Search the Community

For anyone who's interested, Reason.tv did a small series about anarchy in Detroit. One of the focuses was Threat Management Centers, a successful private defense company operating in the city. You'll just have to watch for youself because the main guy gives some really good info on why their operation is superior/more effective than police operations.

Hi FDR gang, I was wondering if anyone knows of any books that further discuss the concept of DROs/private insurance agencies. I've listened to all of Stefan's podcasts on DRO's and read his anarchy books and those were very helpful but I'd like to explore this concept even further. Does Robert Higgs write about this topic at all (I'm currently working my way through Crisis and Leviathan)? Anyone have any suggestions? Thanks, C

I have an idea I want to run by the community. It's rough so forgive me please. I am working on polishing it for better presentation but would like some peer review of it now if possible. I'm currently working on an idea that might allow DROs to take shape in today's world. It involves the use of blockchain technology to build a completely decentralized eBay like world market that people choose to enter by agreeing to the terms and behavioral guidelines. The advantage of using the system for transactions are reputation and protection. An ID number is assigned permanently in the system and effectively tied to a real person and ID#s are managed by popular concensus in a decentralized manner but require a personal acceptance into the system (almost clan like). Through the blockchain, member behavior is public. All transactions are subject to eBay like purchase complaint resolution. Proof of any interactions will be obvious and public. Also the fairness of the transaction will be subject to ratings and even the freezing of an ID# until sufficient number of people agree to concur, in the system, that the dispute had been resolved. Once we establish that system, the DROs will have to work within that ecosystem and risk losing participation in a valuable market if they behave poorly. You could literally have blockchain legal complaints resolution. Once a crime is committed an ID#/person can immediately report it. This is where a DRO steps in. Anyone can offer to resolve disputes and act as a third party. Obviously, not every DRO will even appeal to you in any way but you end up at least with your neighbors stepping up and saying "yeah man, I got your back. Let's make a DRO and make a few bucks helping people in our neighborhood." But that last example is how it would start. Through trial and error this market will decide what kind of DROs you actually really need versus what you used to think we needed. All of this would begin operations under state rule. But through such a system's growth, government would become less and less relevant. The details of what happens after that should become more obvious after the passage of time but I expect us to achieve a model that can evolve and compete with other such models in a free blockchain decentralized market. It would be important to have a decentralized dispute resolution within the system that cannot be perfect but would allow to remove incentives to ban ID#s from the system for trivial reasons. Perhaps for every complaint will require 10 ID#s/people to vouch for you that the dispute has been resolved etc. . still working on that part. In short, it would require a real interaction with your local community to gain traction and the value of the people operating within a given ecosystem would drive up the trade value of its currency. In effect, the community itself would act as a DRO. I also envision a Linkedin style profile that is permanent within an ecosystem or within all ecosystems that will follow you for your entire life and is not profitable to fake. Anyway, I'm trying to find holes in the idea so I would love it if you would think about it and let me know where you see it failing or how to improve it. Show less

This post is in response to Stefan's 'Fuck Evil' elevator pitch for being good as well as podcast 2839 Death by Incentives: What Makes The World Go Round. For the people on this board, "Fuck Evil" is what makes us get out of bed in the morning. Yet, the rest of humanity is content to say "I don't really want to fight evil". Just like Freedomain Radio has done over the course of its near decade-long history, we have to get better at incentivizing good in the world; we have to figure out what will make others want to be good if we want to win them over the the side of true ethics. What I've been wondering for the past month is two-fold: 1) What examples are there currently in the world where being good is profitable? and 2) What are the barriers to making true ethics profitable (be they currencies of economic, social or physiological nature), besides the obvious gun of the government? I have my own thoughts but I want to hear from people on the board. More specifically, I'm wondering why we have credit scores but no one has invented a 'virtue score'. What if everyone involved in a community was given a score which could go up or down depending on the objective measure of virtue in their actions? We have the scientific framework to assess people on a moral level -- universally preferable behavior -- so what is stopping us from taking the assessment outside of theory and putting it into concrete measurements? As we know from physics and engineering, if you can't measure something it doesn't exist. For me this is inevitable in the course of achieving freedom, and we do it in our personal relationships without even thinking about it. Perhaps the expansion of incentives into the public domain has not happened yet because the world is not ready for it. But we have proved that at least a small portion of the world is ready for it. I've experienced FDR as very similar to a DRO. I'm much more likely to want to buy goods from people in this community than from everyone outside of the community. Any entrepreneurs out there looking for a really difficult but rewarding project?

Someone asked David Friedman this question and i was wondering if other libertarians agree or disagree with his answer. Skip to 1:40:10

Hello! fellow Philosophers. EDIT: To be perfectly clear, I do not endorse Bitnation. I only mention it as an example of people working on decentralized insurance companies among other things, Decentralized insurance or DDROs are my only interest in Bitnation right now. And it is their essense that intrigues me not the means in which they may be applied, atleast at this time. There's a topic that I've wanted to bring to your attention for a while now and I'm exited to say the time has come. I'm not sure how familiar all of you are with the Bitcoin technology, but I believe it has the power to speed hack us to a free-er society in a variety of ways. For those that are not familiar with the back end of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a long list of every transaction that has ever been made, this transactions can carry anything from information about who owns what coin, to digital files that represent things in the real world. A google maps image of your house for example can be "hashed" and turned into a unique set of digits that once added to the blockchain along side a hash of a contract signed could prove transferred ownership of the house. This ledger is distributed among computers all over the world and in multiple jurisdictions and it is updated live. For a variety of reasons that I can get into if people are skeptical, Bitcoin's technology makes fraud very very very difficult. It also allows for what have been dubbed DAO's or decentralized autonomous organizations. This simply put means that one can create a program that runs ontop of blockchain networks and can not be destroyed or ended by any one party, since there is no central point of failure. The internet would have to be shut down, to kill Bitcoin and that which is being built ontop of it. The reason I mention all this, is because there are a few projects gaining strength that may allow for what could be decentralized, jurisdiction and bureaucracy free insurance companies. And if I remember correctly, insurance companies are essentially what DROs are, according to stef's DRO theory. I'll be writing an article about this topic during the next week or so that I'll be aiming to post on Bitcoin Magazine and will be interviewing someone deeply involved in Crypto currencies and insurance. But I also wanted to get your thoughts on this subject. If we had the possibility of having insurance companies that are not subject to government power. Than can we begin to build the anarchist heaven that we have dreamt of, ontop of the internet? Here is one project in particular that claims to know how to do something like this. Though I am skeptical of many of the claims they make, bitcoin insurance seems to me very possible and within our grasp. http://www.bitnation.co/ I can elaborate more or anything if you wish. I have not looked into DRO theory in a while though, so this is part of the research for the article. My question is. If we can create insurance companies ontop of the internet, with their headquarters being a website distributed throughout the world, and with its core members being anonymous. And if we can find ways to have users of insurance prove to these organization when damage to insure property has happened, than do DRO's come to life? How is government able to control and diminish the power of insurance today and why are DROs not currently alive? What would be the limitations of such a system, given that peaceful parenting has not yet become mainstream? Thank you. I look forward to your thoughts. (PS: trying to find the right forum for this post has resulted in my posting it in 2 different sub forums here, sorry for spam)

I'm sitting here listening to FDR2681, and kindof surprised at the conversation. Ok, perhaps this post is a bit of a stretch in terms of practicality, but I actually appreciated the caller's quandry to a degree, and like him am interested in Stef's analysis of the hypothetical example. The point of it is to get at the heart of the moral issue, not to create a silly hypothetical merely for the sake of it. These scenarios call us to question the limits or boundaries of the NAP, and that is important. I have added a few more elements to make the scenario even more interesting than was discussed in the podcast. To paraphrase, Stef's perspective of the essence of morality in this example lies within the complaint, and cited rape vs. rough sex as an example. But that analogy doesn't seem to corelate well to the moral questions contained here, now does it? What I added to the scenario below is done to dilute the moral outrage, such that it becomes less black or white, right or wrong. In today's society people would cry to the government, "there out to be a law against that". Really? Aren't there numerous scenarios where people are "at risk" and without insurance to protect them from that risk? What about unknown risks, like meteors the size of a car falling out of te sky into your house, or space junk? Or throat cancer? Just what is the risk to the community in the examples below, and does that really matter if a nosy neighbor complains? Could Bob sue the nosey neighbor for slander or defamation if his reputation is harmed but Bob's activities are proven to be totally safe? One could imagine many ways Bob's bombs could be safe, such as no explosive materials in his home (they're added to his bombs elsewhere before detonation for example). 1) The basement bomb maker, let's call him Bob, is discovered one day to have been making bombs in his basement for lets say 10 years (arbitrary but lengthly timeframe), during which time no issues or problems have occured. 2) This was discovered quite by accident when a neighbor noticed a bright reflection of the sun coming in his window from a rather odd shiny thing glistening in Bob's driveway. When the neighbor brought this to Bob's attention Bob explained it was for his latest project, and it must have fell out of the box he took from his car. The neighbor, not being satisfied with that explanation started watching Bob and eventually saw him through an open window working on something the neighbor was uncomfortable with. 2) Bob is a long time employee of Acme Explosives, a demolition company for quaries and structure disposal. Acme and several other former employers have recognized Bob for his "extreme" safety conciousness and have awarded him many plaques and other honors for his expertise. 3) Bob is passionate about his craft and has no malice or destructive intentions towards anybody. It is his hobby to build these devices and claims they're perfectly safe. He points to the many uses of his bombs to remove obsolete buildings which are in and of theselves a safety hazard and for reducing the time required to escavate the massive amount of earth for the nearby river dam project that brought electricity to 1000s of homes. 4) Bob would like to continue his experimentation and development of explosive devices and is willing to have a panel of explosive experts evaluate his basement "lab" for safety with the goal being to become certified as being safe for his residential setting. 5) Bob's experience gives him great confidence he will obtain the "safe" certification. But if not Bob will cease all work on his "hobby" devices until he can relocate to a place where there are no concerns for his activities. 6) Bob claims his bombs are no more risky to his neighbors than the sportsman down the street who reloads all his own ammunition. In fact he claims it's much safer. Now who is in favor of letting Bob play with his bombs? Would your decision be influenced if you knew Bob kept no explosive chemicals in his home, except for perhaps minor ones like primer caps or similar very low power, non-lethal detonators? ----- Perhaps another man is a collector of world war 2 biological weapons, claiming he is keeping them out of the dangerous hands of terrorists and politicians. Similar to the story of Bob above, a large underground storage bunker is discovered with these weapons and it has been under this man's control for a very long time. The man is well respected in his community and the discovery divides the community as to this man's motives and intentions for accumulating the weapons. Where would you stand on these issues? Isn't is similar to your stand on living near the San Andreous fault or Yellowstone? Or what about on the hurricane risk of the Atlantic coast or Gulf of Mexico? What about unknown risks? Do you know what dangerous industries are close to you? What about dangerous cargo on a nearby highway?

Hello all, this is my first post here, I'll be sure to write something up in the appropriate forum for introductions but I just wanted to share something I've been working on and get some input from the community. The below are things I posted in facebook discussions, the first in response to a discussion between Michael Shanklin and Peter Joseph (oh, the joy!) and the other in a thread regarding abortion and equality of rights between men and women...I intend to keep thinking about and tinkering w/ the ideas and arguments, any feedback would be greatly appreciated. ----Regarding the "who owns children?" question. I think of it as though the parent is holding the child in trust for its future self. A trustee has certain duties and obligations to care for the property of another. If you're renting a home, you don't own the property but you do have custody and control of it and are obliged to at least call the landlord when the roof starts to leak.This all works very well with the competitive "child advocacy business" (CAB) scenario and I have little doubt such systems would be well funded if they can prove their effectiveness. CAB organizations could be tied into DRO contracts wherein the obligation and funding is purely contractual. Much like driving a car obligates you to have insurance that meets certain standards, having a child could require you to contract with a credible CAB or be dropped from the DRO for breach.I think an argument could be made that parents owe a few years of therapy if they "screw their kids up", to me this seems well within the scope of a CAB to set guidelines, make appropriate determinations and to effect remedies. The question of capacity determination (when the child's custody should be given back to itself) also seems quite within the scope of a DRO/CAB system. It seems likely that a CAB would offer parents real incentives to educate themselves in effective parenting strategies and to participate in regular evaluations (discount daaaahblecheck.)As per usual, you can remove yourself from the DRO system entirely to live in the woods and let the squirrels raise your children, good luck with that. regarding private dispute resolution in the case of one parent wanting to abort and the other not wanting it. note the morality of abortion is specifically not at issue. ---- Well, outside of the state system, private dispute resolution organizations (DRO) would take on the role of courts...to my mind, the closest analog we have to a DRO is an insurance company, like your auto insurance carrier...part of a DRO contract could be a clause regarding pregnancy, this could include the topic of abortion.Let's say I sign up w/ a DRO that has an anti-abortion clause, I agree not to initiate/advocate abortion and they agree to make attempts to not allow any of my progeny to be aborted. Part of the contract may include penalties if I sleep with women that have pro-abortion clauses in their DRO contracts, or separate agreements (contracts) with such women in order to avoid the penalties.So, I go out and shag a gal that's got a pro-abortion DRO contract...let's say her contract actually demands that she abort...as has been pointed out, we can't actually force that, but you could certainly encourage it with things like financial penalties or dropping their coverage entirely.So, I end up impregnating this gal, I immediately am penalized by my DRO and likely have to purchase a policy with a child advocacy business (CAB) before I can even resume coverage...but there's now a dispute between my (anti) DRO and hers (pro)...they're just businesses though and have only one interest -- making money by serving their customers interests -- so it all comes down to numbers, it's just a function of the market very similar to insurance payouts.So pro-DRO and anti-DRO do some calculations, let's say pro figures it'll cost them $1million -- from lost customers as well as CAB and child-rearing costs to go against their clients wishes to abort...pro-DRO figures it'll cost them $1.5million both from lost customers and and penalties they'll owe their client to go against his wishes to not abort...in this case, the negotiators sit down and the following agreement is reached -- if the woman will carry the baby to term, they'll (anti-DRO) pay her $500k; if she aborts, her DRO (pro-DRO) will pay $500k...these costs would likely be passed directly to the customers themselves...in other words, she's got a $1million incentive to have the baby.

I created this thread: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38170-the-future-of-bitcoin/ and I was somewhat disappointed with the response, and in revisiting the thread I think I realized I wasn't addressing the topic in the right way and asking questions. Thus, I decided to revisit the topic, but re-vamp and address things from a slightly different angle, which should make a higher quality post and, hopefully, provide a better discussion around bitcoin's future. The Money Regulation Algorithm Bitcoin has produced an amazing thing by creating a system that eliminates the idea of state inflation and money regulation. Money instead is regulated by math. Math tells you that 2 + 2 = 4 every time. A politician tells you that, “If you vote for me, for 2 + 2, I can get you 5” but he doesn’t tell you that in order to get 5, you have to pay 2 more later in the year, and your progeny will owe 5 in debt. A banker tells you, “I can tell you what 2 + 2 equals and let you use it, for a fee.” When you can create an algorithm that replaces a function, you get a ton of resources that are freed up and a lot of savings in money as the old system becomes obsolete. Altcoins and Metacoins Based on bitcoin, there are several things that are being practiced. Altcoins are cryptocurrencies that are somewhat based on bitcoin that try to provide a different service of some kind. Litecoin allows faster transaction times and would be great for buying a candy bar where waiting around for several minutes for a transaction to confirm would be arduous. Namecoin can help to create an internet that is resilient to censorship and outages by using new domain name creation. There are many types of altcoins. Some of them are not going to stick around because they are just pump-and-dump (the creators mine a bunch, then tell people, then cash out on the hype) or they have great features where if they are successful, they will just integrate them into bitcoin. However, some make changes that bitcoin cannot replicate without creating an entirely new system in itself. Metacoins are coin apps that users can create on top of the bitcoin application. I will be able to use a Mastercoin-like service to create the WesleyMetaCoin. These coins can be used in any way that I want them to be used, whether it is shares for a company, or “I owe you’s” for people, or investors in a project where the coins are a badge of honor, or even a donation certificate given to supporters of a charity. Further Replacement Thus, I have talked about before how these coins could be used to replace contract law. Ownership and contracts are determined by mathematical hashes rather than any state-run arbitrator. Ownership can be simply determined by a private key, and contracts can be signed in a similar fashion. This would provide further obsolescence of the state as a complex service that can be simply replaced by an algorithm. Experimentation I want to see even more experimentation with this. Why don’t people try to come up with a coin that has built-in welfare allocation that allows these social programs to become obsolete. Maybe bitcoin in itself already allows this as a per-unit gift in USD vs Bitcoin has a large efficiency gap. Why don’t people create inflationary currencies in which the inflation goes to provide some service to the user. Even voting can be done using “coins” that can be allocated in a certain way and would provide better features and accountability than any system that the state may run. Results and Questions Thus, the state no longer would exist as it currently does. Slowly, more and more gets replaced by math, computers, and entrepreneurs rather than the arbitrary cloud of opacity surrounding the hero-worship of arbitrary words and theory. Welfare and charity can be done in a voluntary and transparent way and a million different solutions can be tried until a solution is decided upon by enough people as to become the standard. Maybe with all of these other "services" being replaced, welfare wouldn't even be necessary in the long run. People can choose what coins to use, and it becomes a simple protocol that is open-source and voluntary in nature. What other “state-run services” can be replaced by bitcoin? Or, more importantly, do you think that anything can’t be replaced by bitcocin? Why not? If you think there is something that can't be replaced, maybe someone else can come up with a way that it can be. Slowly, bitcoin will wear away at bits of the state and become more popular while entrepreneurs are creating more features and more solutions in the background. Maybe the DRO gets replaced entirely by math? Maybe it can't be, but so many of the services we currently view as state services can be that the DRO becomes a much smaller entity than was previously thought, with much aid from bitcoin, altcoins, and metacoins so that they operate in a much more efficient manner. It is certain that the future of bitcoin will make major impact on how we view rules and laws, bringing them from the government into voluntary rules that are driven by math which is always consistent. The implications are intriguing.

OK so let's say that you are sitting on a pot of oil and a company contracts with you to get your product out of the ground and to market, and you both agree upon the DRO to use and things are working out just fine. Then some other country comes in with their armed forces and take the property for themselves. What happens? How could this be prevented in a free society?