"It’s a three-tiered system of justice! If there is not equal access, then it is not universal justice!"
—When people make this objection, they are pretending that we do not have multi-tiered justice now, with a government. It may not be official, but we clearly do.
Great and thoughtful article, Max. Thank you. I have made these arguments before. One of the main responses I get back is "today, when people attack the state, the protection team goes on the offensive and starts attacking the people - think the NKVD in 1930's Soviet Union. Competitive firms WITHIN a country are often no different from competition AMONG countries (think Operation Barbarossa): protection firms would simply take an offensive posture to steal from citizens protected by another firm. How would this be different in New America?" What would be a palatable response?
Such a good question. And I want to say with humility, I don't think my answer is perfect or like the tablets of Moses... But basically, I would argue there is a game-theoretic equilibrium in there. That is, if one association preys upon the other, the victimized association (with victim customers) must either:
> Invest more in defense, making predation increasingly costly.
> Engage in retaliation, leading to a cycle of that could destroy both.
> Seek cooperative arrangements, reducing costs for both parties.
An equilibrium should emerge where both recognize that perpetual conflict is too costly. If each firm continuously escalates its investment in security and retaliation, the marginal costs of conflict will exceed the potential gains from predation. The result ought to be an incentive for peaceful coexistence, much like James Buchanan's logic for the minimal state.
So, beyond a certain point, it becomes rational for both protective associations to negotiate a truce—effectively creating an informal legal order based on something like third-party arbitration.
I'm sure there is an answer to this problem. It seems unlikely that a number of competing firms would not have associations that would hold members accountable if any one member company became abusive to clients or people in their area. Also there should be volunteer militias with state of the art weapons and training to handle those committing such abuses. Also I'm sure that among them there could quite likely be some specialized trained private forces that these companies would profit to be certified to by contract, that if they received reports that they abused their customers or attempted some kind of "protection racket" they had consented to be arrested and hauled into court by these "specialists." If your protection company didn't have this certification you would not be competitive to the discerning customer in this competitive market.
Most of the countries fire departments are volunteer. There's no reason we couldn't have volunteer or partially compensated police departments in a vast swath of America. The basic structure to serve is already in place for training, elections, and self governance for fire departments. The level jumps up with police, but its entirely possible. The systems are very well thought out.
I agree, and also private arbitration courts could also offer a discount for full jury trials if you contracted as part of your agreement to serve as a juror for a certain number of hearings saving you a lot if you came to want a full jury of your peers to sit on your trial. As I said I worked for one of these private non tax funded fire departments in Arizona and it had better service and far less cost than any others in the whole country.
Local jurisdictions would contract with varied policing acadamies/philosophies based on local exigencies. Policing institutions would compete for contracts with many client regions and share worldwide data bases .
I for one am more than ready to live in the "New America." This represents a form of justice and protection from criminality that does not violate the principle of consent and free agency. It would undoubtedly greatly raise the standard of justice while lowering the cost just as it has in the free market for the most cost effective and best quality goods and services of other kinds that are out there. It's called the "free market system" for a reason. I know it could work. If you are someone like Jack Reacher and are quite capable of taking care of your own security then fine, don't pay for this service. I lived in Mesa, Arizona for awhile. There they had something called the Rural/Metro Fire Department. One of the finest and most highly rated fire departments in the whole nation. However it was not paid for by taxes taken from the citizens by coercion. My job there was to go around and offer subscriptions to their services. You did not have to pay this modest service fee unless you wanted to do so. If you did not and had a fire you would be liable for a considerable fee for the services rendered in putting it out to protect the surrounding houses of your neighbors and the work and risk of trained firefighters and their expensive equipment. If you had a subscription there was no cost to you for these services. No reason they couldn't have a discount if they met certain qualifications like having fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems, fire resistant materials etc. As a result the cities served by the RMFD paid far less than other cities and got much better and more professional service. No reason this could not apply to policing and judiciary services as well.
After reading "Framed" by John Grisham, I want nothing to do with society's current invention of justice and law-fare. As long as we are creating a new way to live, we need an overhaul of the justice system. Not sure if community policing is the answer.
Thanks. It's good to remind people there is an alternative to total slavery. Such options are already established in cities like Detroit, where the woke be broke, and in Redmond, where unionized public service quality is unacceptable to the affluent. The rural approach is estimable. Of course, to the yankee occupation force propagandists, such effrontery mustn't be allowed!
In the new virtual country called Immortalis, protection would be provided under the universal natural law and the capitalist law of supply and demand just as it was for the 10 million years before criminal government was invented. I've written about the universal natural law elsewhere and it can be included in insurance ;policies to protect clients from losses n a voluntary contractual basis. If there is a demand for protection, some entrepreneur will supply it. On the other hand, according to Say's law, supply creates its own demand where there had been none before such as a supply of electric cars by Elon Musk.
I like the idea that We ALL are responsible for arresting (or calling for help in arresting) anyOne who breaks the three Laws of Ethics (the only true Laws). We should presume everyOne is armed.
Without "money" (anything tangible We use to account for the energy We input into a system. This can be trade, barter, work exchange, shells, beads, sticks notched and split, coins (metals), bills (paper), or electronic bits (or anything else used for that purpose)), the breaking of the Laws will be very rare indeed, of course... Thus I aim to remove that psychopath-promoting tool...
Since you brought up Iceland I'm sharing a piece on Icelandic law in the long ago. And their reliance on a Lawspeaker to accurately and faithfully speak the laws of Iceland as called upon, before written code existed. A fascinating presentation of how that society that bills itself as the oldest democratic form of government in the world functioned under laws in its earliest forms:
New America is peopled by the same people as Old America. That is, the people are as vulnerable to temptation, and are just as vulnerable to abuse. In order for game playing to be a valuable tool the players in both have to have the same vulnerabilities--lacking the ability to change real people. Otherwise, it remains fiction.
Our problems are not in our systems, they are in us.
"It’s a three-tiered system of justice! If there is not equal access, then it is not universal justice!"
—When people make this objection, they are pretending that we do not have multi-tiered justice now, with a government. It may not be official, but we clearly do.
Great and thoughtful article, Max. Thank you. I have made these arguments before. One of the main responses I get back is "today, when people attack the state, the protection team goes on the offensive and starts attacking the people - think the NKVD in 1930's Soviet Union. Competitive firms WITHIN a country are often no different from competition AMONG countries (think Operation Barbarossa): protection firms would simply take an offensive posture to steal from citizens protected by another firm. How would this be different in New America?" What would be a palatable response?
Such a good question. And I want to say with humility, I don't think my answer is perfect or like the tablets of Moses... But basically, I would argue there is a game-theoretic equilibrium in there. That is, if one association preys upon the other, the victimized association (with victim customers) must either:
> Invest more in defense, making predation increasingly costly.
> Engage in retaliation, leading to a cycle of that could destroy both.
> Seek cooperative arrangements, reducing costs for both parties.
An equilibrium should emerge where both recognize that perpetual conflict is too costly. If each firm continuously escalates its investment in security and retaliation, the marginal costs of conflict will exceed the potential gains from predation. The result ought to be an incentive for peaceful coexistence, much like James Buchanan's logic for the minimal state.
So, beyond a certain point, it becomes rational for both protective associations to negotiate a truce—effectively creating an informal legal order based on something like third-party arbitration.
I'm sure there is an answer to this problem. It seems unlikely that a number of competing firms would not have associations that would hold members accountable if any one member company became abusive to clients or people in their area. Also there should be volunteer militias with state of the art weapons and training to handle those committing such abuses. Also I'm sure that among them there could quite likely be some specialized trained private forces that these companies would profit to be certified to by contract, that if they received reports that they abused their customers or attempted some kind of "protection racket" they had consented to be arrested and hauled into court by these "specialists." If your protection company didn't have this certification you would not be competitive to the discerning customer in this competitive market.
cui bono?
Most of the countries fire departments are volunteer. There's no reason we couldn't have volunteer or partially compensated police departments in a vast swath of America. The basic structure to serve is already in place for training, elections, and self governance for fire departments. The level jumps up with police, but its entirely possible. The systems are very well thought out.
I agree, and also private arbitration courts could also offer a discount for full jury trials if you contracted as part of your agreement to serve as a juror for a certain number of hearings saving you a lot if you came to want a full jury of your peers to sit on your trial. As I said I worked for one of these private non tax funded fire departments in Arizona and it had better service and far less cost than any others in the whole country.
Local jurisdictions would contract with varied policing acadamies/philosophies based on local exigencies. Policing institutions would compete for contracts with many client regions and share worldwide data bases .
Nice, I like it.
So, we get a whole new crop of the same old corruptocrats?
I for one am more than ready to live in the "New America." This represents a form of justice and protection from criminality that does not violate the principle of consent and free agency. It would undoubtedly greatly raise the standard of justice while lowering the cost just as it has in the free market for the most cost effective and best quality goods and services of other kinds that are out there. It's called the "free market system" for a reason. I know it could work. If you are someone like Jack Reacher and are quite capable of taking care of your own security then fine, don't pay for this service. I lived in Mesa, Arizona for awhile. There they had something called the Rural/Metro Fire Department. One of the finest and most highly rated fire departments in the whole nation. However it was not paid for by taxes taken from the citizens by coercion. My job there was to go around and offer subscriptions to their services. You did not have to pay this modest service fee unless you wanted to do so. If you did not and had a fire you would be liable for a considerable fee for the services rendered in putting it out to protect the surrounding houses of your neighbors and the work and risk of trained firefighters and their expensive equipment. If you had a subscription there was no cost to you for these services. No reason they couldn't have a discount if they met certain qualifications like having fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems, fire resistant materials etc. As a result the cities served by the RMFD paid far less than other cities and got much better and more professional service. No reason this could not apply to policing and judiciary services as well.
After reading "Framed" by John Grisham, I want nothing to do with society's current invention of justice and law-fare. As long as we are creating a new way to live, we need an overhaul of the justice system. Not sure if community policing is the answer.
We may have to wait until the first sizeable Mars colony (or L5 colony) to see anything like this implemented.
No doubt. Systems in amber.
Thanks. It's good to remind people there is an alternative to total slavery. Such options are already established in cities like Detroit, where the woke be broke, and in Redmond, where unionized public service quality is unacceptable to the affluent. The rural approach is estimable. Of course, to the yankee occupation force propagandists, such effrontery mustn't be allowed!
https://youtu.be/4pt6hnabnkU
In the new virtual country called Immortalis, protection would be provided under the universal natural law and the capitalist law of supply and demand just as it was for the 10 million years before criminal government was invented. I've written about the universal natural law elsewhere and it can be included in insurance ;policies to protect clients from losses n a voluntary contractual basis. If there is a demand for protection, some entrepreneur will supply it. On the other hand, according to Say's law, supply creates its own demand where there had been none before such as a supply of electric cars by Elon Musk.
I like the idea that We ALL are responsible for arresting (or calling for help in arresting) anyOne who breaks the three Laws of Ethics (the only true Laws). We should presume everyOne is armed.
Without "money" (anything tangible We use to account for the energy We input into a system. This can be trade, barter, work exchange, shells, beads, sticks notched and split, coins (metals), bills (paper), or electronic bits (or anything else used for that purpose)), the breaking of the Laws will be very rare indeed, of course... Thus I aim to remove that psychopath-promoting tool...
Are you saying you want to get rid of money?
Absolutely. It is a dangerous and archaic tool. I offer My latest piece if You want to delve into how and the details of why:
I Want What's Mine (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/i-want-whats-mine
Since you brought up Iceland I'm sharing a piece on Icelandic law in the long ago. And their reliance on a Lawspeaker to accurately and faithfully speak the laws of Iceland as called upon, before written code existed. A fascinating presentation of how that society that bills itself as the oldest democratic form of government in the world functioned under laws in its earliest forms:
https://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/laws.htm
YES, thank you. I have been super curious about it.
Great idea. My concern is the community police and justice become the new Controllers.
New America is peopled by the same people as Old America. That is, the people are as vulnerable to temptation, and are just as vulnerable to abuse. In order for game playing to be a valuable tool the players in both have to have the same vulnerabilities--lacking the ability to change real people. Otherwise, it remains fiction.
Our problems are not in our systems, they are in us.
I respectfully disagree. The problems are in both. Incentives matter, as do moral-cultural norms, habits and practices.
"We shape our tools and then our rules shape us. We shape our rules and then our tools shape us."
Our natures, our morality/cultures, our systems, and our technologies shape us.