grow.

    The government simply states farmers can't do unethical acts. They don't control what people will grow or enforce what people grow so long as those people are being considerate, more likely if a farm is owned by someone, whoever owns the farm decides what happens on the farm for the most part, and or the farm owner hires people to do what they want on that farm. The government just makes sure how they grow that food isn't going to lead to people getting ill or a serious negative outcome for the majority of people. So they wouldn't want raw milk being sold because this milk has been linked with many deaths. So simply put the government only stops farmers growing produce which puts people at serious health risks, and put peoples health before a farmers profit. That has nothing to do with them controlling what farmer grows in a sort of tyrannical way, it's simply government is looking out for the majority of peoples well being, as is the job of those being ethical, to look out for the mass majority, they also put labels of allergies which could affect minorities. However if that food affected large amounts of people negatively they might ban it all together.

    So this simply means they will not allow farmers to grow that which would cause people to be negatively affected. So the government just states you can only grow in a way which is beneficial to all, when selling to people or giving that produce to people. So the government is simply saying as long as you're considerate, you can grow what ever you want. Simple as that. Basically don't be an arse hole.

  • ื™ื”ื•ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ Post author

    ื‘ืฉื™ื˜ื” ื–ื• . ื–ื” ืžื“ื™ื ื” ืฉืžืฉืžืจืช ืขื•ื•ืœ ื‘ืขื•ืœื. ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืฉื”ื‘ื•ืจืจื™ื ืฆื•ื“ืงื™ื? ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื—ื‘ืจื•ืช ื ื”ืคื›ื•ืช ืœืžื›ื•ื‘ื“ื•ืช ื•ืžืฆืœื™ื—ื•ืช. ืื ื–ื” ื”ืื™ื ื˜ืจืก ืฉืœื”ื ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ื ืœืขื•ื•ืช ืืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ืœื”ื™ืฉืžืจ ืžืฆืœื™ื—ื•ืช ื•ืžื›ื•ื‘ื“ื•ืช ื”ื›ืœ ืœืคื™ ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ. ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืชื”ื™ื” ื“ืื’ื” ืœื—ืœืฉื™ื? ื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ืžื•ืกืจ. ืืžื ื ื‘ืฉื™ื˜ื” ื”ื–ืืช ืื™ืŸ ืจืฆื— ืœืœื ื’ื‘ื•ืœื•ืช ื™ื•ืชืจ ื“ื•ืžื” ืื‘ืœ ืœื›ื ื•ืคื™ื•ืช ืฉืœ ืžืืคื™ื•ื ืจื™ื. ืฉื’ื ื”ื ื™ืขืฉื• ืืช ืขืฆืžื ืžื›ื•ื‘ื“ื™ื ื•ืžืฆืœื™ื—ื™ื ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ืœืืจื’ืŸ ืืช ื”ืขืกืงื™ื. ืžื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื•ืง ื™ื›ืจื™ื— ืฉื‘ืืžืช ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื• ืื ืฉื™ื ืฉื™ืฉืชืžืฉื• ื‘ื›ื•ื—. ืื•ืœื™ ืคื—ื•ืช ืื ืฉื™ื ื™ืจืฆื• ืื•ืชื ืื‘ืœ ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืฉื”ื ืœื ื™ื•ื›ืœื• ืœืฉืœื•ื˜ ื‘ื›ื•ื—? ืœื—ืœืง ืืช ื”ืžื“ื™ื ื” ืœื—ืœืงื™ื ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืฉื›ื•ื ื•ืช ืคืฉืข ื•ื›ื•' ืฉื”ืžื›ื•ื‘ื“ื•ืช ืœื ื™ืชืงืจื‘ื• ื•ื™ืฉืื™ืจื• ืืช ื”ืžืงื•ื ืœื›ื ื•ืคื™ื•ืช ื”ืคืฉืข. ืขืœ ืคื™ ืื™ื–ื” ืขื™ืงืจื•ืŸ ืื ืฉื™ื ื™ืขืฉื• ืขืกืงื™ื? ื•ืžื” ืขื ื”ืื“ื ืฉืคืฉืข ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืฉืœื ืžื” ืื™ืชื• ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืขื–ื•ืจ ืœื• ืœื”ืฉืชืงื? ื‘ื•ื“ืื™ ืฉืžื” ืฉืื›ืคืช ืœื”ื ื–ื” ื”ืื™ื ื˜ืจืกื™ื ืฉืœื”ื ื•ื™ืฉื™ืžื• ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืขื‘ื“ื•ืช ื›ืš ืฉื ื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื–ืžืŸ ืฉืœ ื”ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ื‘ืœื™ ืžื•ืกืจ ื”ื›ืœ ื‘ื˜ืขื ื•ืช ืฉืœ ืคื•ืฉืข. ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืฉื”ื•ื ืคื•ืฉืข ืื•ืœื™ ื‘ืืžืช ื™ืขืฉื• ื”ื ืคืฉืข ื•ื™ืกื‘ื™ืจื• ื‘ืฆื•ืจื” ื›ื–ืืช ืฉื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ื ืขื•ืฉื™ื ืฆื“ืง ื•ืขื“ื™ืŸ ืื ืฉื™ื ื™ื–ืงืงื• ืืช ืฉื™ืจื•ืชื™ื”ื ื›ืžื• ืฉืื ืฉื™ื ืขื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ื•ื—ืจื™ื ื‘ืžื“ื™ื ื•ืช ื‘ืžืคืœื’ื•ืช ืœืžืจื•ืช ืฉืจื•ืื™ื ืืช ื›ื•ืœื ื›ืžื•ืฉื—ืชื™ื. ืื– ืžื” ื‘ื“ื™ื•ืง. ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืฉื™ื˜ื” ืฉืœ ื‘ื•ืจืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ืœืžื” ืฉื‘ื›ืœืœ ืื“ื ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื™ืชืขืจื‘? ืื ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืื™ื ื˜ืจืกื™ื ืฉืœื• ืžื” ื”ืขืงืจื•ื ื•ืช ืฉืœื• ืฉื™ืงื‘ืข. ื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืขืงืจื•ื ื•ืช ื”ืžื•ืกืจ ืฉืœื•. ืื™ืš ื ื“ืข ืฉื—ื‘ืจื•ืช ืขืฉื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืžืฆืœื™ื—ื•ืช ืœื ื™ืคื’ืขื• ื‘ื—ื‘ืจื•ืช ื—ื“ืฉื•ืช ืžื•ืกืจื™ื•ืช ื™ื•ืชืจ ืจืง ื‘ื’ืœืœ ื”ื”ืฆืœื—ื” ื”ื›ืกืคื™ืช. ื™ืฉืœืžื• ื›ืกืฃ ืœืจื•ืฆื—ื™ื ืฉื›ื™ืจื™ื? ื‘ืžืกื•ื•ื” ืฉืœ ืชืื•ื ื”? ืื™ืš ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืื“ื ื™ื•ื›ืœ ืœื—ื™ื•ืช ืื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื‘ืจื” ืฉืžืชืื™ืžื” ืœืขืงืจื•ื ื•ืช ื”ืžื•ืกืจ ืฉืœื•? ื•ืœืžื” ืฉื™ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืขืงืจื•ื ื•ืช ืฉืœ ืื ืฉื™ื ืื—ืจื™ื? ืœื“ืชื•ืช ืฉืœ ืื ืฉื™ื ืื—ืจื™ื? ื•ื”ื›ืœ ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ืื™ื ื˜ืจืก ืฉืœ ื”ื›ืกืฃ? ืœืžื” ื”ื›ืกืฃ ื”ื•ื ืžื‘ื˜ื™ื— ืฉื›ื•ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื• ืฆื•ื“ืงื™ื? ื‘ืžื” ื–ื” ืฉื•ื ื” ืžืžื“ื™ื ื•ืช ืฉื™ืฉ ืžืคืœื’ื•ืช ืฉื’ื ื™ื›ื•ืœื•ืช ืœื˜ืขื•ืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ื•ืช ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื™ื ื”ื˜ื•ื”ืจ ื•ืื ืœื , ืœื ื™ื‘ื—ืจื• ื‘ื”ื ื•ืขื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ื•ื—ืจื™ื ื‘ืื•ืชื ืžื•ืฉื—ืชื™ื? ื”ืื ืžื™ืฉื”ื• ืžื›ื ืžื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืžื” ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื›ื— ื”ื‘ื—ื™ืจื” ื ื™ืชืŸ ืœืขื ื•ืขื“ื™ืŸ ื ืฆื™ื’ื™ื• ื ืฉืืจื™ื ืžื•ืฉื—ืชื™ื. ืื ืืชื ืœื ื™ื•ื“ืขื™ื ืœืžื” ืืชื ื—ื•ืฉื‘ื™ื ืฉื–ื” ืฉื•ื ื” ื›ืืŸ?

  • juan josรฉ Freijedo Post author

    I am trying ancap but this is just too much. With that kind of justice, rich men can AFFORD killing as much as they want as long as they can pay. Who would take care of the people in jail? The business in jail is difficult, the people who you serve is the one who you are supposed to punish. I just can't see that, i think I will remain as a demarchy minarchist.

  • juan josรฉ Freijedo Post author

    I am trying ancap but this is just too much. With that kind of justice, rich men can AFFORD killing as much as they want as long as they can pay. Who would take care of the people in jail? The business in jail is difficult, the people who you serve is the one who you are supposed to punish. I just can't see that, i think I will remain as a demarchy minarchist.

  • videakias3000 Post author

    there are many things wrong with this video.
    1)according to this video there are going to be multiple companies that punish theft.first of all if a company has the power to punish their non-customers then it is not a company,it is mafia.that doesn't sound safe.
    2)since there are going to be different"companies"then there are going to be different punishments for the same crime which is fucking impractical.what makes you think that each company will punish theft with the exact same way?

    3)whose gonna protect the citizen's privacy?you want mafia to protect people,okay,what methodes are they gonna use?can they straight up steal our phones and computers or break to our houses without warrands and violate our privacy?how are you gonna solve these?some other company will make rules about what methodes can and cannot be used?how is that gonna work?
    4)an other problem with this video is that you overestimate the problem of having broken reputation/public image.
    if bad reputation really meant less profit then electronic arts and activision would have gone bankrupt years now.
    5)if companies can imprison criminals then what makes you so sure that they will not imprison innocent people just because they don't like them?
    6)how the fuck are we going to have copy-right protection laws without government?

    sory dude but i don't see how you can trust mafia so much.
    right now ea may be the worst video game company,but they can't break into my house and imprison me if i make a video talking shit about them,a mafia company can.
    i can chose to not buy ea's games,i can't chose to not cooperate with mafia.

  • Avegas77 Post author

    This video is a reality in Detroit. I saw a video where people payed per minute of protection while for instance locking up their store. The only difference is that the security firms only offer protection not justice. They have found much better service than the local police.

  • Alexandre de Souza Post author

    Hey, wouldn't this facilitate racketeering?

  • Ancient Truth Seeker Post author

    What if the person defends themselves with a group like a militia?

  • Heirio Post author

    Question: what if A does something to B and B's firm considers it a crime but A's doesn't?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *