Search the Community

Fairly simple question. I've been steadily learning about free societies since I got into Stef. One debate I listened to with him featured an opponent who argued that: (A) Insurance companies are seemingly capable of great evil, so why would we put so much trust in them? (B) We aren't a connected enough society for economic ostracism to work. (A) seems fairly straightforward. In a free society, competition would basically keep insurance companies in line. As soon as one started acting shadily, you could jump to another one with more honest practices. I'm guessing we would see something like Yelp on steroids. (B) is more interesting. (Maybe it's my memory, and please tell me if it is) In the research I've done so far, I haven't heard a strong proposal on how this would be dealt with. My instinct is that everybody must be in a universal database. When a person violates the NAP, and refuses to play nice with a DRO, they get a flag like "Didn't keep his contract, owes ACME landscaping company $300," or "This man is accused of murder, click here to discuss and vote for his guilt or innocence in the case forum." Hell, I'm on board already. Funny anarchy is still better than statism. #snowcrash But hey, huge databases with the power to assassinate our characters, isn't that kind of asking for the maintainer of said data to abuse that power? I'm probably being incredibly short-sighted here. Feel free to respond with a copypasta about combine harvesters and ancient tree juice.