search warrant vs modern slavery

[Laforge]

Hi i unfortunately may have a practical criticism of the free society.
First of i wanna say i have read and mostly understand the philosophy of the book Practical Anarchy so that should save you guys some explaining of basic stuff/terminology.
Situation sketch:
Suppose we all live in a free society and 99,9% of people have been peacefully raised and are morally good men and women.
It's still not a utopia so let's assume Bob is really evil and decides to lock up some women he manages to lure. He chains them to a wall in a cellar on his 2-acre plot of land. The family of the women band together and eventually hear from possible witnesses and strongly suspect Bob. They are not a 100 percent certain and request Bob's DRO to investigate. Since there is no strong case, the DRO can't do anything legally after Bob refused the search. The other villagers hear everything and most people start to ostracise Bob and Bob eventually gets dropped by his DRO because he keeps refusing search. Bob however doesn't care much since he has 2 acres of land, his own septic tank, solar panels, a rain-catchment system, plenty of space and of course the kidnapped women.

How to solve this if we are all raised to really respect property rights and the NAP?
This example focusses on the crime of modern slavery/kidnapping. Today of course it gets dealt with poorly and inefficiently but the fear that people have of the forced search warrant will prevent Bob from practicing his "hobby".
 

[dsayers]

How to solve this if we are all raised to really respect property rights and the NAP?

 

If people (including Bob) were raised peacefully, why would he be capable of the things you describe? If he's capable of the things you describe, how would he be able to manage acquiring a couple acres of land, solar panels, etc? If he's ostracized by everybody else, how will he eat? Who will remove/replace his septic tank? Who will service his solar panels when they break down?

 

What do you mean by NAP? If person X is harming people, for person Y to intervene would not be the INITIATION of the use of force, so I question if aggression means what you think it means.

 

Are you saying that the possibility of this scenario justifies pretending people can exist in different moral categories where some get to subjugate the others? It is unclear what the purpose of your thread is. Can you share that please?

[powder]

psychopaths are not that hard to deal with in a free society.  create a massive power structure like the state that they can take control isn't the solution to anything.  fear of search warrants doesn't prevent evil people from doing evil stuff - where have you been living?  

[Laforge]

Thanks for the replies,

Why would Bob do what he does? We're assuming he is evil because i just don't buy a utopia. There _have_ to be some genuinely evil people due to statistics. Maybe only one in a million, i don't care. If that one manages to find a loop-hole in society, others will copy-cat and/or people will diverge away from a free society. In the above example:
Imagine how ripped apart the family of the kidnapped women will feel. They _will_ strongly advocate a marxist/statist system as long as they can't help the poor ladies. They will be trying to convince others that a free society is just not the way to go.

quote: "If Bob is capable of the things you describe, how would he be able to manage acquiring a couple acres of land, solar panels, etc?"

True that in a free society i'd love to think it is harder for psychopaths to get ahead in life. But this is being optimistic. In our current system, psycho's own the world.
Or perhaps Bob just got brain-damaged by an accident and has turned evil that way.

quote: "If he's ostracized by everybody else, how will he eat? Who will remove/replace his septic tank? Who will service his solar panels when they break down?"

Food will be provided from his land or green houses or huge storage cellars, perhaps he'll force the women to manage crops.
True that after some years of abusing the women, he will probably be desperate for some outside equipment maintenance/repair/help. But i bet the ladies' family don't feel like waiting for that.


There is a documentary/sensational series that you can find on Youtube called "Doomsday Preppers". Basically people who prepare for the end of the world. They'll have barbed fences, traps, land-mines, vicious dogs, assault rifles, food, land,... they basically prepare to ostracize the world. And may only do a maniacal laugh if the world ostracized them.

Don't ask me _why_ they'd also exist in a free society but let's assume they do.

In this statist world, i find these people interesting, maybe even wise and would not be afraid to visit them to look at their preps. Also, i have nothing to fear if i go there cos they wouldn't stand a chance against a police officer knocking on their door saying "Laforge's family is complaining that he is missing, do we need to get a search warrant or will you release him right now and pay a fine?"

In a free society, hell, the intimidating DRO agent from Practical Anarchy who threatens with ostracism might just get no reply. (or get gunned down on Bob's porch for trespassing)
Then what?

This is all exaggerated but i want to show that ultimate respect for private property may enable some really dark stuff.
Perhaps Bob watched "The Story of Your Enslavement" on Youtube and decided the first 2:04 minutes are easily enabled by a free society.

 

[dsayers]

There _have_ to be some genuinely evil people due to statistics. Maybe only one in a million, i don't care. If that one manages to find a loop-hole in society, others will copy-cat and/or people will diverge away from a free society. In the above example:

Imagine how ripped apart the family of the kidnapped women will feel. They _will_ strongly advocate a marxist/statist system as long as they can't help the poor ladies. They will be trying to convince others that a free society is just not the way to go.

 

?! The exception you're referring to would be the result of genetic deformity or head trauma. If it's an anomaly, then why do you suppose that those who were party to that anomaly's immoral behaviors would seek irrational "solutions" to something that's so not a problem it's understood to be an anomaly?

 

Food will be provided from his land or green houses or huge storage cellars, perhaps he'll force the women to manage crops.

True that after some years of abusing the women, he will probably be desperate for some outside equipment maintenance/repair/help. But i bet the ladies' family don't feel like waiting for that.

 

I don't know what you're talking about here. Where did waiting come from? You painted this improbable scenario as if it's worthy of consideration and I pointed out why it's improbable. The waiting you're describing would come AFTER the scenario. I think you missed the point of what I was saying. The idea that somebody could be so self-sufficient that they could get away with heinous immoral acts while immune to ostracism is so far-fetched, it cannot possibly serve as proof that violence is necessary.

 

There is a documentary/sensational series that you can find on Youtube called "Doomsday Preppers". Basically people who prepare for the end of the world. They'll have barbed fences, traps, land-mines, vicious dogs, assault rifles, food, land,... they basically prepare to ostracize the world.

 

This is like saying that people have a saving's account so they can live forever. The saving account (like the preparations you're referring to) are a temporary buffer until such a time as a new, stable influx of resources can be established.

 

This is all exaggerated but i want to show that ultimate respect for private property may enable some really dark stuff.

 

I don't see the connection you're making between private property and the dark stuff you're talking about. It appears you've conflated the non-INITIATION of force with pacifism, which is the non-USE of force. Do you understand the difference?

[Mister Mister]

although psychopaths currently have used the State to "legally" kidnap millions of peaceful people in the real world, today, who are serially raped, beaten. and sometimes killed, a Stateless Society in your imagination might have trouble with the odd psychopath kidnapper who has single-handedly built a completely self-sufficient and impenetrable home...where is this going really?

[cab21]

if there are witnesses, why would there not be a strong case for a search warrant? a search warning is probable cause, not 100 certainty.

[Laforge]

although psychopaths currently have used the State to "legally" kidnap millions of peaceful people in the real world, today, who are serially raped, beaten. and sometimes killed, a Stateless Society in your imagination might have trouble with the odd psychopath kidnapper who has single-handedly built a completely self-sufficient and impenetrable home...where is this going really?

 

Where this is going is everyone being king on their own property. This can be a great thing in a utopian entrepreneurial world but could also be a really bad idea:

What if Bob (or a group of ostracized mad men with Bob in charge) decide to take over the neighbouring property? (Who, for argument's sake, didn't install enough defensive measures)

What's stopping Bob from becoming a medieval king or a mobster? This may lead to a new round of dark ages which could arguably be even worse than our current system. All of the little countries in Europe were once kingdoms (Bob-doms?)

 

 

?! The exception you're referring to would be the result of genetic deformity or head trauma. If it's an anomaly, then why do you suppose that those who were party to that anomaly's immoral behaviors would seek irrational "solutions" to something that's so not a problem it's understood to be an anomaly?

 

Anomaly, hmm i hope so. It is stated in the aforementioned video "The Story of Your Enslavement" that it could be human nature to control the most precious resource: other humans. So even from an evil entrepreneurial point of view this example could be selfishly beneficial. Bob would be like a big mafia-guy sipping martinis perhaps even sending out long-range radio messages offering a big reward or partnership for anyone who brings him more livestock (people to enslave).

Also, people have a way of over-reacting to anomalies. Everyone who lost a kid in a school shooting wants to ban guns (read: centralize guns) which leads to an orwellian/communist system but they want it anyway.

 

 

I don't see the connection you're making between private property and the dark stuff you're talking about. It appears you've conflated the non-INITIATION of force with pacifism, which is the non-USE of force. Do you understand the difference?

 

Good point, are we agreeing that the women's parents or a DRO could kick down Bob's door? (possibly with help from the nation's defensive army)

We might be getting into muddy waters here, from a philosophical point of view. So then you're saying that "under some circumstances" where "strong suspicions are involved" an organization (read: new state) can enter someone's private property. Who decides if strong suspicions are indeed strong enough: the parents, the villagers around Bob, a DRO or an independent judge? This conclusion may lead us closer to libertarianism than anarchism.

 

Anarchism is way more philosophically clean so i'm actually happy to be proven wrong in this thread.

 

[Josh F]

How much would it be worth to the father, mother, brothers, friends and other family of the kidnapped girls to save them?  Thats the incentive in a free society to solving this problem. 

 

Also, lets say they believe Bob to have the girl but the DRO can't prove it sufficiently to get some kind of permission to search the property without consent according to their internal rules.  Well then anyone, including the family, can go to the property with guns blazing.  The risk is their own reputation and wellbeing, if they're wrong about Bob then either they're penalized by their own DRO or Bob shoots them in the face.  Its theirs to risk.  

[powder]

there are many ways that these rare cases of violence can be handled in a free society, Josh's example is a good one.  If I overstep my boundaries to ensure the safety of my family and initiate violence against someone by mistake then it is up to me to make restitution.  so what?  why does it matter?  we know for sure that the state is killing, enslaving, robbing and initiating violence on a massive scale everyday.  why are we talking about crazy Bobs?  are you trying to justify the existence of the state for the sake of managing a few psychos?  I am thinking this is just picking at details for the sake of argument, or is there a bigger theme that I am missing?  

[Laforge]

Okay that is some fine reasoning Josh, thank you. It seems you have rebutted my original situation sketch assuming the enraged family is successful in freeing the slaves and 'accidentally' killing Bob.
 

Also, lets say they believe Bob to have the girl but the DRO can't prove it sufficiently to get some kind of permission to search the property without consent according to their internal rules.

 

I think it's well worth discussing what kind of rules regarding private property DRO's should have. Why so much nitpicking? Well, see my previous post for horrible escalations. We just can't afford mistakes here and find out about it after we've all invested our lives in peaceful anarchy. This forum seems excellent to come up with horror stories and see how a rational anarchist community can fix it.

So far as i understand, the laws/guidelines for anarchy are:
1 don't initiate force
2 respect private property
3 don't support any organization which doesn't respect 1 or 2.

Now suppose Bob specifically targets girls with pacifist/deceased parents to enslave. Suppose a few 90-year-old witnesses saw the kidnapping and sadly for Bob, now every DRO knows what he is doing.
Bob, again, is assumed to be reasonibly immune to ostracism. So which organization can now invade and violate private property according to "their internal rules"? What will they do with Bob?
 

Perhaps we should call things by their proper name, a DRO with "special internal rules" = a state without forced taxation? Maybe not so bad but not really pure anarchism either.

[Josh F]

I don't think it is important to figure any of this out right now, personally.  See my first point, the degree to which people would pay to solve any problem is the degree to which someone else can gain by solving it.  If Bob's range of potential victims continues to shrink over time, that is remarkable success.  

[dsayers]

I think it's well worth discussing what kind of rules regarding private property DRO's should have. Why so much nitpicking? Well, see my previous post for horrible escalations. We just can't afford mistakes here and find out about it after we've all invested our lives in peaceful anarchy.

 

What do you mean by rules? Private property is the product of the capacity for reason. The only differing moral categories are with and without the capacity for reason. You don't know that there will be a need for DROs, but there's no reason to expect that people would pretend they're in a different moral category.

 

Also, there's nothing wrong with making mistakes. What's important is having rational thought, striving for win-win negotiation, and an acceptance of one's capacity for error and the property rights of others. With these things, any mistake we make can be corrected because mistakes wouldn't look like taxing an entire domestic population or terrorizing an entire foreign population like we see today.

 

Suppose something like Bitcoin had been a mistake. Well, people will either alter it to fix the problem or withdraw the value they've stored in it. Even at a loss, this isn't something that would require us to figure out everything in advance. Not saying there isn't value in considering this and that. But the minutia of what the world might look like after everybody is freed from the cycle of violence is nowhere near as important as freeing people from the cycle of violence.

[Laforge]

I agree with both of your wise words! Thanks for your insights.