How society can avoid paying for police, court and prisons

There are two main schools of thought in the Austrian School of Economics with respect to how a purely capitalistic society must be organized.

The first one is represented by the minarchists, who believe that the functions of state must be minimal and restricted to police, courts and military. And since these services are state-run, they should be supported by taxes. Minarchists acknowledge that this solution is not optimal because from an ethical standpoint, taxation is an application of force, and from an economic point of view, it decreases economic growth. However, they do not see a better solution.

The second school of thought is represented by the anarcho-capitalists, who think that the state should not exist at all and that police, courts and military should be run by the free market. People would pay for them directly as separate services or indirectly through insurance companies.

What the two views have in common is that the owners of a particular property would pay for its protection either indirectly (through taxes) or directly (through buying protection). Ethically and economically, however, paying to protect your own property is not right.

From an ethical point of view, both schools view stealing and in general encroachment on private property as a crime. Because such crimes do exist, one is forced by the circumstances to pay for the protection of one’ own possessions. However, being forced to do anything is ethically wrong, because it represents an initiation of force. Moreover, if you pay to ensure the continuous possession of a particular item, then this means that this item is not entirely yours, you are paying and will continue paying in order to retain it. Such a situation contradicts both schools’ belief that private property is a basic human right. If private property is a basic human right, then why do you have to continuously pay for it?

From an economic standpoint, paying for the protection of your possessions is a waste of resources. One could use the money spent for protection for other purposes, producing new and improved goods and services, so that his life and the lives of the people around him would get better. Instead of paying for steel doors, burglar alarms and high walls around the house, one could invest in a new business, buy things for the house or just make life more enjoyable by treating oneself to a trip to Paris. Paying in order to have what you already have is a waste of resources!

The solution to the above problem is quite simple. Breaches of private property must be indemnified by the one who violates the property, not by the one who owns it. This means that when a thief steals something, he must pay for his own capture by the police, for the judge, for his stay in prison and, of course, for compensating the owner of the stolen property. Such a solution would allow the police, courts and prisons to fund themselves according to the laws of the free market. That is, they would operate as private companies and be subject to the laws of supply and demand.

As I said, the above idea is simple, but because it is completely new, it is difficult to come to terms with. It contradicts contemporary reality and therefore, it must be discussed in detail. It is difficult for people to imagine situations for which there are no analogs in their lives. That is why I will examine how this could be implemented in detail, i.e., how a society can be organized in which one does not pay for the protection of one’s possessions. But since the protection of private property is guaranteed by the existence of the police, courts and prison system ( and the army), I will explain how these institutions could be organized without one being forced to pay for them.

First, the police. At present, the police is financed by taxes but in the proposed new societal organization it would finance itself from and by the very act of fighting crime. It is not society that should pay for the work of the police but the criminals. From an ethical viewpoint, this is absolutely right. People should bear full responsibility for their wrongdoings. What this ensures is that the size and the organization of the police forces would always meet to the crime protection needs of a society. In societies with high crime rates, the police force would be stronger, better organized and better equipped, and where crime is almost nonexistent, police presence would be hard to see. The size and the organization of the police force would be determined by the market forces. And all this would be possible just because we would have declared criminals fair game. Crime would become a source of income for the police and that in turn would make the crime in itself a very costly and risky undertaking indeed.

In particular, the police could function in the following way: The police captures a suspect and sends him to court. If the court finds the person guilty, then the criminal would have to pay for the expenses the police has incurred plus a market-determined profit. If the court finds the person not guilty, however, then the police would not be paid. Whatever expenses it has made (for capturing the suspect, for keeping him under arrest and for a lawyer to sue the suspect), it would have to cover itself. What this guarantees is that the police would have to be sure that there is enough and convincing evidence before somebody is sent to court. If the police makes a mistake, it would suffer. It would have to accept the consequences of its own actions, right or wrong. This is how every private company functions. Just as a comparison: nowadays, the police does not take responsibility for its own actions or if this happens, it is only partially. If a person is arrested by mistake, for instance, the police does not pay, society pays. The result is that the police nowadays does not care much whom it arrests and why would it care, since there are no consequences? In the proposed police system, the police would function like any private company and, therefore, would be motivated to do its job well, because only thus would it be able to exist and prosper. In such a system, there could be thousands of police forces in competition with each other. And because of the market forces, the forces of competition, the police would have to improve and develop itself like any other private company.

Let us once again compare this situation to the contemporary reality: Nowadays, the structure, organization and equipment of the police are determined centrally. Such central control is ineffective and the result is that the police is under- or overstaffed, badly equipped and badly organized, and so in many cases lagging behind organized crime. Such a situation could never occur under the proposed organizational system. Furthermore, my system solves one of the main problems of the anarcho-capitalists, namely the problem with the competing police forces. According to the anarchistic view, one could hire a police force for protection. However, what happens when this person commits a crime? He would be protected by the police even if he is guilty. In order for him to be punished, a larger opposing police force would be necessary to successfully defeat his protective forces. This could result in an open war between the competing police forces. Such a situation is non-existent in the proposed police system, since all the police forces would target the same potential criminals and would not be opposed to each other. They would behave as any other private company nowadays. In reality, private companies are in competition with each other to serve a common client, they do not serve two or more clients with opposing interests.

Having discussed the police, we can now continue with the court system. The court system would be market-based. What this means is that the number of judges, their respective specializations, etc., would be determined by the needs of the particular society. However, this could happen only if judges are paid by the market and so are subject to the market forces. In comparison, currently judges are paid by the state and this means through taxes. Of course, the court system is centrally regulated, which in turn leads to problems such as: high expenses, understaffing, long delays (years) for a decision/conviction, etc., that is, all the typical problems any centrally organized system suffers from. However, a judge in the proposed judiciary system would be paid by his clients and they would be the police and the accused in the case of criminal law and the two separate private citizens/organizations/companies in the case of civil law. With civil law, the situation would be more or less similar to the current one, namely, both sides would pay the judge for reaching and issuing a decision. The only difference is that they would have to pay the full court expenses. In the present system, a significant portion of judiciary expenses is paid by the state. What people may find hard to accept is that such a system could also function in the case of criminal law. That is, the judge would be paid by his clients, who in the case of criminal law are the police on the one side and the accused on the other. Such a situation would be considered preposterous and impossible by most people , because how it can be ensured that the judge would be impartial if he is paid by the clients, that is, when he is dependent on them. In order to answer this argument, let us first review how the current judiciary system functions. Judges are paid by the state so that they can be independent, which in turn makes them impartial when they rule on a case. However, the end goal is not to make judges independent but impartial. In the present system, we try to achieve this impartiality of the judges through their independence from the two contending parties. However, the real objective, as I already mentioned, is impartiality and in order to accomplish this, one does not need to be independent, it can also be achieved when the judge is equally dependent on both sides. Let me reiterate, since this is an important concept. We strive for impartiality, not independence. Independence is just one way of reaching impartiality. There are other ways too. For instance, when the judge is paid equally by both sides and chosen by both sides. And this is what I suggest. The police and the accused should pay in equal share for the work of the court. One cannot let just one side pay for the court, for instance the police, because then the judge would be tempted to uphold only the interests of the police and not those of the accused. So, the choice of who the judge would be and the payment for his services would have to be a joint decision between the police and the arrested person. They would both have to come to an agreement about who the judge would be. An interesting consequence of this is that a judge in such a situation cannot allow himself to look partial. If he is known to rule predominantly in favor of the police, then no accused person would choose him under any circumstances. Such a judge would be soon out of business. He would have to strive to be and appear as impartial as possible, so that both sides would agree to hire his services. But what happens when the two sides cannot reach an agreement? Then the laws must provide a solution, for instance, the judge could be selected at random from a list of prospective judges.

What the two sides, namely the police and the accused have in common is that they both want the court to be as effective as possible and as inexpensive as possible. Consequently, they would look for judges whose fees are lower and whose services are of high quality (a quick, well-justified ruling, for instance). So there would be market pressure for the judges to provide high quality services at prices as low as possible. The judges themselves would set their fees high enough that they would be interested in working as judges and low enough to suit their clients. In effect, the prices for ruling on a case would be decided by the market forces.

Once a judge has reached a decision about whether the accused person is guilty, he would have to decide about the expenses of both sides. If the accused is found not guilty, then the police would have to cover all of its expenses itself. If, however, the accused is found guilty, then he would have to pay the expenses of the police. Here comes the interesting part: The judge would have to balance between the interests of the convicted and those of the police. The police would want the criminal to pay as much as possible but the interests of the convicted would be exactly the opposite. A judge who does not cover the expenses of the police plus some market-defined profit would never be selected by the police. At the same time, a judge who makes the convicted pay a lot would also never be chosen by the accused. As I already mentioned, a judge would have to find a balance between the interests of the two contending parties. This, in my opinion, would lead to market prices for the services of the police.

Lawyers are also a part of the judiciary system. Their number and specialization (civil, criminal law or both) would be determined by market demand. Lawyers would be paid by the police or by the accused to represent them in court. In cases of civil law, they would represent the two contending parties. If somebody could not afford a lawyer, they would have to find one who is willing to be paid later (through work of the accused in jail, through bank loans or if not guilty – by the party which has lost the case).

Another part of the judiciary system are the prisons. The prison system would also be market-based. They would be and act as private companies which offer a service, namely “punishing criminals”. Their clients would be the prisoners themselves, who would pay for their stay in jail. The prisoners would have a say in the matter of the prison they would like to go to, but their choice would be only limited to “which one”, not whether to go there or not. Basically, prisons would be in competition with each other to be chosen by the convicted. They would try to offer better services, namely living conditions, so that they could attract prospective clients. This would guarantee market pressure for improvement, something which is nonexistent today in the prison system. And when the criminals pay for what they get, they would be treated with respect. Prison guard brutality and prison violence in general would be virtually nonexistent. It is instructive to mention that according to the intent behind the law, the purpose of prison is to punish the criminal by limiting his rights, that is, by separating him from society. It has never been the intention to punish a criminal by subjecting him to poor living conditions. This happens almost always today when a criminal is sent to a low-quality prison.

Since prisons will be paid by the criminals, their number would be determined by the crime rates themselves. That is, the number and quality of prisons would be determined by the market.

A prisoner would have to pay for his stay in jail. Just as a comparison, today prisoners are a severe burden on society, since it has to pay for their stay in jail. In the proposed system, however, if a prisoner has enough money to pay for the services of the prison, then he would be there like at a hotel. However, if the prisoner does not have enough money to pay for his stay in prison, then he would have to work while there in order to pay for his stay. In a purely capitalistic market society, jobs would be abundant and it would always be possible for a prisoner to work in jail. In fact, instead of a burden on society, criminals would be productive citizens, albeit with limited human rights.

So far, we have discussed how the police, courts and prisons would function. It is, however, interesting to take a look at the situation from the point of view of criminal activity. What would actually happen is that committing a crime would become a very expensive and risky undertaking.

In the present system, when a criminal is convicted, he does not have to pay for his conviction, for police services and for prison stay. This is provided free of charge by the society. In the proposed system, the criminal would have to pay. Moreover, he would have to pay for all of the above, plus compensate all damages caused by his criminal act. For instance, if he has broken into a house and stolen something, he would have to compensate the house owner. What would be worse for him is that he would be liable with all his property and if unable to pay out while working in jail during his prison sentence, then he would have to continue paying after he is freed. If the criminal has caused very significant damages, he would have to pay for them for the rest of his life.

Furthermore, crime would be a very high–risk venture because everybody would be out there to get the perpetrator. The police would be very highly motivated to do its job right (which is not the case nowadays) and in general, everybody would want to catch him, because there would be a reward for apprehending the criminal. The bigger the crime, the bigger the reward. The police would surely pay for any information which could help them. Those who have suffered due to the criminal act would also want the perpetrator caught, because only so would they be compensated for their loses.

In conclusion, I would like to summarize the main ideas of the article. Paying for the protection of our private property contradicts the ethical and economic ideas conceptualizing private property ownership. Because of this, a new system of organization of the police, courts and prisons is suggested, which does not suffer from the main drawbacks of the minarchistic and anarcho-capitalistic proposals. It allows these organizations to function without the financial support of the state (as in minarchism) or of the owners of the private property (as in anarcho-capitalism). The structure and organization of the police, courts and prisons was discussed in detail and it was shown that they can function without external support, despite the ostensibly obvious but incorrect counterarguments. All this would allow society to function according to the rules of the free market. This in itself would lead to an optimal use of the resources of the particular economy. The proposed idea does not require the levying of taxes or the existence of a state as such in order to function. The only external information which is needed would be the particular laws which would regulate it.

Written By

Youliy Ninov

A person interested in Austrian economics.

Published On

A new type of societal organization

A new social system unlike Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism

Next Up

Join The Discussion

39 Comments

Dave Burns September 15, 2014 , 6:51 am Log in to Reply Vote0

” If private property is a basic human right, then why do you have to continuously pay for it?”

It is a basic human right not to be murdered, but that doesn’t mean I would not like to hire some bodyguards if I thought I was facing some serious danger. Having a right does nothing to prevent it from being violated. Paying for protection won’t necessarily prevent violations.

I need to think over your idea before making any real comment. I am concerned about avoiding corruption, since the “customer” does not get to choose who serves him or bargain over the price of the service. I am also concerned about the moral and practical issues of reviving slavery, even if we assume only the guilty will face enslavement.
Dave Burns September 15, 2014 , 8:52 am Log in to Reply Vote0

Your article repeats itself, you have an editing problem.
Judges may be biased in favor of frequent clients. Because the cops deal with judges often, they may get favored treatment.

Locks are not a waste if they provide a real benefit.

People may wish to insure against the risk of theft. It may be that the insurer can increase profits by taking actions that reduce risk of theft generally. In any case, if I am insured against theft and a theft occurs, the insurer must pay me and then seek restitution or recovery of the stolen goods from the thief.

For your system to work, society must change. If we assume the necessary changes will take place, that is, that convicted thieves can reasonably repay the cost of apprehending them, it seems likely that there will be no thieves, because if making money is that easy, why take such a big risk? On the other hand, if catching someone who stole a million dollar diamond won’t cost so much more than catching a mugger, will the police be paid the same? Will the punishment therefore be the same?

And why even put a thief in prison? If his punishment is just to pay back the loot plus the cost of investigation and capture, why not just make him wear a secure tracking device or some such and let him live and work where he likes?

Or perhaps the cops will arrange it so that the debt can never be paid? Then they have a slave for life.

What if there is no criminal captured and convicted for 6 months and all the cops go out of business? Or would they be entitled to charge a shoplifter enough to cover their 6 month dry spell?

How would we make the transition from the current situation to your system?

It is an interesting idea, but I don’t think it will work. Security is a valuable service, whether you provide it for yourself or hire someone else. Theft investigation is just one aspect of security.
- Youliy Ninov September 15, 2014 , 2:21 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  “Having a right does nothing to prevent it from being violated. Paying for protection won’t necessarily prevent violations.”
  
  Absolutely correct. Why do you think that I am agains this? If you wish to pay, you must be free to do so. The real problem is not to be forced to do so. Just to mention that paying or not paying for protection will not prevent violations.
  
  ” I am also concerned about the moral and practical issues of reviving slavery”
  
  Let me be clear: I am 100%, absolutely, totally AGAINST slavery. It goes against all my basic beliefs. I guess you have misinterpreted why I mentioned slavery in the discussion under the other article. There I discussed the financial context and created an analogy (obviously should not have do so!).
  The criminals in jail will never be slaves. The only human right of theirs which will be limited is the access to society. Under my system this will be the ONLY limitation. Just for a comparison: At present a criminal in prison does not get some other rights like: adequate protection against violence (basic right), good living conditions (he could have afforded them), etc. The reason is that prisons are not even remotely market based. What I offer is significant improvement over the present situation. Actually, under my system the prisons will live up to the promises made in the contemporary legislation, which is not the case nowadays.
  - Youliy Ninov September 15, 2014 , 3:04 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    “Judges may be biased in favor of frequent clients. Because the cops deal with judges often, they may get favored treatment.”
    
    Not possible. Suppose that a judge was biased. If I were a criminal would I choose this person to judge me? Never, if I am in my right mind. Under my system the accused can choose the judge.
    Actually if a judge wishes to stay in business he will have to be and look as impartial as possible because otherwise no police group or accused will select him. Being impartial will become the most important quality for a judge to have.
    
    “Locks are not a waste if they provide a real benefit”
    
    Exactly. The problem is that they do not provide a real benefit. You buy a lock not because you want to, but because you are forced to. If you don’t buy one you will suffer. Basically you spend money on something which does not bring you a benefit. Just as a comparison: with the same money you could have bought yourself a cup or something else, which would make your life better. Locks do not make your life better. They keep you life from getting worse.
    
    “People may wish to insure against the risk of theft”
    
    In my system they are free to do so. However they are not forced to do so (as in Minarchism and Anarcho-capitalism).
    
    ” If we assume the necessary changes will take place, that is, that convicted thieves can reasonably repay the cost of apprehending them, it seems likely that there will be no thieves, because if making money is that easy, why take such a big risk?”
    
    History changes the economic circumstances from thousands of years and there are still thieves. Some people just need to steal.
    
    “On the other hand, if catching someone who stole a million dollar diamond won’t cost so much more than catching a mugger, will the police be paid the same? Will the punishment therefore be the same?”
    
    The punishment for the crime should correspond to the damage, but how much to pay the police is another matter. I will have to take some time to think about the latter. A good point.
    
    “If his punishment is just to pay back the loot plus the cost of investigation and capture, why not just make him wear a secure tracking device or some such and let him live and work where he likes?”
    
    If I have let you believe, that the punishment for a criminal is just to pay back what he has stolen, then I apologize. I have never thought that I may be misunderstood. A criminal must be punished for what he has done first and then compensate the damages he has caused. An example: A thief steals a car which costs 5000 USD. He must spend 2 years in jail because of his act and pay the police, judge, prison and owner in addition. He is free to pay as he wishes. If he has the money he can pay immediately, but he will stay in jail for 2 years anyway. However if he refuses to pay, he may stay in some low-quality jail forever. The market will however provide incentives for the criminal to work: if he works he can afford himself more amenities in a higher quality jail and he will be able to get out of jail after the two year period. However if the criminal has caused really big damages he may have to continue paying for them all his life.
    
    “What if there is no criminal captured and convicted for 6 months and all the cops go out of business?”
    
    Exactly! This is what makes my system REALLY market based. The above means that crime is small and we do not need so many policemen. Because the police feeds from crime, the size and quality of the police forces will adjust to the REAL needs of the particular society. In Minarchism and Anarcho-capitalism the size of the police forces is determined by the PERCEIVED need of the society, that is, how people judge the crime, i.e. subjectively. In my system the police size and organization will be determined objectively.
    
    “Or perhaps the cops will arrange it so that the debt can never be paid? Then they have a slave for life.”
    
    NO slavery!
    
    “How would we make the transition from the current situation to your system?”
    
    I don’t know. Ask some Minarchist or Anarcho-capitalist. They have the same problem. I guess they will have some ideas.
    
    “Security is a valuable service, whether you provide it for yourself or hire someone else.”
    
    Yes, but what has the above to do with my system?
    
    A general note: English is not my mother tongue 🙂
Dave Burns September 15, 2014 , 9:58 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

“However they are not forced to do so [buy insurance] (as in Minarchism and Anarcho-capitalism).”

In Ancapistan, no one is forced to buy anything. Some flavors of minarchism allow total opt-out. So what you are saying about the other ideas is not strictly accurate. Also, your idea could be combined with some flavor of minarchism or anarchism. It is not a third way, it is a strategy for funding law enforcement, one that could be used with any system.

We are sort of dancing around some significant problems: how best to motivate persons to not violate each others’ rights, how cognitive biases enable corruption among law enforcers, judges, and prison guards, what maybe could be done about it, and the “meta” problem of how to figure this out and integrate such knowledge into the system. Perhaps that is fair, since these problems are problems whether we are discussing the status quo, or some sort of utopia. On the other hand, I can’t get too excited about a major change based on armchair theorizing.

“[“How would we make the transition from the current situation to your system?”]
“I don’t know. Ask some Minarchist or Anarcho-capitalist. They have the same problem. I guess they will have some ideas.”

Minarchists seem to think they will vote their way to utopia. Ancaps seem not to think about it in much detail mostly. Maybe most plan to preach their way to utopia. I think this is their most significant flaw.

[“Security is a valuable service, whether you provide it for yourself or hire someone else.”]
“Yes, but what has the above to do with my system?”

Your attitude in the article is that no one should have to pay for law enforcement. I claim enforcement is part of security. You just want free stuff.
- Youliy Ninov September 16, 2014 , 5:53 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  “In Ancapistan, no one is forced to buy anything. Some flavors of minarchism allow total opt-out. So what you are saying about the other ideas is not strictly accurate.”
  
  You made me thinking. And I concluded that you are right. Actually, in Ancapistan I am strictly speaking not forced to do anything. However this has consequences and the most important one is that in Anarcho-capitalism violence IS ALLOWED. They say that they are against the violence as such but in practice they are not. For instance: Somebody comes to kill me. If I defend myself, then not problem exist. However: I am not forced to do it and nobody protects me. I can choose not to defend myself and I die. And society is OK with this. So, in Anarcho-capitalism violence can exist freely and is allowed. Basically they condone violence. What is not banned is allowed.
  I am changing my opinion. Minarchism is more consistent than Anarcho-capitalism. At least with Minarchism violence is generally outlawed, although still allowed for the purpose of collecting taxes.
  Typically the terms “anarchy” and ” chaos” are not synonyms. However in the case of the Anarcho-capitalism they seem to be synonymous. A system in which violence is allowed can not function. It is chaotic.
  
  So: In Minarchism the violence is officially allowed for the purpose of collecting taxes and in Anarcho-capitalism violence is unofficially allowed generally. Just in my system violence is officially and unofficially disallowed. So to answer you statement, namely :”It is not a third way, it is a strategy for funding law enforcement, one that could be used with any system.”
  
  It is actually a third way because it is fundamentally different.
  I am thinking of calling my system Voluntarism. The term exists, but I believe I can differentiate it, hijack it for my own purposes.
  
  Now about the other topics you brought up:
  
  “how best to motivate persons to not violate each others’ rights”
  
  The right way is to change the underlying culture and ideas. There are societies in which people do not steal so much as in others and consequently not so many locks and police protection are necessary. The human nature is the same in all societies, what differs is the ideas they espouse. So, if you change the ideas somehow you can achieve the above goal.
  
  “how cognitive biases enable corruption among law enforcers, judges, and prison guards,”
  
  You will have to explain what exactly you mean.
  
  About how a society can change: When the underlying ideas change the society changes. Have you read Gustav Le Bon? In his opinion a revolution is not the starting point of a change but the end point. The ideas of the people have been changed already and the revolution itself just completes/ends the change.
  The hard problem is how and why peoples’ ideas change.
  
  ” I claim enforcement is part of security. You just want free stuff.”
  
  I am not clear what exactly you mean. What I think is the following: In my system one has protection, although one does not pay for it. However this protection does not guarantee that one will never be robbed for example. It just guarantees that the robbers will be punished with high probability and that the robberies will not be many because of the effective police presence. However if you wish NEVER to be robbed, then you pay for guards, burglar alarms, etc yourself. And there is not problem with this. My system does not forbid such an action in any way.
Dave Burns September 16, 2014 , 9:37 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

” I can choose not to defend myself and I die. And society is OK with this.”
Society gets to decide whether they are okay with it or not, person by person, neighborhood by neighborhood, etc.

“It is actually a third way because it is fundamentally different.”

Why can’t I create my minarchist society and use your system for law enforcement? Why couldn’t the ancapistanis choose to use your system in a particular region?

About your last point: In your article you take the position that it is unjust to ask persons whose rights get violated to help pay for enforcement of their rights. I think this is just part of the cost of security, depending on how things are arranged. Put it another way: if enforcing rights cannot support a profitable business based on your system, I am not ready to abandon the idea of enforcing rights. This is a service that is being provided. If your system works, great, if not, try something else.
Dave Burns September 16, 2014 , 10:05 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

Really, you should edit your article. Everything is repeated twice. search the page for “s, so that his life and the lives of the people around him would get better. Instead of paying for steel doors, burglar alarms and high walls around the house, one could invest in a new business,” and it shows up twice (now 3 times, since I quoted it).
- Youliy Ninov September 17, 2014 , 5:50 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  Thanks. The first time you mentioned it I decided that my ideas repeat.
- Youliy Ninov September 17, 2014 , 6:33 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  “Society gets to decide whether they are okay with it or not, person by person, neighborhood by neighborhood, etc.”
  
  If society decides about this person by person, then this is a recipe for disaster and chaos. That is why judges are needed. Because they are supposed to be impartial. If groups decide then laws are needed, because you can not convene the particular group every time something has happened. In addition we need judges and police, and these must be funded. In Ancapistan this will happen voluntarily, but his means that people will provide for their own protection, not for the protection of the others. So, to sum it up: If I do not do something against it, for instance pay for police protection, they I die and there will be no consequences. So, violence can rule. And this is just one example. What however happens when the interests of two groups collide? No good solution exists. Most probably the stronger group will prevail. Wild wild West.
  
  “Why can’t I create my minarchist society and use your system for law enforcement? Why couldn’t the ancapistanis choose to use your system in a particular region?”
  
  If Ancaps decide to use my system, then they stop being what they are, because their system transfers itself to my system.
  It is more interesting with Minarchists. If they decide to use my type of funding for police, courts and prisons then what is left to decide is just laws. So, they will levy taxes just for supporting a parliament and voting. I must admit, that you are right. This seems possible. They will however need to enact laws to stop their people from leaving their state along with their land, because otherwise they will cease to exist as a state. Nobody likes paying taxes.
  
  If my system is allowed to exist along with Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism, then they will wither because they are inferior. In Minarchism people will pay taxes (everybody hates it) and laws will be democratically imposed on unwilling people. Ancapistan will be totally chaotic. The Minarchist may survive for some time by isolating themselves (North Korea, Kuba, the former east block) but the anarchist have no chance, since they can not stop their people with force from leaving them.
  
  “If your system works, great, if not, try something else.”
  
  The reason I discuss my system with you is to find if there are weak points. If a system is logically consistent then it may be the right one. If a system is not logically consistent, then is never the right one. So, do you think it can work?
Dave Burns September 17, 2014 , 10:39 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

“If society decides about this person by person, then this is a recipe for disaster and chaos.”
I guess I was not clear. Society will make certain options available, which usually could include “oh just forget about it.” I am not advocating vigilantism. (Though that is an interesting question, how to deal with that.)

“In Ancapistan this will happen voluntarily, but his means that people will provide for their own protection, not for the protection of the others.”
This is not necessarily so. They could choose more or less protection for themselves, including none, or could group together for mutual protection if they wish. Maybe neighborhoods will get a group discount.

“If Ancaps decide to use my system, then they stop being what they are, because their system transfers itself to my system.”
I disagree. Either I misunderstand your system, or you have defined anarcho-capitalism more narrowly than I do.

“The reason I discuss my system with you is to find if there are weak points. If a system is logically consistent then it may be the right one. If a system is not logically consistent, then is never the right one. So, do you think it can work?”

I already mentioned some things about it I dislike. But what I think while sitting in my armchair doesn’t matter very much. If I had been alive 100 years ago, I’m not sure I would have predicted the failure of socialism. I am sure I would *not* have predicted the success of bitcoin, if I had known about it before it had already succeeded. The history books are full of things that ordinary people are very sure are impossible. So test it and see, don’t listen to me.
Youliy Ninov September 18, 2014 , 7:36 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

“Society will make certain options available, which usually could include “oh just forget about it.””

Sorry, but I do not understand.

“They could choose more or less protection for themselves, including none, or could group together for mutual protection if they wish. Maybe neighborhoods will get a group discount.”

Words like “could” and “may be ” signal a chance. What this means is that for a large enough statistic there will be people who will be unprotected and violence which will be unpunished. But lets suppose that a neighborhood decides to pay for the protection of all people inside it. And they do this voluntarily. What happens is the the situation in this neighborhood significantly improves and outside people come to join it. However they do not want to pay. They want to enjoy the free ride. Because the number of people grows the police asks for more money from the people who pay. How do think they will react? The altruism of he human kind has its limits.

“I disagree. Either I misunderstand your system, or you have defined anarcho-capitalism more narrowly than I do.”

Anarcho-capitalism and my system accept no state and state imposed laws. For the capitalism to function protection of the private property must exist. This means, police , courts (and an army but I do not wish to discuss this at the moment). These institutions must be organized in some way and how they are organized is the only difference between Ancaps and my system. So, if they accept my funding principle, then no differences between the two systems are left.

“So test it and see, don’t listen to me.”

No testing is possible. It is even wrong to try to test this, because this would represent an initiation of force. The only option is to discuss it and hope that people will freely decide to implement it.
If a particular system is better than another one it will impose itself gradually, because it corresponds better to the reality. So, one should expect that the human kind will gradually come to its senses, change its views/opinions and accept something better in the future (for instance Minarchism) and go on improving.
Dave Burns September 18, 2014 , 10:28 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

[“Society will make certain options available, which usually could include “oh just forget about it.”]

“Sorry, but I do not understand.”

It used to be the case in the US that the victim of a crime could choose not to press charges. I am suggesting that the victim should have some options. Not pressing charges, choose who investigates, etc.

[“They could choose more or less protection for themselves, including none, or could group together for mutual protection if they wish. Maybe neighborhoods will get a group discount.”]

“Words like “could” and “may be ” signal a chance. What this means is that for a large enough statistic there will be people who will be unprotected and violence which will be unpunished.”

Is there any perfect system, where no crime ever goes unpunished? I think it is my turn to misunderstand. If I choose to have no protection, if I live on a mountaintop and never ask anyone for help when I have trouble, is some nanny going to come and protect me for my own good?

” But lets suppose that a neighborhood decides to pay for the protection of all people inside it. And they do this voluntarily. What happens is the the situation in this neighborhood significantly improves and outside people come to join it. However they do not want to pay. They want to enjoy the free ride. Because the number of people grows the police asks for more money from the people who pay. How do think they will react? The altruism of he human kind has its limits.”

Run a kickstarter campaign. Use shunning or ostracism. Use various methods discussed by Elinor Ostrom. Get creative. You sit in your armchair and proive by thought-experiment that people have only one choice. Maybe you’re right, but I will be surprised.

[“I disagree. Either I misunderstand your system, or you have defined anarcho-capitalism more narrowly than I do.”]

“Anarcho-capitalism and my system accept no state and state imposed laws. For the capitalism to function protection of the private property must exist. This means, police , courts (and an army but I do not wish to discuss this at the moment). These institutions must be organized in some way and how they are organized is the only difference between Ancaps and my system. So, if they accept my funding principle, then no differences between the two systems are left.”

Anarcho-capitalism is any system with no state and state imposed laws, but some means of protection of private property. So Ninovism is a subset of ancap.

[“So test it and see, don’t listen to me.”]

“No testing is possible. It is even wrong to try to test this, because this would represent an initiation of force. The only option is to discuss it and hope that people will freely decide to implement it.”

That is how you test it.
- Youliy Ninov September 19, 2014 , 5:55 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  “It used to be the case in the US that the victim of a crime could choose not to press charges.”
  
  I am not of the same opinion. If there is a law, it must be obeyed, so it must not be up to the victim to decide whether the law be upheld or not. So, charges must be pressed, but the victim must have the right to say that he/she has not suffered damages, when he so wishes. And if the judge accepts this statement, then the charges must be dropped. It is important that the law be obeyed. If a person decides whether a certain law be obeyed, then this is not law at all but a recommendation.
  
  “Is there any perfect system, where no crime ever goes unpunished?”
  
  Such a system does not exist. What is important however is that the system tries to punish the crime. This is important, otherwise the crimes will multiply. From an ethical standpoint: responsibility must be carried by the perpetrator.
  
  “If I choose to have no protection, if I live on a mountaintop and never ask anyone for help when I have trouble, is some nanny going to come and protect me for my own good?”
  
  In my system this is exactly what will happen. Actually the police will not protect you directly. This is an impossible task. However their monetary interest will push them to check you out from time to time to make sure that there is not some business opportunity there, which they have not noticed. For instance that you have been robbed or killed. So, under my system the police will try to catch the particular criminal. And since it is known that they will do that , this discourages the potential criminals to a big extent. Are you against becoming a service free of charge?
  Just to mention that the above will not happen under Anarcho-capitalism. Such people like you will die and there will be no consequences for the perpetrators. The mentioned mountain hill will not be used for business/leisure because it is too dangerous there. In economic terms this translates to lost resources.
  
  “Anarcho-capitalism is any system with no state and state imposed laws, but some means of protection of private property. So Ninovism is a subset of ancap.”
  
  OK. You managed to convince me. However Anarcho-capitalism is in my opinion contradictory and can not exist in practice. It will be chaotic and violent. My system however can be stable. You can even look at both systems from an economic standpoint: Which system would people choose: the one in which they pay from their own pockets for police protection or the one where they get the protection for free (all of them).
  
  “That is how you test it.”
  
  The above is not a test but a real application.
Dave Burns September 19, 2014 , 11:00 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

“If there is a law, it must be obeyed, so it must not be up to the victim to decide whether the law be upheld or not.”
Why?

“What is important however is that the system tries to punish the crime. This is important, otherwise the crimes will multiply.”
What is important is that the system be consensual and that crime is reduced as well as it can. Punishment is only a part of this, and not necessarily the most important part.

“From an ethical standpoint: responsibility must be carried by the perpetrator.”
I agree. But you have made a narrow assumption about what responsibility must mean.

[“If I choose to have no protection, if I live on a mountaintop and never ask anyone for help when I have trouble, is some nanny going to come and protect me for my own good?”]
“In my system this is exactly what will happen.”

No way to opt out, huh?

“Are you against becoming a service free of charge?”

I am not against receiveing a free service. I am against receiving a service against my will, free or otherwise.

“people like you will die and there will be no consequences for the perpetrators.”

Maybe yes, maybe no.

[“Ninovism is a subset of ancap.”]
“OK. You managed to convince me. However Anarcho-capitalism is in my opinion contradictory and can not exist in practice.”

I assume you mean all the other flavors of ancap. Or are you saying, Ninovism isn’t enough to save anarcho-capitalism?

“It will be chaotic and violent.”
Yeah, like every other human society.

“Which system would people choose: the one in which they pay from their own pockets for police protection or the one where they get the protection for free (all of them).”
I try not to predict what people will do. And what they will do is not necessarily the smart thing. Maybe they will be tempted by the “free” price. Maybe, like me, the incentives look too much like the prison-industrial complex we are experiencing in the US now. Let’s look at it this way. We in the US could adopt something like your system immediately, no need to achieve Ancapistan or Minarchovia first. Basically, every prison sentence becomes a life sentence, and every ordinary person must fear having some trumped-up charge brought against them.
When the person who pays for a service is not the person who receives the service, that is a problem, not a market. When people are forced to buy a service, that is a problem, not a market.

[“That is how you test it.”]
“The above is not a test but a real application.”
It can fail, so it’s a test. You are bound to learn a lot the first time it goes live, as opposed to thinking about it from your armchair.
Youliy Ninov September 20, 2014 , 7:57 am Log in to Reply Vote0

“Why?”
You do not want the will of the property (land) owner to be respected? Or may be you do not want that the property rights be uphold in their entirety?

“What is important is that the system be consensual and that crime is reduced as well as it can. ”

What do you mean by consensual? That the owner of the land on which you reside respects your wishes? I.e. that you have a say what the laws there may be? If so, then what you want is not private property but communal/state one.

“But you have made a narrow assumption about what responsibility must mean.”

I am not sure I am following you. One should take responsibility for his own actions in general, be them right or wrong. So, if one commits a crime then the best effort must be made to punish him. If this is not done for whatever reasons, then the property rights in this area are not upheld.

“No way to opt out, huh?”

I guess you continue thinking in terms of state land. We assume this mountain is not yours and then you must respect the laws, imposed by the owner, which say that the police has rights there. If you wish to opt out, there is nothing easier than that. Just buy yourself a piece of land and do on it whatever you wish.
Just to mention: land on which there are laws for private property protection along with police will flourish. However, if you wish to live in the primeval times, nobody will stop you.

“I am against receiving a service against my will, free or otherwise.”

On whose land? Or may be you wish to be a co-owner?

“Maybe yes, maybe no.”

In your case there could be consequences for the perpetrators, but then they will not be because they have killed you, but because of some other reason, for instance that they have killed somebody else.

“I assume you mean all the other flavors of ancap.”

Yes. They say that the property rights there will be uphold and they sincerely believe it. However reality and the good wishes are two different things.

“Yeah, like every other human society.”

Chaotic and violent societies can not prosper. Even today in the developed world there is not so much violence. It exist, but it is bounded. When you go out of your house in Europe for instance you can safely assume that you will not be murdered. And when you go to a shop to buy something it is in 99.9% of the cases there.

“We in the US could adopt something like your system immediately, no need to achieve Ancapistan or Minarchovia first. Basically, every prison sentence becomes a life sentence, and every ordinary person must fear having some trumped-up charge brought against them.”

How so? Why will the prison sentence become a life sentence? There are laws, there are judges, the laws will be obeyed. And almost all the laws will deal with private property protection. And the ordinary person must not fear some random charge brought against them, because there will be courts. And because the police will carry responsibility for its wrong arrests. It will pay (nowadays this is not so). If they arrest somebody they will have to be very, very sure that the charge will pass in court. Otherwise, they lose money, even very much money. The police will take FULL responsibility for its own actions. Nowadays it takes only a PARTIAL one. Police forces will become TRUE private companies and private companies take FULL responsibility for their actions.

“When the person who pays for a service is not the person who receives the service, that is a problem, not a market. ”

The person who pays for the service will be the criminal. And he is the one who will get the service. And he will get the best service possible, because the police forces will be in competition with one another. What the general population will get will be a life free of violence, but this will be a side product of the above. May be we should discuss a little bit what a service is.

“When people are forced to buy a service, that is a problem, not a market.”

I politely disagree. One gets the police services in my voluntarism ONLY IF he has breached private property laws. According the the beliefs of the Minarchist and Anarcho-capitalists the use of force (in this case “police service” ) is justified when one has initiated violence. So, not contradiction exists. This service is not in a contradiction with the private property protection or rights.

By the way, I have a question for you. I already asked a person in another forum here, but did not get an answer. The question is the following one:
Ayn Rand has said that the use of force is justified when used against initiated violence. This one is taken from Minarchists and Ancaps. However, what exactly does it mean? Does it mean that one MUST punish the initiation of violence, or that one MAY do so, if one wishes, and when he so chooses, this will be justified?
In my voluntarism violence will be punishable always (the best possible attempt will be made to catch the criminal). In Anarcho-capitalism this will not be the case (as you obviously wish). The consequences however will be bad (chaos, violence which will be allowed).
- Dave Burns September 22, 2014 , 11:55 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  Is the victim also the property owner or not? You said “it must not be up to the victim.”
  
  “What do you mean by consensual?”
  By consent, voluntary.
  
  “That the owner of the land on which you reside respects your wishes?”
  If land ownership becomes so important, it seems likely that most people will try to obtain land.
  
  “One should take responsibility for his own actions in general, be them right or wrong. So, if one commits a crime then the best effort must be made to punish him.”
  Your system narrowly defines the form of punishment. A broader approach may not be impossible or inferior.
  
  “If you wish to opt out, there is nothing easier than that. Just buy yourself a piece of land and do on it whatever you wish.”
  I had gotten the idea that you disapproved of this idea. I’m glad to see I was wrong.
  
  [“I am against receiving a service against my will, free or otherwise.”]
  “On whose land? Or may be you wish to be a co-owner?”
  If I am the victim of a crime, and I do not want it investigated, or want different investigators than the owner of the property where it occurred, I think that is reasonable. I suppose the property owner is entitled to investigate if he likes, so he can ban the criminal in future. I don’t think he is entitled to decide for me about whether to investigate, or what restitution is acceptable, etc.
  
  “Why will the prison sentence become a life sentence?”
  Current prison system is pseudo-“privatized”, corrupt, inefficient, expensive. Very few prisoners could afford to pay the cost by working.
  
  “The person who pays for the service will be the criminal.”
  But he doesn’t want it.
  - Youliy Ninov September 23, 2014 , 5:59 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    “Is the victim also the property owner or not? You said “it must not be up to the victim.””
    
    I was speaking in the context of my voluntarism. In this context there are laws and the police is allowed to function there. So, owner or no owner the laws will have to be obeyed. If there are not, this means that the property rights are not obeyed.
    
    “If land ownership becomes so important, it seems likely that most people will try to obtain land.”
    
    I do not believe that possessing land will be so important. When the private property rules are obeyed this does not play a big role because people will have what they need (a society free of violence).
    
    “Your system narrowly defines the form of punishment. A broader approach may not be impossible or inferior.”
    
    I have not defined it narrowly. I explain how the courts, police and prisons function because these are the primary institutions. The particular details however, for instance what the particular laws will be are not of my concern. They can differ, even significantly from culture to culture, group, etc. For the same crime one may go to jail in some jurisdictions but be punished in some other way in others (and it is not my business to define how). The punishment is always subjective. I mean that it is accepted differently from the different people, cultures etc., so it is not my call to define it. What however I believe must be defined is that the criminals pay for their capture, jail and for compensating the owner of the stolen property. The latter things are important, because this means that the private property is protected.
    
    “[“I am against receiving a service against my will, free or otherwise.”]”
    
    Let me start with how I define a service. In my view a service is roughly the following:” A non-material benefit for which it has been paid (with money, barter, other services or goods)” It doesn’t matter who pays and for whom. It is still a service.
    Presently and in Ancapistan the police services will be used by the general population. People pay for them and receive something in return. In my system, however, people do not pay for police at all. So they do not receive a service. The ones who pay are the criminals. And consequently they receive the service. Because I have to think in a different context when talking about my system I myself am sometimes confused who gets the service actually. Nevertheless, in my system you do not receive a service, free or otherwise. You get the byproduct of “servicing” the criminals. You get a basic right free (as it must be).
    
    “{The person who pays for the service will be the criminal.}”
    “But he doesn’t want it.”
    
    In the ethics of Austrian school there is only one case, an exception so to say, when one can justifiably use violence. And this case is when one defends himself against initiated violence. It is exactly this particular exception which justifies the “unwanted from the criminals” services of the police. The police services are justified because they are a response against initiated force. And it doesn’t matter that the criminals may not want them. It is just, because one must carry responsibility for his own actions (in this case: criminal actions). As I said , my system uses the only existing exception. You, however, in your statement above refer to the general case, which however does not apply to the criminals.
    
    “If I am the victim of a crime, and I do not want it investigated, or want different investigators than the owner of the property where it occurred, I think that is reasonable…….. I don’t think he is entitled to decide for me about whether to investigate, or what restitution is acceptable, etc.”
    
    All of the above is against the property rights. The owner of the land has decided what the laws governing his property are and you wish to breach them. Moreover, you have not even paid for police protection (as I have already said, it is not you who gets the service), but you expect to have a say in how the things proceed. You expect to get something for nothing.
    
    “Current prison system is pseudo-”privatized”, corrupt, inefficient, expensive. Very few prisoners could afford to pay the cost by working.”
    
    Yes, but part of the reason is exactly because it is expensive. This should not be so. In addition there are no normal jobs for the criminals in jail. It is complicated to arrange jobs there and why do it when there are so many jobless people on the streets?
    I will refer again to the slavery, but please understand that this is just a historical example, nothing more. I am 100% , absolutely against it. The slavery existed, this is a fact. But this fact means that it paid to have slaves. They were able to produce more than they consumed. The criminals will not be slaves in jail. They will have all the human rights except one: access to the society. But similarly to slaves, there must be able to pay. Assume that a person in jail is a simple worker. Does a worker have a flat, a car, a TV, etc. Yes. He can afford all this. Why could not a worker in jail afford to pay for the jail services then? He will get the same for the same job, but can not spend money on going out, supporting a car, etc. His “flat” may not be so high-quality as the apartment of some family but he could afford it.
    
    Two other comments:
    1. You did not tell me your opinion about whether one MUST use or MAY CHOOSE to use force against initiated violence. In my system it is “MUST”. In Anarcho-capitalism it is “MAY”.
    
    2. I am under the impression that you wish to be “free” in the anarchic sense, i.e. to be able to do all what you wish . This however is no freedom at all, but a prerequisite for chaos. And the reason is that the interests of people clash. I may wish to kill somebody but should I be given this right? And if I do it, I take the right of the other person to live. So a line must be drawn somewhere. And Ayn Rand has defined it correctly with the initiated violence. So what you want is not more, but LESS freedom.
    - Dave Burns September 23, 2014 , 8:06 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
      
      “I have not defined it narrowly. I explain how the courts, police and prisons function because these are the primary institutions. ”
      
      Hence, narrow. What if there are no prisons?
      
      “In my system, however, people do not pay for police at all. So they do not receive a service. The ones who pay are the criminals. And consequently they receive the service.”
      They receive it and must pay wheteher they wish to receive it or not. So it is not a market.
      
      “one can justifiably use violence […] when one defends himself against initiated violence.”
      
      Also, one may delegate this right to others, that is, we can use force to defend others against initiated violence.
      
      “It is exactly this particular exception which justifies the “unwanted from the criminals” services of the police.”
      
      I am not disputing the right of self-defense. I am disputing that your system is using market transations. If the victim of the crime or the landowner where the crime was committed was the customer and paid the fee, it could be a market transation. They could bargain over the price and the exact specification of service, choose from among different providers, or even choose to provide the service themselves. When we require that the criminal be the customer, it isn’t a market transaction. Market transations must be fully voluntary. This is more like a legal tort.
      
      [“If I am the victim of a crime, and I do not want it investigated, or want different investigators than the owner of the property where it occurred, I think that is reasonable…….. I don’t think he is entitled to decide for me about whether to investigate, or what restitution is acceptable, etc.”]
      
      “All of the above is against the property rights. The owner of the land has decided what the laws governing his property are and you wish to breach them.”
      
      Assume the criminal has harmed me on your property. There are two violations. The criminal has violated your property rights, by disregarding your rules. And he has violated my property rights, by injuring me. Your system removes all my options and entitlements, and reassigns them to the land-owner. Perhaps, if you made all this clear before I stepped on your property, I have nothing to complain about. But that just means I think your system will not be popular.
      
      Note that nothing prevents any other system from adding a monetary penalty to the criminal’s punishment (including one sufficient to cover the expense of investigating, capturing, and imprisoning him), so you have not added new options, you have only removed options.
      
      [“Current prison system is pseudo-”privatized”, corrupt, inefficient, expensive. Very few prisoners could afford to pay the cost by working.”]
      
      “Yes, but […]”
      
      My point is, we can add your innovation to the existing system, but that is not enough to make things work, and in fact it seems likely to make things worse. So what is the additional element that would make things work?
      
      “The criminals will not be slaves in jail. They will have all the human rights except one: access to the society.”
      
      My translation: they will not be slaves, except they will be slaves.
      
      Well, that is all semantics. Your real point is, you are sure there is some way to employ them profitably. My counterpoint is, you may have proved this as a logical matter, but that merely means the solution must exist, not that we know what it is or necessarily can figure it out, or if we figure it out we will be willing to accept the side costs.
      Experience also shows that such prisoners are quite vulnerable to corruption within the system, and that it is important for us to insure that they are treated fairly. Your system assumes that market forces will protect them, but your system disconnects from market forces in an important way. This concerns me.
      
      “1. You did not tell me your opinion about whether one MUST use or MAY CHOOSE to use force against initiated violence.”
      
      Who is “one?” The victim of the crime? A witness standing 5 feet away? A witness watching through a telescope from 1 mile away? Someone who is told about the crime after it has been committed?
      
      I am not sure I support any MUST ever (as opposed to MUST NOT). I think you need a much better justification for it than you have provided.
      
      “2. I am under the impression that you wish to be “free” in the anarchic sense, i.e. to be able to do all what you wish .”
      
      I think you have misinterpreted me. Where did you get this impression?
Dave Burns September 23, 2014 , 7:14 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

[“When people are forced to buy a service, that is a problem, not a market.”]

“One gets the police services in my voluntarism ONLY IF he has breached private property laws.”

So, in effect, by deciding to commit the crime, he decides to buy the service. I am still nervous about this. Any time someone must commit to a deal before the terms of the deal are specified, that makes me nervous.

“Ayn Rand has said that the use of force is justified when used against initiated violence. This one is taken from Minarchists and Ancaps. However, what exactly does it mean? Does it mean that one MUST punish the initiation of violence, or that one MAY do so, if one wishes, and when he so chooses, this will be justified?”

Sounds like “may do so” to me, but I am not an expert on Rand.

“In my voluntarism violence will be punishable always.”

How about boxing matches? What if the victim objects? What if the property owner objects?
- Youliy Ninov September 23, 2014 , 8:05 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  “So, in effect, by deciding to commit the crime, he decides to buy the service. I am still nervous about this. Any time someone must commit to a deal before the terms of the deal are specified, that makes me nervous.”
  
  I understand. But as I said, It is justified. No problem exists.
  
  “Sounds like “may do so” to me, but I am not an expert on Rand.”
  
  Neither am I. But I think the same. And if so, then she is not right.
  
  “How about boxing matches? What if the victim objects? What if the property owner objects?”
  
  If boxing matches are allowed by the property owner and both sides agree, then no private property breach occurs. Actually, I haven’t thought about it a lot.
  The victim can object in court. If the judge thinks that he victim has the right to object, then he can drop the charge. For instance, something has been stolen, but I say that i have left it to be taken, because I feel pity for the poor person who stole it.
  It is interesting if the property owner objects. This means that he disagrees with his self-defined laws. In my view the previous case applies..
  - Dave Burns September 23, 2014 , 8:16 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    “It is justified. No problem exists.”
    The same sort of justification can justify pretty much anything, justification and practicality are not the same thing. Petty theft used to be punished by hanging, yet petty theft was not eliminated. We could use logic like yours to justify hanging petty thieves. That doesn’t mean the system would actually do what we wish it would.
Youliy Ninov September 23, 2014 , 9:45 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

“The same sort of justification can justify pretty much anything, justification and practicality are not the same thing. Petty theft used to be punished by hanging, yet petty theft was not eliminated.”

Not only petty theft, many other things were punished by hanging but they existed and exist. This however has nothing to do with the justification. The rule says that a crime can be punished, it does not specify how exactly or if this will be effective. I personally believe that for a punishment to be effective it must correspond to particularities of the culture/land/society in question. But in my opinion crime can not be eliminated, it can only be minimized with the proper choice of societal organization.
If you wish that people steal less, you aim at changing their beliefs/attitudes/culture. There are lands where people steal more and others where stealing is not common. What however does not exist (to the best of my knowledge) is a land where people do not steal at all.
By the way, what do you suggest? Not punishing the criminals? Do you think this will make the situation better?
- Dave Burns September 23, 2014 , 10:42 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  I do not think anyone knows the answer (certainly now me), but I am willing to let people experiment and learn more by trying different things.
  - Dave Burns September 23, 2014 , 10:42 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
    
    “certainly not me”
Youliy Ninov September 23, 2014 , 10:00 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

Just noticed your second comment. Unfortunately no time to answer it today. Until tomorrow!
Youliy Ninov September 24, 2014 , 6:22 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

“What if there are no prisons?”

I would be very happy. I describe them because the people who would read my article would wish to.
I picture my system the way I think it will create itself, but I may be wrong/not precise in some respects.

“Also, one may delegate this right to others, that is, we can use force to defend others against initiated violence.”

Of course. No problem when you wish additional protection. May be I should underline it once more that in my system there is not compulsion of any kind.

“They could bargain over the price and the exact specification of service, choose from among different providers, or even choose to provide the service themselves. When we require that the criminal be the customer, it isn’t a market transaction. Market transations must be fully voluntary.”

First about “fully voluntary”. There are whole markets created by the government interference. And people take part in these markets not because they wish to but because they are forced to. Nevertheless they are markets, despite not being “fully voluntary”.
The criminal can bargain about the service it he accepts it. ” Dear police officer, I have decided to give myself in. How much would you want me to pay? … Oh, so? But the other police force offers 20% lower price! Care to go lower?” When he does not want, then the service will chose him. In this case the service will be determined objectively. The best (or the luckiest) will serve him. If he could determine the service himself this would be a subjective decision. The criminal can bargain about the price, however not directly. The judge will do this for him, because he (the judge) wants to have him as a client (remember, the criminal and the police together choose the judge). In such a way, in my opinion market prices will be formed.
Once more about “Market transactions must be fully voluntary.” I challenge you to tell me from where this rule is derived. If it is derived from the principle of non-violence itself, which we discussed, then there can exist an exception.

“There are two violations. The criminal has violated your property rights, by disregarding your rules. And he has violated my property rights, by injuring me.”

No. There is just one violation. While you are on my land you must abide by my laws. You have so many rights as the laws allow. If you think you must have more, then you must be a person who does not respect my property rights as such. The fact, that there is just one set of rights is not a problem for you however, because these rights will have been made to serve YOU. And this will be so, because the laws will be created by the market forces. Nevertheless, if you for some reason think that these laws have not been followed properly, you are free to sue. And by the way, my “service” will be popular the same way the West was more popular than the East during Cold War time.

” so you have not added new options, you have only removed options.”
I am not sure I follow exactly.

“My translation: they will not be slaves, except they will be slaves.”

A criminal in jail under my system will have the following rights: to choose to work or not to work, to afford himself as much luxury as he can, to be free from violence (he is a respected client who pays for his stay in jail), etc. All of the above does not exist in the present system. Yet, you say that he will be a slave. Then he is a slave under the present system as well. So, why is a criminal in jail a slave under the present system?

“but that merely means the solution must exist, not that we know what it is or necessarily can figure it out”

It is not possible to know how exactly the free market works. We can not know what exactly will happen, but we should not worry. The prison system will definitely be a free market one. The prisoner determines the jail (luxuries, price). The prisons will be in competition for clients. And as i said, this will lead to growth and innovation as with all other market companies.

“Your system assumes that market forces will protect them, but your system disconnects from market forces in an important way.”

Please, explain how a prisoner will be harmed under my system. Actually, his situation will be MUCH BETTER than under the present one.

““(1. You did not tell me your opinion about whether one MUST use or MAY CHOOSE to use force against initiated violence.)”
Who is “one?” ”

The society as a whole. Which social system it chooses.

“I am not sure I support any MUST ever (as opposed to MUST NOT). I think you need a much better justification for it than you have provided.”

If you do not support MUST, then you allow violence to exist and this is very bad. An example: Somebody is killed. He has hired no police protection (under Anarcho-capitalism) and has not relatives to pay the police to catch the criminal or his relatives do not care or whatever. Ethically this is bad, very bad. Economically also bad because he has been a productive citizen and now his is not able to take part in the division of labor. The society looses.

“I think you have misinterpreted me. Where did you get this impression?”

You constantly claim that you have some additional rights on somebody’s land (happened two or three times already). The last one I discussed 20-30 lines above.
- Dave Burns September 24, 2014 , 8:28 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  “First about “fully voluntary”. There are whole markets created by the government interference. And people take part in these markets not because they wish to but because they are forced to. Nevertheless they are markets, despite not being “fully voluntary”.”
  
  Well, apparently we have a terminology problem. I want to make a distinction between transactions where all participants want to take part, and those where one or more do not. Voluntary markets have positive self-regulating self-organizing aspects that coercive transactions do not. Maybe I should try to make this clear in a different way, maybe you can suggest something.
  
  “Once more about “Market transactions must be fully voluntary.” I challenge you to tell me from where this rule is derived.”
  
  This is true by definition. How do you define the distinction between markets and something else, just that money changes hands? Central planning also uses money, consumers pay producers. Is that a market? When the government dictates prices, is that a market? Markets work because when participation is voluntary there is a chance that everyone’s incentives are in alignment. Central planning fails because it uses coercion to trump other incentives, but for this to work requires an impossible degree of knowledge from the planners. When coercion is involved there is always a consensual alternative that everyone except the coercer prefers, so everyone has the incentive to cheat, rather than the incentive to apply their specialized knowledge.
  
  “There is just one violation. While you are on my land you must abide by my laws. You have so many rights as the laws allow. If you think you must have more, then you must be a person who does not respect my property rights as such.”
  
  Maybe I don’t understand you. You seem to say, if someone stabs me with a knife while I am on your property, I have not been injured and my rights have not been violated. I am not a party to any legal case, I have no legal standing. Only the property owner has been injured and has legal standing to react violently, capture the criminal, and bring suit against the violator. In fact, it seems that if the property owner is the one to stab me, there is no violation at all. The property owner is a sort of mini-state, who can do whatever they please as absolute monarch. Non-owners have no rights at all.
  
  Obviously you do not mean this. But your actual view is not clear. By respecting the landowner only, you have torn open an enormous loophole and created confusion. What are the limits on the landowner, and why does this make sense?
  
  “my “service” will be popular the same way the West was more popular than the East during Cold War time.”
  The lesser of evils is still evil. The best choice out of two maybe be second best when the choice is among three. Why should I limit my choice?
  
  [” so you have not added new options, you have only removed options.”]
  “I am not sure I follow exactly.”
  Any system we can think of could be modified to include a “capture fee” as part of a criminal’s penalty. So by insisting that all the details of your system must be followed rigidly, you are just eliminating the other options that exist. There are many systems that we can imagine that could include the basic innovation you suggest (criminal pays for investigation, imprisonment, etc.). You have picked one of these and seem to think it is best, but without really making a case that it is best.
  
  “It is not possible to know how exactly the free market works. We can not know what exactly will happen, but we should not worry. The prison system will definitely be a free market one. ”
  
  Yet you have eliminated so many possibilities, as if you know exactly how the free market will work. Except of course, that it is not a free market so long as there is coercion. Because dealing with criminals (ordinarily) involves capturing them, trying them, and punishing them, from their viewpoint, it cannot be a voluntary market transaction. A market transaction typically involves someone who wants something and someone else who is willing to provide it. The victim wants justice, the property owner may want justice, but the criminal (in most cases) does not want it. So the criminal cannot be considered the customer in a market transaction. He is a party in a legal action, a dispute.
  
  [Who is “one?” ”]
  “The society as a whole. Which social system it chooses.”
  If you choose a market, you do not choose a single system. You allow the participants to choose. There is no end-point, no correct solution that can never be replaced, improved, or modified.
  
  “If you do not support MUST, then you allow violence to exist”
  Prohibition of violence is a MUST NOT. Negative obligations (you must not X) make sense, are necessary. Positive obligations (you always must X) create problems.
  
  “and this is very bad.”
  Obviously. Please, when it seems I say something crazy, try to consider you may have misunderstood.
  
  “You constantly claim that you have some additional rights on somebody’s land ”
  Having the right not to be murdered is not the same as the right to be “able to do all what you wish.” Do I give up my basic rights when I enter your property? Maybe I will decline your invitation.
  
  I think that when a crime is committed, the victim’s rights have been violated, so the victim wants and deserves justice. They can use voluntary market transactions to get most of what they want, but due to the coercive aspect, at least part of the process will not qualify as a market transaction. The rights of the owner of the property where the crime occurred may have also been violated, but to a much smaller extent. If punishment is given in proportion to the crime, as it should be, the appropriate punishment for disobeying the property owner is conceptually separate and considerably smaller than the proper punishment for any serious crime, the sort of crime that deserves investigation and prosecution. The system we have been discussing puts all this upside-down.
  
  Certain aspects of the idea seem fine, in principle, but I have doubts about their practicality. If a criminal can pay for his room and board, and repay the expense of his capture, great. If he can choose among different landlords/wardens, or change jobs to make money faster, great. But coercion brings perverse incentives, and we need to watch for those carefully.
Youliy Ninov September 25, 2014 , 4:29 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

I will restructure the discussion because it is gradually becoming chaotic.
“Maybe I don’t understand you. ….The property owner is a sort of mini-state, who can do whatever they please as absolute monarch. Non-owners have no rights at all.”
No, you understood very well  . And before you get angry let me explain.
Ayn Rand defined the so-called “natural rights”, i.e. the rights every human being needs in order to function properly and to fulfill his potential. These are the rights you are referring to and claim constantly to have been violated while being killed/robbed on somebody’s property. The real problem is that these rights do not correspond to the laws in the property. If the laws of this particular piece of land supported your natural rights, then there would not be a problem at all. However the rights you request apply not only to you but to the owner also. And one of these rights is to be able to use your private property as you wish, which includes defining the exclusive laws which are valid on this particular land. By saying that you have other rights while there you deny the owner the right to use it as he wishes. You interfere and start requesting things which he has not approved. You have breached his private property rights while claiming the same rights for yourself. An example: An owner of a piece of land wants to live in isolation. He raises a wall around his property and says: “Whoever enters my land will be shot down”. And here you come, enter his property and say : “ I have the right to live and therefore you can not shoot me, so I will stay”. He shoots you down and a mess is created. Who is right? You, because you say you have the right to live or he, when he wants to be alone, to use his land according to his wishes? The mess is created because the rights of the owner have been violated.
What you rightly suggest is that you evade his property. That is actually what I also suggest in my other article. People avoid places where the laws do not support the property rights. They will not be free there. That is why people flock to the rich countries, because the laws there are relatively better and consequently these countries have grown richer. What I suggest is that the market takes care of the laws. And then the free market laws will impose themselves without the initiation of force. Places with bad laws will be unused, unpopulated, poor. Places, where the laws correspond to the natural laws will flourish. So, all you need is to choose where you want to live. And people like the above “I will shoot you” owner will become a dying species. All problems solved without initiation of force.

“This is true by definition. “
And what if it is not true or not 100% true?
“How do you define the distinction between markets and something else, just that money changes hands? “
I define a market approximately so: an exchange of goods/services during which prices are formed, which are determined by the supply and demand.
“Markets work because when participation is voluntary there is a chance that everyone’s incentives are in alignment.”

Markets do not work (exist) because the participation is voluntary. They exist because people want for some reason ( free or under duress ) to exchange things/services. As I have already said, artificial, created by the government markets exist. Nonetheless they are markets and function as such.
However whether the markets are effective is another story. If you want the market(s) to use the resources of an economy efficiently you have to let the people be free. When this is not the case (people are forced to do something) the market will not follow the wishes of the people properly and therefore they will not be satisfied (they will be poorer). So, in order to maximally use the resources to the benefit of the consumers you have to allow them to request from the market what to produce (to be free).

“When coercion is involved there is always a consensual alternative that everyone except the coercer prefers, so everyone has the incentive to cheat, rather than the incentive to apply their specialized knowledge.”
Now back to my system. You say coercion, but you always mean “initiation of force”. However in my case the coercion is not initiated. You say something about the incentive of the people to apply their specialized knowledge. However here we do not speak of productive citizens, who could be harmed and forced/discouraged to produce. We speak of criminals, who do not use their “specialized knowledge” to the benefit of the others. They destroy value, they hamper the others to produce. So, the problem with the “discouragement to produce” does not exist. We have the opposite problem, how to discourage them from destroying. As I said, the market I describe (the police services) is one of a kind. The prison’s one is fairly standard. There are many like it, where people are forced to choose a service.
When I think again of my system I see the following differences: It never excludes somebody from the market, be him a criminal or a regular citizen. The present system, Minarchism and Anarcho-capitalism exclude the criminals from the market. My system uses the criminals, transfers them into productive citizens but in the other systems they are a burden. Because these people (the criminals) are excluded from the market (now for instance) they are not protected by its forces. That is why there were and will always be prison brutalities. The people there are not fully fledged humans, because we have stripped them not only of their right to access the society, but from many others also (to work, to get paid, to choose their living conditions, etc.).
If you are right somehow, then there must be economic reasons why the police market as I describe it can not exist. For instance that market prices can not be formed, etc. From an ethical standpoint I do not see a contradiction in the existence of this market, but this typically means the same in the economic sense.

“So by insisting that all the details of your system must be followed rigidly, you are just eliminating the other options that exist.”
I am not insisting on the above. I just describe what I see as the most likely outcome and explain why I think the situation will play out in this way.
“If you choose a market, you do not choose a single system. You allow the participants to choose. “
At present we live in a hampered free market. People have so decided. Five hundred years ago there was not capitalism but feudalism and this is what the people had chosen. The ideas in which people believe form their society.
“Prohibition of violence is a MUST NOT. Negative obligations (you must not X) make sense, are necessary. Positive obligations (you always must X) create problems.”
When the negative obligations are not obeyed we have to use positive obligations to make the things work, that is we MUST punish the crime. How to make an obligation work always if you do not impose it? Hope that people are always good?
Dave Burns September 26, 2014 , 12:26 am Log in to Reply Vote0

“I define a market approximately so: an exchange of goods/services during which prices are formed, which are determined by the supply and demand.”

Now define supply and demand. These are composed of the valuations of individuals, not the commands of the central government. Add coercion and prices are no longer determined by supply and demand.

“Markets […] exist because people want for some reason ( free or under duress ) to exchange things/services.”

Maybe we could distinguish between free markets (price determined by supply & demand) and coercive markets (at least one participant is forced to take part, or price is not determined by mutual agreement, etc.). Coercive markets lack most (all?) of the desirable characteristics of free markets.

“As I have already said, artificial, created by the government markets exist. Nonetheless they are markets and function as such.”
What is meant by “as such?”

“However whether the markets are effective is another story. If you want the market(s) to use the resources of an economy efficiently you have to let the people be free.”

??? Confusing. This contradicts what you said previously. Or are we sort of agreeing,? You claim your system uses a coercive market, ineffective, but still better than some other alternative?

“my case the coercion is not initiated.”
I think you are saying it is ethically/morally justified. Okay. But that still doesn’t give it the characteristics of a free market transaction.

“You say something about the incentive of the people to apply their specialized knowledge. […] We speak of criminals, who do not use their “specialized knowledge” to the benefit of the others.”

In a market, producers use their specialized knowledge to reduce price or improve quality. Consumers use their specialized knowledge to economize. By saying this can’t happen in the case of criminal investigation, you are agreeing with me, it is not a market transaction.

“My system uses the criminals, transfers them into productive citizens”

You hope. Your only evidence of this is an odd analogy with ancient slavery. I am not convinced.

“When the negative obligations are not obeyed we have to use positive obligations to make the things work, that is we MUST punish the crime.”

Who has this obligation, and where did it come from?
Youliy Ninov September 26, 2014 , 4:50 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

After yesterday’s discussion I realized the following:

What you actually claim is that my police market is not a market (or will not function as a market) because it is based on compulsion. What directly follows is that the criminals should not be free under my market (according to you). Lets check this point. What is the definition of “freedom” : Freedom exists when no violence is initiated. Is violence initiated with respect to the criminals? The answer is positively NO. There is violence, but this violence is not initiated, it is retaliative violence. Consequently the criminals are free! It sounds crazy, but is true. The formal logic never lies.

In order to oppose the above a different definition of Freedom is necessary.

The consequence: Free markets based on compulsion can exist, as long as the compulsion is not aggressive.

I checked my emotional reaction to the above and it was totally negative (as I guess yours is). This is probably due to the fact that one unconsciously defines freedom as “absence of compulsion (doesn’t matter what kind)”. The last if clearly wrong, but commonly accepted. Our instincts lie.

So, there are not ethical problems my market to exist. I mean that my police market CAN exist, not that it MUST exist or that it will exist in the form I suggested.

I have always believed that the ethical and the economic sides must always go hand in hand. So, if my market could not function there must be an economic reason for this.

Now about the “market” discussion:

Do you define the government formed markets as markets? If yes, then you must admit that markets can exist along with initiated coercion. If not, then what are they and what is your definition of a market? In case, you say yes I will continue that the markets with initiated coercion are not efficient. Are we not in agreement? And this is because the supply and/or demand are partially or entirely artificial.

“What is meant by “as such?”

Here I meant that the government markets have all the main characteristics of the markets and that is why they function. Note, that despite saying this I am ABSOLUTELY against the government interference. I am trying to be a realist.

“??? Confusing. This contradicts what you said previously. Or are we sort of agreeing,? You claim your system uses a coercive market, ineffective, but still better than some other alternative?”

In view of all of the above: Now I claim that my system uses coercion but will be effective, because this coercion is retaliative, not initiated.

“I think you are saying it is ethically/morally justified. Okay. But that still doesn’t give it the characteristics of a free market transaction.”

In view of all of the above it has these characteristics.

“In a market, producers use their specialized knowledge to reduce price or improve quality. Consumers use their specialized knowledge to economize. By saying this can’t happen in the case of criminal investigation, you are agreeing with me, it is not a market transaction.”

Police can use its specialized knowledge (no contradiction) . Criminals CAN NOT use their specialized knowledge, but this knowledge is of negative value. So, my system stops the negative knowledge and produces positive results. The negative of a negative is a positive 🙂

“Your only evidence of this is an odd analogy with ancient slavery. I am not convinced.”

You can be convinced now, at least from an ethical standpoint.

“(When the negative obligations are not obeyed we have to use positive obligations to make the things work, that is we MUST punish the crime.)”
“Who has this obligation, and where did it come from?”

In my view the above obligation must be self-imposed from the society upon itself. In order for the market to function properly violence must be stopped. So, society must organize itself in such a way so that crime be punished (retaliative violence).
Dave Burns September 26, 2014 , 6:58 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

“What you actually claim is that my police market is not a market (or will not function as a market) because it is based on compulsion. What directly follows is that the criminals should not be free under my market (according to you).”

This is true, but is not really the point. The point is, you claim your system will have beneficial characteristics (absence of corruption and abuse) due to market forces. But because it is not truly a free market, your system cannot depend on the characteristics of free markets.

I think you said it by accident: “the criminals should not be free.” I think you meant to say, the criminals are not free. But what you said is accurate, because they are criminals, we do not want them to be free. While they are not free, the market cannot protect them.

“Lets check this point. What is the definition of “freedom” : Freedom exists when no violence is initiated. Is violence initiated with respect to the criminals? The answer is positively NO. There is violence, but this violence is not initiated, it is retaliative violence. Consequently the criminals are free! It sounds crazy, but is true. The formal logic never lies.”

Logic never lies, but when you derive a contradiction, that means one of your assumptions is incorrect.

“In order to oppose the above a different definition of Freedom is necessary.”
Yes.

“The consequence: Free markets based on compulsion can exist, as long as the compulsion is not aggressive. […] I checked my emotional reaction to the above and it was totally negative (as I guess yours is). This is probably due to the fact that one unconsciously defines freedom as “absence of compulsion (doesn’t matter what kind)”. The last if clearly wrong, but commonly accepted. Our instincts lie.”

In a way I agree: private property requires the owner to have the ability to compel persons to get off his property.

But there must be proportionality. If a child steals a candy bar from a convenience store, he does not become the slave of the store owner as a result.

And none of this makes the transaction between the prisoner and his guards a free market transaction.

“So, there are not ethical problems my market to exist.”

I thought I had said many times, ethics is not the problem. Your system depends on the practical characteristics of free market transactions to prevent certain kinds of abuse. Because the transactions are not strictly free, this will not work.

“Do you define the government formed markets as markets? If yes, then you must admit that markets can exist along with initiated coercion.”

I started out wanting to not call these markets. As a compromise, I suggested we distinguish between free or voluntary markets, and coercive markets.

“government markets have all the main characteristics of the markets and that is why they function. Note, that despite saying this I am ABSOLUTELY against the government interference. I am trying to be a realist. […] my system uses coercion but will be effective, because this coercion is retaliative, not initiated.”

This is confusing. If such a coercive market functions the same as a free market, what’s wrong with central planning? Maybe you are a market socialist?

[“I think you are saying it is ethically/morally justified. Okay. But that still doesn’t give it the characteristics of a free market transaction.”]

“In view of all of the above it has these characteristics.”

Not persuaded.

“Criminals CAN NOT use their specialized knowledge, ”

And so it is not a free market. Maybe you still want it. Everyone wants murderers to be identified and dealt with appropriately. But don’t pretend that selling him his chains is a free market transaction. It is compulsion, and it must have additional safeguards against abuse that we do not need when all participants act freely.

“You can be convinced now, at least from an ethical standpoint.”

But my objection was never ethical, it is practical.

“In my view the above obligation must be self-imposed from the society upon itself. ”

Arguments like this can justify anything. This is standard statist hand-waving. Specific people have specific obligations. Did they agree to this? Where does the obligation come from? “Social contract?” “General welfare?” “The common good?” Nazi Germany, Ghengis Khan, USSR can all use the same excuses. Please be more specific.

“In order for the market to function properly violence must be stopped. So, society must organize itself in such a way so that crime be punished (retaliative violence).”

You have not shown that this logically implies the obligation we are discussing. And in fact, history denies the connection. Reducing violence does improve markets. But no society has succeeded in eliminating violence completely.

You still have a state-paradigm one-size-fits-all attitude. The market is a discovery process. People *want* to find ways to reduce violence. Centrally planning the solution and imposing obligations on them *prevents* them from discovering better ways. You have not justified it ethically or practically.
- Dave Burns September 26, 2014 , 7:35 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  Oops, I’m wrong. You did justify it ethically (though the justification applies to many other potential solutions, not only yours). You have not eliminated the practical objections.
Youliy Ninov September 26, 2014 , 9:17 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

” But what you said is accurate, because they are criminals, we do not want them to be free. While they are not free, the market cannot protect them.”

That’s the point. They are free actually! They are free while being in police custody and while in jail! They are free all the time! Because there is no initiated violence!! Funny, but true! I have to admit that I have a problem adjusting mentally to the above 🙂
I told you, we have an emotional and semantic problem! Logically everything is OK. People associate the the word “free” with lack of compulsion, independent of its type. This is wrong, but is a fact. And you refuse to try to redefine (correctly) the meaning staying behind the word “free” . All the arguments you state are based on : “compulsion”-> “not free”

“Logic never lies, but when you derive a contradiction, that means one of your assumptions is incorrect.”

Exactly, but I did not reach a contradiction.

“But there must be proportionality.”

I do not remember ever to have said something against the above.

“Your system depends on the practical characteristics of free market transactions to prevent certain kinds of abuse. Because the transactions are not strictly free, this will not work..”

Actually, they are exactly STRICTLY free. If you do not think so, you have to give some reasons (they are missing). If you say that they are not free, then you say that the definition of freedom is incorrect or incomplete.

” If such a coercive market functions the same as a free market, what’s wrong with central planning? Maybe you are a market socialist?”

What is wrong with central planning is that it INITIATES force and consequently the markets it creates are not free.Because they are not free they are inefficient. On the other side my police market is totally free, because there is no initiated force and because it is free, it will be efficient.

“But don’t pretend that selling him his chains is a free market transaction. It is compulsion, and it must have additional safeguards against abuse that we do not need when all participants act freely.”

What is this abuse that you are referring to but not naming?

“Specific people have specific obligations. Did they agree to this? Where does the obligation come from?…. Please be more specific.”

Take for example the present. People would die for the ideas of democracy. They are absolutely convinced beyond any doubt that this the right social system. And if something threatens the democracy they will go to the streets, fight and die for it. They have a belief, which is very strong. And because of this belief we have the present mixed-market (hampered ) economy. So to answer your questions:
“Did they agree to this?” – yes
” Where does the obligation come from?” – from their ideas/beliefs

“You have not shown that this logically implies the obligation we are discussing.”

As you say. Then lets drop this particular subject. Frankly, I am not interested.

“You still have a state-paradigm one-size-fits-all attitude. The market is a discovery process. People *want* to find ways to reduce violence. Centrally planning the solution and imposing obligations on them *prevents* them from discovering better ways. ”

I do not have the slightest idea from where you concluded that I want to centrally plan something. My system is absolutely free. And as I said I can not create it even if I wished. It is not possible. People themselves will have to create it. But this will happen only if their ideas change. I am trying to logically follow the ways through which the free market would assert itself when given the chance (this means, when the ideas of people change).

“You have not eliminated the practical objections.”

I have been hinting to you for a long time to tell me what these practical objections are. Please, do. I need critics. If my system is OK it will overcome it. When one creates a theory, the first thing to look for is to check if it fails somehow. Confirming evidence means nothing.
Dave Burns September 26, 2014 , 10:26 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

” They [criminals] are free actually! They are free while being in police custody and while in jail! They are free all the time! Because there is no initiated violence!!”

Yes, if we use your definition of freedom, they are free. But this definition is unsatisfactory. Or, at least, you have not clarified it sufficiently. So please tell me how it works, what are the limits?

“All the arguments you state are based on : “compulsion”-> “not free””
Yes, I am still using the ordinary definition of that word, until you convince me yours is better.

” I did not reach a contradiction.”
Prisoners are free. (Reminds me of Orwell: War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is slavery.)

“I do not remember ever to have said something against [proportionality].”
Instead you ignored it. Your position is that by committing a crime, the criminal gives permission for the investigation, pursuit, capture, trial, and punishment. To take an extreme example, does someone who steals a candy bar from a convenience store give permission for an investigation that takes years and spends millions? By your scheme, what determines what the law enforcers may not do?

“Actually, they are exactly STRICTLY free.”
By your definition. Clearly, a market operating under your conception of freedom is very different from one operating under mine.

“If you do not think so, you have to give some reasons (they are missing). If you say that they are not free, then you say that the definition of freedom is incorrect or incomplete.”
Yes, it is absurd.

“What is wrong with central planning is that it INITIATES force and consequently the markets it creates are not free.Because they are not free they are inefficient. On the other side my police market is totally free, because there is no initiated force and because it is free, it will be efficient.”
It doesn’t matter who initiates it, if there is force involved, the market will not have the properties you hope for without additional safeguards.

[“specific obligations.]
“Take for example the present. People would die for the ideas of democracy. They are absolutely convinced beyond any doubt that this the right social system. And if something threatens the democracy they will go to the streets, fight and die for it. They have a belief, which is very strong. And because of this belief we have the present mixed-market (hampered ) economy. So to answer your questions:
“Did they agree to this?” – yes
” Where does the obligation come from?” – from their ideas/beliefs”

A) This is not an obligation. If there is someone who says, “Oh, democracy, I don’t really care, I think I will stay home.” No one will come force him to go.
B) You’ve shifted away from the original sort of obligation you had insisted applies to people within your system, specifically that they MUST: ” it must not be up to the victim to decide whether the law be upheld or not.” “we MUST punish the crime.” Etc. What if I own the convenience store, and I want to deal with the candy thief myself? MUST I do something else?

“I do not have the slightest idea from where you concluded that I want to centrally plan something. My system is absolutely free. ”

Yet you list all these obligations, and your system forces people to purchase things they do not want, in pseudo-market transactions. People buy & sell, but they have no real choice. They can choose from the options provided by their masters. It’s just like central planning.

“I have been hinting to you for a long time to tell me what these practical objections are. Please, do. ”

You either need a *real* market, or you need some other mechanism to prevent the abuse that comes with power.
Youliy Ninov September 27, 2014 , 8:20 am Log in to Reply Vote0

“Yes, if we use your definition of freedom, they are free. But this definition is unsatisfactory. ”

The definition is not mine. And it is up to you to explain why it is supposedly not correct. Minarchists, Anarcho-capitalist, etc. accept it entirely.

“Prisoners are free. (Reminds me of Orwell: War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is slavery.)”

Orwell’s are pure contradictions and that is why they are so popular. Mine is not a contradiction and has nothing to do with the above statements.

“To take an extreme example, does someone who steals a candy bar from a convenience store give permission for an investigation that takes years and spends millions? By your scheme, what determines what the law enforcers may not do?”

The market itself determines it. The law enforcer will know that when he captures the criminal with the candy bar he will get approximately 20 USD (for example) in court. So, he will not give preference to this case. The market will lead him.

“Clearly, a market operating under your conception of freedom is very different from one operating under mine.”

Define exactly what yours conception of freedom is. I can not discuss it until you do not specify it explicitly.
I suspect it is the anarchic freedom I mentioned some time ago.

“It doesn’t matter who initiates it, if there is force involved, the market will not have the properties you hope for without additional safeguards.”

And this follows from where? Examples?

“What if I own the convenience store, and I want to deal with the candy thief myself? MUST I do something else?”

It is a bad idea to try to punish the thief yourself. Because you may be wrong (may be he has not wanted to steal or whatever ). That is why judges are present. To take an impartial look at the situation. It is also a bad idea because you may get hurt or he may get hurt (you shoot him for example). That is why the police is necessary. They are professionals in handling such related to violence situations. So, what you must do is call the police and let it do its job. If you don’t do it, then this guy will go unscathed and will do the same again.

“People buy & sell, but they have no real choice. They can choose from the options provided by their masters. It’s just like central planning.”

It is not like central planning because the initiation of force is missing. It embodies exactly the negative obligations you discussed: “Do not to steal”, “Do not kill”, etc. My system does not stop them doing positive things, it prevents them from doing damage. So are you against the negative obligations? And yours statement alludes that criminals must have a choice (to steal or not, to be arrested or not). Can you explain in detail what exactly you mean by that?

“….or you need some other mechanism to prevent the abuse that comes with power.”

Please, explain what this abuse will be. Examples?
Dave Burns September 27, 2014 , 9:10 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

I give up. What is the point of repeating myself? We disagree on the meaning of freedom and how markets work.
- Youliy Ninov September 28, 2014 , 8:46 am Log in to Reply Vote0
  
  If you are interested you could take a look at my recent article:
  
  http://dailyanarchist.com/2014/09/27/why-consumer-appliances-break/
Youliy Ninov September 27, 2014 , 9:58 pm Log in to Reply Vote0

I have always worked with the standard definition of freedom. You obviously do not like its consequences. And I doubt that we disagree how markets work.
If this is the end of the discussion then I have to thank you. You have brought me to some interesting thoughts.