I figured a branch conversation would be better for our discussion on private law societies. The char limit is larger, and the reply chain doesn't get broken so easy. (Feel free to add people)

The way I see it the final authority would be the arbitration org that was agreed upon in the contract, or perhaps title.

The government is just guns enforcing a decision. A private company could do similar, but many put forward the idea that force would probably be used less than the state currently does to deal with those who decide to ignore a compensation judgement. A tool I've seen mentioned a lot would be an insurance company would go ahead and pay out to the victim parties and then go about collecting from the offending party.

But if two parties did not have a prior agreement, what would happen then?

I'd assume they'd have a subscription to an Agency. Assuming it's not the same one it'd function similar to the what happens with between states. The agencies would probably have an agreement with each other on how to handle those situations.

The potential problem I can see coming next is if one of the involved was a subscriber to a rogue agency that had no agreements. In this case it would come down to how the incident occurred.

If A entered into a deal with B, who is a member of a rogue agency, A's agency would probably have a caveat emptor attitude. If A was violated by B, then A's agency would compensate for the damage & try harder to reach an agreement with B's agency. Vary rarely would it lead to conflict.

So if it was determined that A was wronged, and B doesn't pay, A's insurance company would pick up the tab?

Something like that. A lot of private law advocates see insurance companies as having the most to gain/lose from crime & be tied directly to the defense agency through partnership, or indirectly through agreements/contracts.

What I've seen mentioned most, and I tend to agree with, is that A's agency would go ahead and make whole & assume the debt upon themselves. This way the victim party isn't forced to wait till B is made to pay. A's agency would then seek damages from B's.

If after the instigation/trial B is proven to be at fault/liable then B's agency would pay off the debt to A's and then seek payment from B. B could, as you suggest, dispute the verdict and refuse to pay, but A was already made whole earlier.

How about if B doesn't have an agency and refuses to pay?

Then it varies depending on who you ask. A's agency pays A same as before, but eats the cost and seeks to recover from B directly.

If it's a small crime, such as a theft, then the agency would probably blacklist them. The agreements they have with other agencies would probably mean B was added to theirs as well. This would lead to people refusing to deal with B as it'd jeopardize their standing with their agencies, & risk bearing the cost alone of B's transgressions. I'm convinced this would be enough to force B to eventually accept the verdict to remove the mark against name.

Assuming it's a larger crime I figure they'd do same as above, but eventually authorize a raid against B to seize assets to cover their cost.

I'm not sure I agree. I think B could argue that he really was not in the wrong regarding his conflict with A. So you may have some agencies who believe A and others that believe B.

If that was the case, B may be blacklisted by some agencies, but could still use the services of those agencies that believe B was not in the wrong.

That's a good point. It would come down to the nature of the crime, and the reputation of the agency. If A's reputation was good the other agencies would probably be content with seeing the investigation/trial data.

If A's agency has a reputation of shaky convictions, or the evidence seems lacking to the other agencies, then you're correct that B may not be blacklisted by all agencies. Though w/o a new investigation B's name will still be marked and will eventually seek the services of an agency for a new investigation.

A gets compensated regardless of whether A's agency is able to recoup the loss. The better A's reputation, the higher the likelihood though that they are able to.

How about criminal cases? What would a stateless society do with a murderer? If A kills B, who would prosecute the crime if B had no insurance? Who would hold A to keep him/her from harming the public further?

If B was w/o an agency, if it's murder, B's family could probably get their agency involved to solve it. Unless B was an exile/outcast the likelihood of B being w/o an agency would be low. B may not have the best one, but still have one.

Now the murder/assault crimes would be more prickly as the monetary cost may not cover. IE if A stabs B and damages a kidney B's agency could pay to replace the kidney and medical care, and seek to recoup. Murder & assaults beyond current tech level to correct would be more difficult to handle.

To address those concerns I imagine the solutions will be similar to what governments attempt to do: remove the aggressor from the society. Exile, or detention, would be the likely answers to those criminals.

Do you think there would be a funding stream for holding aggressors for the rest of their lives if they commit a crime like murder?

Depends. I catch a lot of flack as I can foresee a need for detention post state. I'm not big on life sentences though as it doesn't give a chance for the person to reform/make up for their crime. If a person was a serial offender, or extremely unrepentant, then I can see a use for detention.

What I'd probably sign off on, but can't speak for others, is an exile colony for serial violent repeaters. For those in that colony that are even too violent for that I'm partial to a hospital being turned into a detention center & putting them in medical comas. This way it minimizes the need for prisons by only housing the most violent offenders, and in a way that minimizes damage to other detainees.

Personally, if one intentionally takes the life of another, that person should never enjoy freedom again.

I have a few questions and wanted to get your thoughts. First, if a business person knows for some reason that a product is defective and could harm consumers, but the effects won't be known for some time, at which the person will be long gone from the business, what incentive does that person have to fix the product? If he can just reap profits, and market forces are not applicable, what's the solution to that?

Sorry for delay. On the unrepentant killer I tend to agree with you. I'd sign off on victims using lethal force in the moment, but wouldn't sign off on death penalty. That goes for both state and private agencies. Agree w/ you that isolation from society would be sufficient as we discussed before.

So on what would be known today as first degree murder I'd probably be fine with that party being banned from that community. Cases of manslaughter, or some felony murder, I'd be open to rehabilitation though. I'd hate to see someone who, say, kills someone while drunk driving be denied the ability to rededicate their life to preventing others from making the mistake they did.

Good question, &one relevant even in the current system. I'd object though that market forces wouldn't be applicable. What would happen would be similar to what occurs in small claims court today when a contractor breaks a contract. Crime would be just as wrong if discovered two weeks later as it would be if discovered 10 years later. Main difference would be in the amount of damages the aggressor would have to cover.

In the situation you propose the person would have years and years of accumulated damages they'd be expected to make good on. If the actions/faulty product in question led to deaths I'd even be willing to slap first degree murder on 'em. The agency would seek to recover from them, and restore victims, same as other abuses.

Good point. What do you think about this idea of natural monopolies? For example, cities have water, gas, and electric utilities. Is it possible to open those things up to the market? if water is delivered to houses through only one pipe system??? (my ignorance is showing on this topic, as you can tell), how could that be opened up to the market?

That one's a bit tougher as it delves into the economics of several markets which each have their unique supply/demand curves.

For natural monopolies I'm not against per se, but have a very specific definition of what constitutes natural. Most utilities in cities are passed off as natural but I'd label coercive monopolies.

The old Alcoa case is an example of a natural one. They where pretty much the sole producer of Al but only maintained that monopoly due the the fact that they didn't try to extract a monopoly price. If they had they knew others would come into the market and drive the price back down while taking market share from them. That's what happened to Standard Oil.

(cont'd)

Now to actually answer your utility question best I can.

I live rural and outside the city limits so for the most part a lot of monopolies in the city isn't for me. I'm tied to my local power company due to the lines as you point out, but if I was to get on rural water I'd have to pay to have the pipes brought out. If it wasn't for a granted monopoly I don't see why I couldn't pay someone else to run water/pipes to my property. Same with gas, which is reason most around me have propane tanks instead. More varied suppliers.

The way I'd try and solve the problem would be to at least end the bans on competition. They could then offer to rent space from landowners to lay pipe like what is currently done with cell towers.

Understood. But in a city like Philadelphia, it would be difficult to rent space.

How about privatizing streets? My city has a parking authority which enforces the many traffic laws, but what they do is basically a violation of the 5th Amendment's due process clause. Any idea how privatizing streets would work? Or a solution to this problem? It's much harder to charge people for driving on streets than roads, highways, and bridges.

Agree. I threw the rent space out there as a cover, but it'd be more complicated than that. I figure they'd just buy the sections they wanted to use vs the eminent domain that the state does. A more accurate prediction would be a group would own the old pipes/wires and rent the usage to future providers. If they tried to charge to much the providers could always resort to buying/laying their own.

As is now I'd kill for DSL at my house, but I can't even get them to agree to let me pay to have the lines run out to me. In a more competitive environment I can't help but feel someone would gladly charge me to lay lines and provide DSL.

Good question on the roads. I'll set aside how they end up in private hands (ie a company directly takes over as gov withdraws, or it was handed back over to original land owners and they sell to a company).

A lot of roads would probably be, directly or not, be owned by the houses/business they run next too. Because you're right that a toll on every road is unfeasible, but yet they do need to be maintained. The payers in this case would be those who benefited from it being there.

Longer roads such as state highways or interstates I can see being a mix of above & relying on tolls. Through a clever mix of price discrimination they could even make 'em "free" for travelers by only charging truckers as they create most wear.

In Philadelphia, many people live in row homes, so there are close to 60 houses on one street? Would each house own a part of the street? If not, would their be joint ownership? And if that's the case, if repairs need to be made, how do you get free riders to contribute if they know other people on the street will pay?

Hard to say. I'd imagine it would be very varied. An example would be the road I live off of. There are about 8-16 houses/estates that use it to get onto the county road. I can't speak for all the people, but 1/2 of the road next to my property exist as an easement on my title. So I technically own that part of the road. I assume it's similar for the rest on it.

It's just a dirt/gravel path so maintenance consists of running a grater after heavy rains, or when it snows. The same guy is the one who always does it, & while I thank him I'm unsure if anyone actually pays him. So the free rider concern is valid. I will say though that when it snows it's always clear before the county road it hooks up to is.

Fair enough. Can we keep this open so I can bother you if I think of more questions? I'm sure I'll have some.

Certainly! I don't know if they ever auto close, but I'll definitely not click the 'conclude' button on it. I'll do best to answer future questions.

I'll expand just a touch. On larger populations such as the example you put forward, & w/ roads in need of more maintenance such as asphalt/concrete, the free rider can become a bigger problem. I could see perhaps some neighborhood association type org perhaps owning/maintaining 'em & charging the residents a subscription. Could be tied into the title upon purchasing the house in a similar manner as an easement is. A market incentive for the owner to chip in though would be resale value. A crappy road lowers property values.

Felt I owed you a better answer to your specific example. :)

Thanks!

How do you think a free society would handle the problem of people with preexisting conditions? If an insurance company drops someone with preexisting conditions, what is that person's recourse if they can't get government help? Can charity continue to pay the costs for the person especially if the disease they have is chronic?

The bulk of cost is inflated due to governmental regulation & licensing. With those eliminated I'm fairly confident that market based organizations, be it for profit insurance companies, cooperatives that pool resources, charity from churches/orgs, or a combination of the above to be worlds better than the current system.

I've seen the care the government gives firsthand. I firmly disagree with the notion that the alleged positives outweigh the harm that the do. The entire premise is faulty to be honest. They are all to quick to pull the plug if X price rises too high. Something a organization who didn't rely on coercion for funding would be hesitant to do.

Hey Mike & Bob. I know I'm late to the party here, not that I think I would have been as nearly as much help as Mike though. I'm just sort of observing your running conversation here & catching up as there's quite a bit here to read that you two posted. Maybe if something comes up & I feel I have something to contribute, I'll post something, but for now Mike seems to have exhaustively covered things here. I don't think I could have addressed these things as well, but I won't know if I don't try.

Anyway, I have to ditto the latest response here by Mike. Like you didn't see that coming ;)

I didn't realize here. There's a character limit even here ;) I was typing out more there, but had to delete it because the site here told me that my post was too long, that it has to be no more than 750 characters apparently

Anyway,picking up where I ran out of room...There is a long history of U.S. government intervention in the marketplace exchange between patient and doctor that represents a classic case of government intervention causing unforeseen, unintended consequences,which lead to ever more intervention & then one thing after another & oh what a tangled web we weave.

This monster of a system we have today that is outrageously expensive in the U.S. & has morphed into a 3rd party payment system with the insurance industry acting as leeches off the State which created the conditions for it, is a byproduct of a chain of events of govt interfering with patient & provider. Such things like the manipulation of the tax code which created unnatural...

...incentives for employer provided insurance & 3rd parties picking up the tab even for routine costs, had in the historical roots here, an adverse affect of creating this escalating 3rd party payment system whereby it distorted the market & supplanted what came before (cheaper costs,cash payments to doctors,charitable friendly societies/fraternal organizations) & thus increased the demand for health care with greater expenditures on it,thereby leading to escalating costs with supply of doctors artificially limited through licensing & led to this leviathan of insurance companies in bed with the State

Then what you have today, is regulatory capture whereby the large insurance companies & pharmaceutical industry leech off of legislation government writes in response to the electorates demands & thus benefit by creating more of an artificial demand for insurance, raising the costs & crowding out the market alternatives which did exist prior to the historical roots of government intervention. This is all an unnatural order as absent any of this government intervention in the first place,there likely wouldn't exist as much of a market for medical insurance companies except for extreme cases. The WWII era of wage & price controls & the IRS exempting health insurance as taxable income for the employee created that incentive I mentioned

If we didn't have the IRS then, all of that wouldn't have come into place in the first place. Of course, the average person ignorant of the history here, ignorant of economics, in their shallow analysis, always likes to go with the populist explanations of greedy insurance companies that need to be disciplined by the State & then in the sweet deal between the politicians & the insurance companies, they laugh all the way to the bank while the ignorant masses clamor for the politicians help

So yes, as Mike explained, there would be market solutions that would spring up in place to help those with some preexisting conditions & needing patient care. Just remember also that everything would most likely be significantly cheaper too,making health care more affordable than it is today. So these lifeboat scenarios would be even more unrealistic. Lifeboat scenarios are kind of created out of a self-fulfilling prophecy of the State creating the conditions which lead to people being desperate without insurance.

Some would also argue that the U.S. healthcare system isn't necessarily that much better than the NHS in England. At least there you wouldn't get bled dry from costs spiraling out of control & hope to be covered by insurance for these ridiculously expensive pharmaceutical pills that you've become dependent upon to survive & which you wouldn't even be able to afford out of pocket.

Of course you also have a myriad of other historical factors like the Great Society and the invention of medicare & medicaid. The creation of the AMA & medical licensing. There's just so much, more than I've even mentioned here I'm sure. What we have here is basically an inflationary health care system. We tend to have great hospitals, great patient care & innovation with medical technology (though I'm sure that gets stifled in some way)...If you ever get seriously ill with some disease, the U.S. is likely a great place to go...IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT...and Johns Hopkins hospital one of the best,but it's an outrageously expensive system in which ones view of U.S. health care tends to be colored by where they are on the income totem pole

Anyway, I went on rambling there a bit on the specific issue of health care since I saw that was the latest thing mentioned in the thread here. I know this is a broad topic on just the more difficult aspects of anti-statism with respect to the public goods argument, stateless law & arbitration which you two have already gone over some here

I agree with both of you guys. It's just hard to convince people that a free market is better than government intervention in healthcare because people think healthcare is different. They say, for example, in a medical emergency people aren't going to be shopping around for the best type of care because they don't have an opportunity. Although, I would say that isn't a majority of the cases in healthcare. Would you guys agree?

Also, I was thinking about this topic: production of money by the market. I'm not sure if either of you are familiar with Dr. Herbner's testimony on money production by the market, but if you are, what do you think of it? Do you think it could work?

@Tachyon_Web Ha! Yeah, there's a char limit here too, but love how the reply chain flows better vs twitter timeline. Agree with you on all points. What we currently have is the result of 100+ years of state meddling in the market as you excellently described.

@Libertarian_76 Oh I knew you was with us on that question. :) Definitely agree it's hard to get people to see just how manipulated the health care market is, and how it's not a free-market.

You are correct that in certain rare situations one doesn't have time to shop care, but that's much smaller than what is let on. W/o giving away too much personal information I have firsthand knowledge of this. While awaiting a surgery I did look into other places to get it. (contd)

What ended up happening was it was bumped up to the next day so I ended up agreeing to have it done there. Needless to say I wish I'd have went to the other place, or at least shopped the price, after getting my bill. I could go on, but worry I've already gave away too much identifiable information for living in such a small population state.

So after a hunting accident one may be rushed to nearest hospital, but after stabilization it'd be feasible to transfer to another hospital. Lack of actual competition, due to the above mentioned licensing/regulations, means the prices may not vary by much.

For preventative care it's already easy to bargain shop doctors, though that gets less true every year thanks to reduced supply.

I'll have to look into that book/guy. I may be familiar with it and blanking on the name, but you've never lead me wrong on recommendations before either way. Will be checking it out.

More annoying questions for you: 1.) How would a stateless America handle arm sales? a.) Would arms manufacturers be allowed to sell to other governments? b.) Same for nuclear weapons? 2.) How would children's needs be handled in a free society? a.) If a child's parents are neglectful, who would determine when a child should be taken away from those parents?

As with most answers, it'd vary depending on the area. What I'll do is answer what I'd prefer my agency/coop/gov to do.

1. I figure it'd depend on the government/person that was being sold to. Currently there are rules such as felons can't buy firearms, so I'd imagine there'd be a similar list of people it'd be frowned upon to sell to. Perhaps some liability suits if said people continued to sell to those banned folk once it becomes known their intentions for the weapons.

1b. Nukes would be similar to the above, though I'd like to think the demand for 'em would be very, very low. Outside of an agency wanting 'em for a deterrent I figure the potential liability would keep 'em off the market(s).

2. Once again I'll describe what the agency of my liking would do. I start from the view that parents are but guardians for their children. While the right to be a guardian could be traded, it'd always be assumed that at X point the kids will be recognized as adults & have a greater say in who their guardian should be the closer to that age they reach.

2a. In the case of an abusive parent all it would take is for someone that is a member of said agency to step forward and point out the abuse. This would then lead to an investigation similar to the way DHS does. If abuse is proven then the right of guardianship could transfer to the concerned family member, or if old enough emancipation.

Even w/o a paid subscription it'd be good PR.