Restitution

Comments

KenK's picture

I don't know how many people reading this have ever run a retail business and so it may come as a shock to those that have not to know that there are a substantial amount of people that are what is known as "judgement proof". They have no jobs, their income is lien exempt, and they have no attachable assets or property. All they have is their liberty untethered to any kind of a moral code and who will steal, cheat you, trash your premises and other anti-social acts without any hesitation at all. Without the ability to put them in jail there is simply no way to make them comply with any court ordered judgement. If we all lived in small isolated towns where everyone knew everyone else shunning, shaming, and such might work but that isn't the case. Robert Murphy, David Friedman, and the Tannenhills, etc have yet to describe any feasible means to use against the NJNA's of this world other than actual physical confinement or the threat thereof. Further, even with today's system where such people can be jailed if they don't obey court orders, laws, and such, they readily still offend. Libertarians need to get real about this stuff.

DP_Thinker's picture

Ken,

I thought maybe I would get a little clarity out of your post. First, do you believe that jailing people is an effective way to get them to change their behavior? If not, what do you propose? You seem to understand that jailing someone is a disincentive for them to commit a crime again, however, so is restitution. I would think that you then have a quarrel with the type of punishment given?

Also you have to look at all of Libertarian theory before you start putting down one aspect of it. For instance, in a stateless society we would not have any publicly owned lands. Sure some communities might band together and sign agreements for certain things etc... But property would be privately owned unless agreed upon by every single one of the signatories to the agreement.

Now it would seem that if someone commits an offense against another, and restitution is ordered and he doesn't pay it, then you would be able to simply expel him from the community. No one would be able to come into your community without your permission. You would not have to worry about trespassers and the community would eventually be built up with people whom have shared values. Criminals would not be allowed to stay. Unfortunately, and this is no different than we have today, there is no way to assure 100% of property damaged or stolen is returned. That is the way of life. It happens today, and it would happen a lot less if the justice system was done without the state. One thing that can easily be proven is that throwing someone in jail does no good. Defense, justice, the courts, security etc. are all services or products. Now as a small business owner you surely know that government is not the best at efficiency in any market. There is a market for defense, security etc... The free market can provide that.

I don't mean to be rude but I don't think that others have failed to describe anything, but you might have failed to put all of Libertarian theory together.

Suverans2's picture

How about double-restitution?

KenK's picture

Nope. Two times nothing is still nothing. That's the "judgment proof" part Suverans. They live off of SSI, begging, and criminal activity like theft or by cash only activities (drug selling, sex trade, scrap metal collecting, selling their blood). Hard to collect or garnishee. Jail they understand. Two three days of confinement and the inability to get high or drunk with their buds. Like Bob Dylan said in one of his songs: "When you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose."

DP_Thinker's picture

Ever hear of insurance? In a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist society you would have insurance against such things.. You would be paid, and they would be responsible for restitution from the criminal. The insurance agencies have every incentive to prevent crime, otherwise they are liable. You would be made whole, and you have no reason to complain. Funny how Robert Murphy already already wrote all of this in "Chaos Theory" and Hoppe in "Democracy: TGTF" and others in other places, but you say no one has explained how it would work.

There would also be no SSI. And cash only activities are not immoral nor are they criminal. They physically harm no one (except for involuntary sex trade, unless you mean prostitution which is perfectly fine in a free society). Whereas SSI is coercive theft against ones property and redistributed through a monopoly of coercion, aka the state.

Kent McManigal's picture

That's where violence in defense of your property comes in to play. The "threat" of jail is nothing compared to the threat of a property owner protecting his life and property.

AtlasAikido's picture

Part I. [You are still in retail! You know the importance of prices]. Yet in order for government to actually take full advantage of market calculation, it cannot obtain income from taxes. If government obtains income from tax, it doesn't know whether its is actually satisfying consumer demand [you], as it will stay afloat irregardless of prices or quality [as you point out]. It also doesn't have to manage risk. At best, governments can only guess, but this guess will be imperfect [You see this hopefully]. ~ eliotn

As Michael Moore's film on [Crony] Capitalism ended, the theater of 400-plus spectators stood and cheered wildly at FDR's 1944 Economic Rights proposal that would put *the government; ultimately one individual in charge of the economy*. The Gun in the room (The Corporate State) IS what makes "Perverse Incentives" (the "Poaching" of one's neighbors) Convenient. Looters and moochers would have no teeth on you if not for the State.

As long as there are elected politicians, *politically connected* businessmen [clearly not you, but what you appear to seek], banksters and members of the military-industrial-welfare complex they will *game the system*--and bypass competition, innovation and productive work at your expense.

One movie reviewer asked: "But how does one legislate words like useful, enough, recreation, adequate, decent, and good? Who decides all of this and to what degree"? The market is more powerful (see "Freedom Naturally" link for why) than the State, and if defense is valued by the people, then they will voluntarily pay for it; the market will provide it. You are in Retail this should be obvious. The State cannot magically do what you could not do without prices.

Case in point there are 300 Federal laws that are passed every day! Can anyone imagine how any of these Federal Laws (made by Lawyers) could possibly have anything to do with the Non-Aggression Principle (libertarian)? They don't even have time to read them. *This problem is not caused by Libertarians*.

Furthermore: Let us now completely dispense with your fiction that Statute Laws and its consequences and punishments (jailing etc) are needed, good and trump natural and customary laws such as the law merchant. I'll flesh this out further in another post (Part II and then III).

Briefly any customary laws made into statute law cannot be good! The tacit assumption that *natural laws do not apply to human relationships* led men to believe they must have a central system of Statutory Laws to fill the gap and maintain social order. The principle behind a Statutory Law written a priori cannot be made to fit ALL circumstances [i.e.your situation]. Its application is UNOBJECTIVE and misses value structure objectivity of profit and loss calculations. This market price *breakthru came from Mises's 1920 paper refuting Socialism.

Ref: Freedom, Naturally (Book Review)
Mises Daily: Thursday, May 26, 2011 by Joel Bowman http://mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Naturally

AtlasAikido's picture

Part II. So let us proceed from where we are today: A Top-Down-Minority that dictates down to us. If you think about it, it necessarily requires the equivalent of Kings men using fraud and force on a population to make it follow its Political Agendas [to disarm you and embolden a criminal class]. No one in their right mind would volunteer to get plundered otherwise (unless they got to share in the spoils, peter robbing paul and so forth, **which is the system you appear to be defending, whilst complaining about libertarians; their lack of a grounded theory thereof and a tested and proven alternative**).

It is obviously false that economic calculation occurs, let alone is possible under government. They are completely and ultimately based on Force (as you are finding out THE gun in the room is the State and it is trained on YOU).

By contrast the Customary Laws of family, municipality and merchant law do not rely on force and fraud. The laws have a **Natural Following** and have ALREADY been tested, improved and **accepted/or discarded** from the Bottom-Up by populations over long periods of time; and across continents; and with actual experts in the particular field in dispute. And are necessarily UNforced as people would walkaway otherwise.

But wait, why did they not walk away since they did have the actual choice? And why is living in a global society no different than going from living in small village to trading in another? I'll get to Dealing with Coercion; Protection of Life and Property; and Rectification of Injustice in a bit. But is this all idle libertarian speculation?

Merchant court decisions were backed by the threat of ostracism, a very effective boycott sanction. If a merchant court ruled that **a London-based merchant had breached a contract with a merchant from Cologne at a trade fair in Milan, for example, the London merchant had strong incentives to pay the compensation the court judged appropriate**. If he did not, other merchants would no longer trade with him. But this sanction, while a real threat, was not often required. "Good faith was the essence of the mercantile agreement," Trakman concluded. "Reciprocity and the threat of business sanctions compelled performance. The ordinary undertakings of merchants were binding because they were 'intended' to be binding, not because any law compelled such performance."[135]....

This is NOT idle speculation and conjecture based on theory for conditions that don't exist.

...Although Anglo-Saxon customary law was giving way to Authoritarian law, the development of medieval commercial law, lex mercatoria, or the "Law Merchant," effectively shatters the myth that government must define and enforce "the rules of the game." Because the Law Merchant developed outside the constraints of political boundaries and escaped the influence of political rulers *for longer than many other Western legal systems, it provides the best example of what a system of customary law can achieve*.

To this day, international trade is "governed" to a large extent by merchants, as they make, arbitrate, and enforce their own law; and in the United States, at least 75 percent of commercial disputes are settled through private arbitration or mediation with decisions based on business custom and practice (customary commercial law).[5] Arbitration services, particularly for commercial disputes, have been increasingly used for some time, but the last few years have witnessed the development of a new industry — private for-profit courts competing with public courts for a wide spectrum of civil disputes.[6] Furthermore, there are now over twice as many private police as public police in the United States, as citizens hire more and more watchmen, guards, and highly trained security experts.[7] Between 1964 and 1981, employment by private firms offering protective and detective services increased by 432.9 percent, and the number of firms offering such services grew by 285.5 percent over the same period (see Table 9.3)

The following link addresses how and why it IS customary law that ACTUALLY keeps order and NOT Govt; It also shatters the myth that government must define and enforce "the rules of the game". Might I point out it also does NOT create an organization that incubates the 1 percent of the human race who are sociopaths, which works against those who have been taught that they need a leader and should always follow orders...

Dear reader I recommend: "Enterprise of Customary Law" Mises Daily: Friday, June 29, 2007 by Bruce L. Benson http://archive.mises.org/6795/the-enterprise-of-customary-law/

It is in fact a detailed description of The Covenant of Unanimous Consent...which is base on natural laws (Tannehill's, Murphy etc) and customary law (Benson).

As for the rules by which a non-serf/non master [Agorist Trader] lives, may I recommend to you and the rest of my friends....:

The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
tinyurl.com/Covenant-and-Galts-Oath

Excerpts from: How the Covenant of Unanimous Consent fulfills the promise of Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle381-20060820-0....

Reference: Freedom, Naturally
Mises Daily: Thursday, May 26, 2011 by Joel Bowman http://mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Naturally

AtlasAikido's picture

Part III. Tannehill, Morris and Linda (1970). "Protection of Life and Property". pp. 79. The Market for Liberty. ..."The right to self defense the responsibility to defend oneself go hand in hand. A man may enter into a voluntary transaction, hiring someone else to do the job for him, but he cannot cede the responsibility to a coercive monopoly and still be free to exercise the right. The man who "hires" a government to be his agent of self-defense will by this very act of entering into a relationship with this coercive make himself defenseless to his "defender". A voluntary "government", acting as an agent of "self-defense" is a contradictory and meaningless concept..."

"Dealing with Coercion". pp. 92. The Market for Liberty. "Throughout history, the means of dealing with aggression (crime) has been punishment. Traditionally it has been held that when a man commits a crime against society the government acting as an agent of society, must punish him. However since punishment has not been based on the principle of righting the wrong but only of causing the criminal "to undergo pain, loss or suffering", it has actually been revenge..."

"Rectification of Injustice". pp. 101 The Market for Liberty. "Assuming the aggressor could not make immediate payment of his entire debt, the method used to collect it would depend on the amount involved, the nature of the aggression, the aggressor's past record and present attitude, and any other pertinent variables."....

The Market for Liberty
Morris and Linda Tannehill
http://mises.org/resources/6058

Restitution in Theory and Practice By Bruce L. Benson
http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_4.pdf

Retribution and Restitution: A Synthesis
http://mises.org/journals/jls/6_2/6_2_1.pdf

↑ O'Keeffe, Matthew (1989) "Retribution versus Restitution" Legal Notes No.5, Libertarian Alliance ISBN 1-870614-22-4 Retrieved 19 May 2005 http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/legan/legan005.pdf

Viability of subscription patrol and restitution
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/guillory2.pdf

The Stateless Society
An Examination of Alternatives
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html

The-Economic-Irrationality-of-the-State (See Comments)
http://mises.org/preview/6177/The-Economic-Irrationality-of-the-State

KenK's picture

You can always tell a libertarian. You just can't tell him much. The entire two paragraphs above is idle speculation and conjecture based on theory for conditions that don't exist. I'd pick it apart in detail for you DP but I have to work now. Instead I'll suggest this: Try getting your face out of books and computer screens and run a retail business under actual real-world conditions for a while and you'll see how the seemingly sturdy architecture of libertarian theory melts away like a sand castle in a rain storm.

DP_Thinker's picture

Your fallacy is basing your conclusion on already set conditions. Those conditions that perhaps prove your conclusion! Without a theory, then you must be pleased with your current conditions. Because without any "theory" you have no other conditions in which you could possibly live. You take your premise (the current conditions) as being true for your conclusion. Though your premises are false.

The fact that you say: ("I'd pick it apart in detail for you DP but I have to work now.") shows incompetence on your part and an inability to refute a theory.

Of course it's based on conditions that don't currently exist. That's why it's called a theory. It is a pragmatic solution to a problem. Unlike dogmatic, which seems to be how your conclusions are based.

And a theory is pragmatic, otherwise it's not a theory. It is not speculation. It is not impossible. The only thing that is impossible is that which goes against the laws of nature. Other than that all you can say is something is difficult. So to make a distinction between "real-world conditions" and "books and computer screens" is not only foolhardy, but goes against the way humans have gained all knowledge up until this point. It starts with a theory. For you to say you can refute something that hasn't been fully tested is also another shortcoming of your thinking.

Please take your time and "pick it apart in detail" as I'll be happy to refute your arguments based on human nature and "the real world".

alexeth's picture

Easy does it, KK & DPT. Let’s see the arguments on both sides.

Ken, would your complaint really exist in a free society? How could it? Does not the current society allow for these unaccountable people, would they really be tolerated where they weren’t protected by the state? Even if the same, would incarceration possibly be a vehicle for obtaining restitution? If not, why not?

DPT, what are the profit motives that would establish restitution-seeking structure in a free society? Who would end up collecting from the unaccountable persons Ken has identified? What other methods would people have for collecting restitution, especially if such unaccountable had no contracts with an avenue for claiming restitution?

This is a cool topic, I’m interested in the discussion by you who’ve given this more thought and practice than I.

DP_Thinker's picture

An insurance company has a primary motive of making profit. If you purchase insurance from them for theft, fire, protection etc.. They have a similar interest in making sure you suffer the least damage. If your property is stolen, they have a huge interest in recovering it so they do not have to fork out payments. This is already happening today with art recovery services.

Jim Davies's picture

Nice one, KenK, about not telling libertarians much. The version I heard related to Norwegians.

I happened upon your post while surfing STR. I see your main concern is about how a free society would handle feckless hooligans, and one point that may have been overlooked is that they would have no safety net. Thus, if they somehow survived the armed resistance of those they were harassing, they would have no way to purchase food, drink, clothes or shelter. "Shunning" would be commonplace even in a city environment, I suggest, for thanks to the Net it will be impossible to hide malfeasance from anyone who wants to know (such as a prospective employer.) Hence, they would shape up in life, or else they would ship out of it.

My main surprise, though, was that you seem to favor government despite owning a business. I'm retired from a small business, so am well aware what a parasite government is:

- it requires numerous burdensome administrative activities we would not freely undertake

- it intrudes on every Boardroom decision about customers, suppliers, employees and shareholders, over-ruling what the Company owners might decide if free to do so, and

- if despite the above a profit is turned, it grabs a third of it like an uninvited shareholder.

So the profits remaining to distribute to those who risked their capital and/or employed their skills, are seriously curtailed. Accordingly it's a no-brainer; a business would be vastly better off absent government.

However there are some factors that might outweigh the substantial ones above, and I'd be most interested if you can make the time to tell me whether any of them apply in your case.

1. perhaps you have government contracts, whose value is greater than those lost profits?

2. perhaps your company is large relative to your rivals, and so the cost of those burdens acts as a proportionally heavier dead weight on them than they do upon you?

3. perhaps you agree with the anarcho-capitalist insight in theory, but think it will never take practical effect and so wish to avoid wasting time trying?

Any light you can shed will be appreciated, but if #3 above happens to apply, I have some good news for you.

Samarami's picture

Libertarian life eschews "theory" because one seldom knows how a thing is going to turn out until its tried, and s/he is free to change once the first tactic fails. Honor and trust are hallmarks of libertarian transactions. I will trust you once you've proven yourself trustworthy. And once you build your reputation with me and I know you to keep your end of bargains I may also trust those of your friends for whom you vouch.

"Judgement proofing" oneself does not imply dishonesty. It is the only way to protect from government thievery -- those predators and parasites will take anything, locked down or no. Last few years has rid them of the need for the inconvenient "warrant". Every asset is subject to forfeiture -- no questions asked. Since judges feed from the same nose bag one expects no relief there.

So free individuals learn to cope in a world occupied by vultures of state. Coping changes as those gangsters change the "rules" of their robbery procedures. Strangely, the more egregious the shysters of state, the easier it is to remain free.

But freedom is truly just another word for nothin' left to lose.

Sam

KenK's picture

DP: I know it took me a while to get back to you but I thought it best to put paying customers ahead of theoretical arguments. I hope you understand why.

"First, do you believe that jailing people is an effective way to get them to change their behavior?"
Yes. With homeless NJNA's* it's the only thing that really does. At least temporarily any how. Hell, even single celled organisms respond to discomfort.

"Also you have to look at all of Libertarian theory before you start putting down one aspect of it."
I have read a great deal of the generally accepted canon of the libertarian literature. I have all the books you and others have mentioned on this thread on my shelves or on my Kindle. But the ideas expressed quite often don't translate that well into reality I have found.

"Now it would seem that if someone commits an offense against another, and restitution is ordered and he doesn't pay it, then you would be able to simply expel him from the community."
NJNA's get ordered to do stuff by courts and cops all the time. Sadly, they mostly just blow it off. Private courts or security guards wouldn't be any different in their effect my deductive reasoning tells me.

"There is a market for defense, security etc... The free market can provide that."
Yes it can. But it requires me paying three times net to obtain it. Few businesses I know of could afford it either.

"I don't mean to be rude but I don't think that others have failed to describe anything, but you might have failed to put all of Libertarian theory together."
Whatever DP. (Cf. paragraph 3 above.) And don't worry about my feelings either. Nothing you've written fazes me at all.

"Ever hear of insurance?"
Ever hear of a 20% (or more) deductible on a claim as well as lost business while repairing and/or restocking? Showing up to court? Giving depositions? Paying lawyers?
Not that many insurance companies offer the kind of coverage (at any price at all) that Murphy, Friedman, Hoppe, et. al., suggest would be necessary. And frankly I don't see a profitable business model for any that did.

"Funny how Robert Murphy already already wrote all of this in "Chaos Theory" and Hoppe in "Democracy: TGTF" and others in other places, but you say no one has explained how it would work."
They explain how they think, imagine, or hope it would work. It's all conjecture.

"There would also be no SSI. And cash only activities are not immoral nor are they criminal. They physically harm no one (except for involuntary sex trade, unless you mean prostitution which is perfectly fine in a free society). Whereas SSI is coercive theft against ones property and redistributed through a monopoly of coercion, aka the state."
DP these issues are all straw men you have built to destroy. Go back and read the words I wrote. I made no moral judgement on the NJNA's proclivities or lifestyles, only on the great difficulty in holding them to account, even when ordered by courts.

" ... [A]... theory is pragmatic, otherwise it's not a theory. It is not speculation. It is not impossible. The only thing that is impossible is that which goes against the laws of nature."
To paraphrase the dictionary: A theory is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

DP: To sum up, I find all of your arguments to be appeal-to-authority type of logical fallacies. Quoting books and websites that proffer elegant theories (but only under conditions that don't exist) doesn't mesh with my nearly twenty years of experience as a salesman, property manager, landlord, realtor, multiple small business owner, and retail employee. You are using the same arguments as people that try to win debates by quoting religious scripture and I put no faith in those kind of contentions. Objective material conditions are all that concern me, just to be perfectly clear.

Sam: The Bob Dylan song that I quote was released in 1962 and Kris Kristofferson's about nine years later just so you know. And I do like your use of popular culture references and your cultural literacy. Thanks for chiming in with that.

My best to all.

* A person with: No job, no assets.

DP_Thinker's picture

Me: "First, do you believe that jailing people is an effective way to get them to change their behavior?"
KenK: “Yes. With homeless NJNA's* it's the only thing that really does. At least temporarily any how. Hell, even single celled organisms respond to discomfort.” – There are multiple forms of discomfort. I bet if we took a look at repeat offenders we would find a lot more than those whose behavior was changed due to time behind bars.

“But the ideas expressed quite often don't translate that well into reality I have found.” – Your reality isn’t even a valid sample size.

“NJNA's get ordered to do stuff by courts and cops all the time. Sadly, they mostly just blow it off. Private courts or security guards wouldn't be any different in their effect my deductive reasoning tells me.” - Again, it’s called incentive. An insurance or private agency has a side by side incentive with you to keep your losses minimal and return stolen property to you. The courts, police etc. don’t.

Me: "There is a market for defense, security etc... The free market can provide that."
KenK: “Yes it can. But it requires me paying three times net to obtain it.” – Where’s your proof on that one?

“They explain how they think, imagine, or hope it would work. It's all conjecture. – Yet you, because you have “experience” can conjecture that those theories will not work.” - Yet you have only provided ad hominem arguments without any other logical statement than “I know reality”.. Wow.. That is truth!

“DP these issues are all straw men you have built to destroy. Go back and read the words I wrote. I made no moral judgement on the NJNA's proclivities or lifestyles, only on the great difficulty in holding them to account, even when ordered by courts.” – But courts are better at doing that then profit seeking enterprises that would not only defend against the loss before it happens, but have an incentive to get the losses back. An incentive a court or detective does not have. I didn’t build any straw men arguments.

“To paraphrase the dictionary:”- Please do go ahead and paraphrase the dictionary. A typical dogmatic fallacy is that the dictionary is a book of definitions. It is in fact a book of common usage of words, not their true definitions. When you come back with an objective and true meaning of theory I’ll pay attention.

“DP: To sum up, I find all of your arguments to be appeal-to-authority type of logical fallacies.” - If you don’t believe in incentives, then of course my arguments don’t make sense. I don’t need to appeal to authority to make a logical inference as to human nature.

“Quoting books and websites that proffer elegant theories (but only under conditions that don't exist) doesn't mesh with my nearly twenty years of experience as a salesman, property manager, landlord, realtor, multiple small business owner, and retail employee.” – If anything, your experience has brainwashed you into believing what “reality” is, but your “reality” is based on a certain set of conditions which would not exist in a free society. So your “real world experience” would not matter. You are trying to project this experience onto a different set of conditions, in which it would not be valid.

“You are using the same arguments as people that try to win debates by quoting religious scripture and I put no faith in those kind of contentions.” – Please show me how I have made any argument based on non-objective rationale? I think it’s quite objective that every man seeks some form of profit. Whether that be physical, monetary, spiritual etc… Everyone seeks profit. You should know that. Hence profit-seeking enterprises always outperform. They have customers, not involuntary persons that the company has no incentive to make happy. You should know that as an experienced small business owner. Can you show me where government has a customer service incentive?

“Objective material conditions are all that concern me, just to be perfectly clear.” - Objective huh? How about property rights.. Do they exist? Are they absolute? If so you can’t be in favor of the state at all. Argument solved. In order for the state to exist it must steal my property. It steals property to protect property? How’s that work?

KenK's picture

DP: "“But the ideas expressed quite often don't translate that well into reality I have found.” – Your reality isn’t even a valid sample size."

Whatever. This is my reality, my "real life" not a "Libertarianism in Theory & Practice" seminar. So my life experience doesn't mean anything to you. Oh well. I don't think you understand what I think the difference between us is, DP. One "reality" (mine) puts food on my table, pays my bills, and provides me and my family some measure of security in this world. Yours fills up servers on the www with 1's and 0's, but not much else unless you're going to write a book or lead a seminar. So there we are.

Been nice chattin' with you. Over & out.

KenK's picture

I saw this local news story after I posted the above response.

Owner: Loitering teens taking over Detroit gas station, driving business away

Perhaps some of you true believers can suggest some books or websites for this poor guy to read that'll straighten him out and improve his situation.

Cheers!

mhstahl's picture

If that's local to you, KenK, then we must not live too far apart.

I think the issue here-and so far no one has really addressed it-is that the proposal is FAR more radical than you appreciate. I'll use this example to explain.

The gas station owner in a society where "justice" is based on restitution, would have no problem with this situation-he would be able to use whatever force was required to rectify the situation.

Currently, he is prohibited from acting lest HE wind up in prison. And let's not forget, your "NJNA's" are also a product of that same political system(as is your malevolence)...yet you seem to be defending it.

There is a flip side, of course. Since "justice" is no longer handled by the "state", trials and other such findings of guilt would more closely resemble diplomatic relations between current "states" with a mediator rather than an all powerful judge. Everyone would tend to belong to a protective group-likely an extended family-and the consequences of being cast from that group would very likely be death.

This is the key to the system, since it makes self-restraint paramount to survival. Ransacking a business will likely get you killed-but so will tracking someone down and shooting them over a stolen candy-bar. Or because they cut across your yard. Shunning and outlawry(from your protective group-there is no state) are death sentences in most cases-and there are few written rules about what would cause that...so be nice!

This is NOT pie in the sky-it is a well documented societal form known to anthropologists as "Peace in the Feud". You cited David Friedman-he discusses this form of society at length in his many works on Iceland and other early Norse societies. It works, and results in remarkably stable societies.

Currently, the "LAW" has created the situation that you complain about, and has created the bizarre hyper-violent society of inner-Detroit. This is a suggestion for something totally different, root and branch.

Currently, the best hope for any business owner in that doomed city is GTFO! Yesterday.

I hope that's helpful.

KenK's picture

DP Thinker et. al., this is one more for you to chew on. A true story from the town I lived in for some years and still have some business interests and family in.

Ann Arbor teenager must pay more than $19,000 for graffiti

Nothing short of jailing this prick is going to make the slightest difference to him. Note the amount damage this NJNA caused and how the court has ordered him to pay, and how he doesn't seem to give one bit of damn. A $19k claim, assuming a standard insurance deductible, is right around $4000 that this businessman is out. Lost business, etc. are not included usually, depends on the policy. And he'll be lucky to get his policy renewed or to get an affordable new policy from some other insurance company either.

AtlasAikido's picture

"Arbitration agencies which *wanted to stay in business* would adjust reparations levels to meet consumer demand [in a free market, which IS precisely NOT what we have today]".

"Rectification of Injustice". pp. 97, 101 The Market for Liberty. "Assuming the aggressor could not make immediate payment of his entire debt, the method used to collect it would depend on the amount involved, the nature of the aggression, the aggressor's past record and present attitude, and any other pertinent variables."....

The Market for Liberty
Morris and Linda Tannehill
http://mises.org/resources/6058

KenK's picture

You guys quote your political philosophers like Christers quote the Bible.

Real life experience: NJNA'a are uncontrollable and uncollectable, period.

Suverans2's picture

Okay, KenK, I admit it, I haven't a clue what NJNA stands for, and, apparently, neither does the search engine DuckDuckGo.com because I doubt seriously that it's any of these.

NJNA - New Jersey Network Associates, Inc.
NJNA - North Jubilee Neighbourhood Association
NJNA - Nell Jesús Villavicencio Ambrosio | Facebook
NJNA - The New Jewish National Assembly
NJNA - New Jersey Notary Association
NJNA - New Jersey Nursery and Landscape Association

Real life experience: NJNA'a are uncontrollable and uncollectable, period.

"uncontrollable and uncollectable"...well, that ends this discussion.

No offense intended; are you a government agent? They just love acronyms.

KenK's picture

Suverans2,

In my part of the world a NINA* was an acronym used by realtors, mortgage brokers, and others who rely on third party financing to make a sale. It stands for a person with "No Income, No Assets" who are essentially a waste of time for them in that they can't get financed at all (except fraudulently, but that's another matter). If you search for the term "NINA" you'll get the proper results.

I mentioned my description of the term in one the posts from Oct. 02. I kind of appropriated and reconfigured the term to "NJNA" or "ninja" to indicate the term meaning a "judgement proof"** anti-social and criminally inclined individual who had no job or assets because that's the kind goof that I encounter the most. These people have no regular form of income that could be garnisheed to pay fines, court costs, or judgements, or otherwise to squeeze them financially and so give an incentive for good behavior and have no assets that could be seized or have liens put against them to compel payment.

The Marxist sorts call the NINA/NJNAs "lumpen proletariat"*** a term which is better known, but I don't like to use the leftist definitions for things myself. NINA/NINJs don't work and don't want to work and they could care less about things like credit histories, FICO scores, reputations, and such.

As for "free market solutions" from a reality based perspective: The last time I was in Brasil the higher-end malls all had armed guards in front of the entrances with shotguns and radios and if you didn't look "respectable and solvent"****, you didn't get in. Sadly I don't see any other free market response that would work similarly here in the USA. The NINA/NJNAs and their enablers would be in court faster than you can say ACLU to force us to admit them.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Income_No_Asset
** http://bankruptcy.lawyers.com/consumer-bankruptcy/What-it-means-to-be-Ju...
*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat
*** "de dinheiro respeitável"

Samarami's picture

It is my sincere suspicion, Suverans, that "NJNA" in this case refers to sad cases of young adults who have been educated in government ("public" ha ha) schooling and who are fraught with cognitive dissonance. They see the crazy asses who belong to gangs called "government" committing egregious crimes with no repercussion and can see no reason to refrain from such idiocy themselves.

Those who diss "anarchy" have no idea what they're talking about and show no inclination they're willing to study before disparaging. Sam

KenK's picture

Suverans2
You seem so sure of yourself what with all your books and web links but you never offer actual examples of how you make it the world [i] as it is. [/i] Paul B. often does in his writing and comments here and which I appreciate very much, even when I disagree. What do you guys do for a living? I run a paint store. Do the rest of you tart-tongued commenters here actually have work or employment that you do for income?

Quoting me lines from the Tannehills, Murphy, Friedman, and the rest about how to run a business some day when there's no state is just about as futile as describing your idea of the perfect lunar colony as far as myself and others earning a living are concerned. Do you feel me?

Another STR writer made a similar observation about that issue once as well.
“Being based in the Classical Libertarian historical milieu," [a href="http://strike-the-root.com/content/anarchist-finance-or-what-price-ancapistan-0"] wrote Mark Gillespie, [/a] "I thought that the anarcho-capitalist movement was the vehicle by which I could see anarchy in my lifetime. Instead, what I have found is a book-bound, insular culture, consisting predominately of white males who loathe anything that smacks of ‘collectivism’ and that debates the tiniest points ad nauseam. If that's your bag, then have at it. I'm not your judge. However, I want more than that.”

Me too.

"Academics", noted Donald Norman, "are paid to be clever, not to be right." Indeed. On the other hand though businessmen only make money by "being right". So, until the state collapses, is overthrown, or withers away none of the rightness or cleverness of your beloved books or websites matters that much if it all.

I hate to just quit the argument at this point but I’m not sure I have any thing more I can do here. I pose questions and make responses but all I get for my time are more links and book references. My experience has been that people who don’t "get it" (i.e., understand the logic of a point of view, even if they don’t agree with it) after a short explanation probably aren’t going to start getting it after a longer explanation either.

So there we are.

Samarami's picture

KenK:

    "...Do the rest of you tart-tongued commenters here actually have work or employment that you do for income?..."

If I fit that category (tart-tongued commenter), Ken, I do apologize for the tartness of tongue.

As to work, I operate a trucking business in which I'm frequently the lead driver when we're scraping the bottom of the barrel, which is often. So I know the challenge of flying under the white man's radar while remaining free and sovereign. If you think the paint business interfaces with the beast of anarchy cynics and detractors, try transportation. Sam

Suverans2's picture

G'day KenK,

I too apologize for my tartness of tongue, didn't even realize I had done that to you.

I will try to answer your questions privately, if that is acceptable to you.

AtlasAikido's picture

I think one of the posters recommended to Ken "GTFO yesterday". I would concur since the State leaves very little room for the free market to SOLVE the problem!! Trying to fix the State is hopeless and UNPRODUCTIVE!

Unless you live amongst those who take matters into their own hands AND are unafraid of their govt: Sagra Model In Russia (200,000 law enforcers jobs taken off market, crime drops significantly, individuals protect themselves, Citizens drive out Drug Lord (let alone a freaking govt created and protected battalion of NINAs) Govt concedes to people etc [for now]...)

Sunday, September 18, 2011
Abolish the Police, Arm the Citizens: The "Sagra Model" of Privatized Security http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/09/abolish-police-arm-citizens...

AND I doubt Ken is going to move his biz to Sagra or the high seas:

A business-oriented, personal responsibility-friendly, insurance rate-enhancing approach will never be recommended, suggested, or condoned by statists types

I recommend: "Enterprise of Customary Law" by Bruce L. Benson And an example of an application i.e. a model: "Solutions for the Pirate Problem [AND Statism] [SARC Intended]". by Karen Kwiatkowski archive.mises.org/6795/the-enterprise-of-customary-law/ AND lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski229.html

Meanwhile back at the US Free Range Farm:

Part III. Tannehill, Morris and Linda (1970). "Protection of Life and Property". pp. 79. The Market for Liberty. ..."The right to self defense the responsibility to defend oneself go hand in hand. A man may enter into a voluntary transaction, hiring someone else to do the job for him, but he cannot cede the responsibility to a coercive monopoly and still be free to exercise the right. The man who "hires" a government to be his agent of self-defense will by this very act of entering into a relationship with this coercive make himself defenseless to his "defender". A voluntary "government", acting as an agent of "self-defense" is a contradictory and meaningless concept..."

In his book, The Enterprise of Law, Bruce Benson looks at statistics for the State of New York concerning private mediation, and concludes that it was less effective when it became "backed" by the State of New York than when the state did not back it.

The fact that people still cling to the belief that the State is required to resolve disputes is amazing, since modern courts are out of the reach of all but the most wealthy and patient, and are primarily used to shield the powerful from competition or criticism. In this writer’s experience, to take a dispute with a stockbroker to the court system would have cost more than a quarter of a million dollars and taken from five to ten years – however, a private mediator settled the matter within a few months for very little money. In the realm of marital dissolution, private mediators are commonplace. Unions use grievance processes, and a plethora of other specialists in dispute resolution have sprung up to fill in the void left by a ridiculously lengthy, expensive and incompetent State court system.

The Stateless Society
An Examination of Alternatives http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html

mhstahl's picture

The GTFO comment was in respect to the city of Detroit only-a particularly horrible place to try to maintain any kind of property(or life, frankly.)

The comment was in reference to KenK's article about a gas station being over-run by hooligans *in Detroit*(or the near city metro area-I don't recall the article exactly.)

Conversely, I live 30 miles from Detroit and no gas stations are over-run-indeed, there is little crime.

AtlasAikido's picture

And that's the point. There are eyes in the storm [until you need to find another one].

To your point on a different scale: Steve Wynn's move of half of his hotel holdings from Vegas to Macau has allowed him to innovate and thrive, given a friendlier business environ [for now]. It is another model in degrees.

In Chapter 17 I'll [Harry Browne HIFFIUFW] suggests ways that you can find the people who represent your best market. strike-the-root.com/every-group-is-cult#comment-7055

But THE MAIN POINT IS Peace and Order IS already maintained autonomously via natural and customary laws (what anarco-capitalism is based on). There IS A "LIMIT" to how long such can continue in spite of the chaos caused by "The Most Dangerous Superstition": The *belief* that SOME Govt Authority, Intervention and Prohibitions are in SOME degree GOOD and NEEDED. caseyresearch.com/cdd/doug-casey-american-socialism

Which leads to GTFO of Dodge and its entanglements: Doug Casey on "Atlas Shrugged" caseyresearch.com/cdd/doug-casey-atlas-shrugged

Regarding the issue of "crime": “If the purpose of the State was to protect life, liberty, and property, they wouldn’t be the first ones to try and take it.” "The Tyranny of the Obligation" by Chris Dates zerogov.com/?p=2575

Reference: The Gun in the room (The State) is what makes "Perverse Incentives" (and the "Poaching" of one's neighbors) CONVENIENT. It has been so with the WAR on drugs, alcohol, education, roads, grocery shopping, driving, law, defense, copyright, human progress... ("Imperial Conditioning and the American State" and "Government is the Engine for Perverse Incentives" by Bill Buppert) zerogov.com/?p=2780

AtlasAikido's picture

Actually it is the Statist/Mini-Statist that IS UNREAL and is evidenced as talking in abstractions. NOT anarchists/agorists: Defenders of government, including Thomas Hobbes himself, seem to intuitively understand this, because they intentionally avoid talking about real government actors. They talk about government only in the most abstract terms, as if they know instinctively that their argument would be transparently absurd if they allowed real cops and real politicians into the debate.

They use terms like "government," "police," and "courts" only in the most abstract and evasive sense. They never point to real politicians and say things like "Man, without that Nancy Pelosi in Washington telling us what to do, we would all be raping and killing one another." They never point to real police officers and say things like "Well, it’s pretty obvious that without Larry – he’s the heavy-set guy in the blue costume with the mustache eating grits over there – you and I would probably be fighting to the death right now." And they never point to real government courts and say things like "You have to admit, Mark, that the judgments handed down by government courts in Colorado are always as fair and just as can be humanly imagined. No judicial arrangement could ever be better than what we have right now."

If Two Men Go Into the Woods Without a Police Officer, How Many Will Come Out Alive?
by Mark R. Crovelli
http://lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli71.1.html

Suverans2's picture

Getting lots of these of late:

    Internal Server Error

    The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

    Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@cloudnynedesign.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

    More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
    Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu) Server at www.strike-the-root.com Port 80

Darkcrusade's picture

''Take No Prisoners: Self Defense Killings in Detroit Spike to 2200% Above National Average; Justifiable Homicide up 79%

As the economic crisis in 2008 took hold and the nation’s spiral into the next Great Depression became more apparent, we opined that crime would sky rocket as a consequence of millions of lost jobs, falling purchasing power and outright desperation.

The city of Detroit, which has been a harbinger for future trends soon to take hold across major metropolitan areas around the country, has no doubt experienced the worst of the depression thus far. Entire city blocks have become unlivable due to foreclosures and rampant crime, the jobless rate in 2009 exceeded 50% and a mass exodus has left the population at levels not seen since 1910.

By all accounts, the Motor City is ground zero for the collapse of America as we know it. Reminiscent of poverty stricken third world countries, it’s gotten so bad in Detroit that there are areas of the city where police and emergency services personnel refuse to go.

This has left law abiding residents of the city no choice but to arm themselves and start taking matters into their own hands.
MORE> http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/gun_c...