The WacDonalds Dilemma

[Laforge]

I'd like to describe a practical situation which currently is mostly solved by calling guys with title "Policeman" + uniform.
But i am puzzled by how it could be solved the anarchist way.

Assume a European WacDonalds fastfood restaurant. It is very busy. We can rougly divide the relevant people into four groups:
group M - 6 WacDonalds workers consisting of one manager + two cassiers + three cooks.
group R - roofers, currently the roof is being waterproof-recoated by a 4 man team.
group C - customers where lady Carrey is really annoying, however she is well educated in philosophical anarchy.
group I - 5 investors from company Invertor in Tokyo, Japan. They own the WacDonalds property and employ both groups M and R.

Situation:
Lady Carrey is really annoying, demanding unreasonible things from the manager.
Things verbally escalate and it turns into a scene.
So now the manager _really_ wants her to leave.

Problem:
How could he achieve this?
From Carrey's point of view, group M has no more rights to be there than group R.
So why would the manager have more rights? Can he initiate force and push her off the property? Just because he wears the title "Manager" + uniform?
Company Invertor owns the property, but each of the investors only own 20%. Plus they are in Tokyo.
So it's kinda out of the question for at least 3 of 5 (60% ownership) or all 5 (100% ownership) to fly over and defend their property rights, right?
 

[J. D. Stembal]

What is the customer's complaint and why isn't the manager addressing it?

[PedroRomero]

I think the manager can act on behalf of the owners.

I don't see any problem on kicking out somebody out of your property, no matter what that somebody thinks is good or bad.

Of course, proportional force should be used, no need to break the lady's legs just for complaining, escort her out of the premises.

 

If it escalates too much, then a court should decide who was right.

[Omegahero09]

Managers have the right by proxy to kick people off the premises.

 

They are held accountable as such, but they have the right to.

[shirgall]

I think the manager can act on behalf of the owners.

I don't see any problem on kicking out somebody out of your property, no matter what that somebody thinks is good or bad.

Of course, proportional force should be used, no need to break the lady's legs just for complaining, escort her out of the premises.

 

If it escalates too much, then a court should decide who was right.

 

One of the things that separates managers from other employees is agency. Not only does a manager have the power to act in the stead of the owner and enforce property rights, but also the duty to act in the best interests of the owner, which means to reduce the harm to the property through action.

 

http://agency.uslegal.com/rights-duties-and-liabilities-between-principal-and-agent/

[luxfelix]

Along with PedroRomero's suggestion of proportional force, perhaps starting with a request to please leave followed by an order if she escalates, there's also an appropriate chain-of-command:

 

Since the manager is charged directly (through contract with owners etc.) with the operation of the establishment, he would have the initial authority to act on the owners' behalf to request/order/command her removal (and if he is absent then this could be the lead cashier etc.); if the woman escalates to the point of endangering others, than any employee, customer, and/or passerby could intervene.

 

If it escalates to the point of endangerment or property damage, than a court/DRO could be used as a third-person arbitration service to settle the incident.

 

In short, it might look similar to the way it is now, except for the non-initiation of force.

[Laforge]

Thanks for your responses!

 

What is the customer's complaint and why isn't the manager addressing it?

 

Please just insert any story that makes the manager sound reasonible and Carrey very unreasonible. Like she keeps demanding 100 euros compensation because her fries were too cold or something. I don't think those details are essential for the thread.

I think most people will agree the manager can do some stuff but the question is why.
From Carrey's point of view, she'd say:
"Why should i let myself get pushed around by some clown in uniform who might have a contract with the property owners?"
"Does this mean that the 'manager' of the roofing team (group R) can push me around as well??"
"Bah allllways some guy in uniform who claims to be imbued with higher powers! It is NOT your property! So you don't touch me!"
 

[Anuojat]

Thanks for your responses!

 

 

Please just insert any story that makes the manager sound reasonible and Carrey very unreasonible.

 

See this is exactly the sort of things msot statist try to desperately tie us up in. Abstract non-specific problems arent problems at all that should reasonable give anyone any pause other than "i dont know" or "why do you care so much." Just pointing this annoying reoccuring theme, becaus ewhen the problem is abstract and not specific you KNOW theyre not interested in finding solutions, merely scared and emotionall triggered by things such as these.

 

Now if this was merely for your own personal curiousitys sake ignore what i said.

[Kaki]

I think most people will agree the manager can do some stuff but the question is why.

From Carrey's point of view, she'd say:

"Why should i let myself get pushed around by some clown in uniform who might have a contract with the property owners?"

"Does this mean that the 'manager' of the roofing team (group R) can push me around as well??"

"Bah allllways some guy in uniform who claims to be imbued with higher powers! It is NOT your property! So you don't touch me!"

 

 

The owner has the right over his property and can for example remove people from his restaurant. Since he has the right over his own property he can also put someone in charge to act in his stead. (He pays someone to "manage his property".)

 

The roofing team probably has a contract with the owner about fixing the roof, not about managing the place. Therefore non of them have the right to act in stead of the owner. Why would they have that right?

 

Carrey in your example mentions "some guy in uniform" which makes me think she is reminded of the police.

The police are indeed most of the time just "guys in uniform, claiming to be imbued with higher powers". They claim to have rights which no one else has and which can't possibly be transferred to them by others (who do actually own those rights).

For example: We don't have the right to demand a certain percentage of other people's income and put them in cages if they don't pay. The police though arbitrarily claims to have this right.

 

If I have a right, I can also transfer it to someone else. If I don't have that right I can't give it to anyone else.

Let's say my wallet is stolen, I then have the right to take it back from the thief. But if the thief is much stronger than I am, I can also put someone else in charge to get my wallet back.

On the other hand I don't have the right to lock you in my basement if you smoke a plant I happen to dislike. Therefore I can also not put anyone else in charge to lock you up.

 

The manager can make use of the property rights and remove an unpleasant costumer if necessary because he was given the right by someone who legitimately owns it.

[J. D. Stembal]

Please just insert any story that makes the manager sound reasonible and Carrey very unreasonible. Like she keeps demanding 100 euros compensation because her fries were too cold or something. I don't think those details are essential for the thread.

 

Why would the customer act in this way? You said she was knowledgeable about philosophy. Why is the manager looking for ways to remove her from the store instead of being a good manager?

 

This sounds like a life boat scenario with no good solutions as you have laid it out. If the fries are cold, then the customer will probably ask for fries that aren't cold or a refund. Why would the fries be worth 100 Euros? Why would this scenario escalate to the police being called? Give the customer some tasty fries and all will be well.

 

If you want to consider a more interesting scenario, what if the customer walks in open carrying a handgun or rifle? Let's say he's a hunter, and wants Chicken Nuggets before he leaves town to bag some juicy elk. Does the manager refuse him service based on the fact that he is armed, and tell him to leave? Or does the manager serve the customer despite his misgivings about armed citizens without blue uniforms in his restaurant?

 

To reiterate an earlier theme, why does this MacDonald's scenario interest you?

[luxfelix]

A visual representation:

 

[Laforge]

The police are indeed most of the time just "guys in uniform, claiming to be imbued with higher powers". They claim to have rights which no one else has and which can't possibly be transferred to them by others (who do actually own those rights).

For example: We don't have the right to demand a certain percentage of other people's income and put them in cages if they don't pay. The police though arbitrarily claims to have this right.

 

If I have a right, I can also transfer it to someone else. If I don't have that right I can't give it to anyone else.

 

Again some great responses from all of you! Indeed at the very least we can settle on the fact that "someone claiming agency" removing a person from a specific property is way better than the statist violence hole we are currently all born into.

These responses+video will certainly strengthen my case when trying to convince statists in my own circle.

 

Carrey (or myself) could still whine a bit about "well how do i know that you have enforcement rights from the property owners?" "how do i know you're the real manager and not just the manager of the roofing team if i don't care for uniforms or titles?" "does some assistent-manager or cashier have the right?" but i guess those are a bit of a stale technicality to get in to.

 

There seems to be some interest in situations where customers can be unreasonible, lets try a few different examples. So another real-world, non abstract unreasonible customer could be:

 

1. a super smelly+dirty person that buys a 1 euro ice-cream and tries to stay in the restaurant all day.

2. a person sitting and staring at some attractive cashier all day long.

3. a person refusing to leave an hour after closing time.

 

I hope i don't have to dig up any more real-world shitty situations from memory.

By the way even if the roles are reversed and the manager is really bad tempered, the same question of "does he have the right to..." still applies i think.

 

 

If you want to consider a more interesting scenario, what if the customer walks in open carrying a handgun or rifle? Let's say he's a hunter, and wants Chicken Nuggets before he leaves town to bag some juicy elk. Does the manager refuse him service based on the fact that he is armed, and tell him to leave? Or does the manager serve the customer despite his misgivings about armed citizens without blue uniforms in his restaurant?

 

The manager could, if he was anti-gun for some reason, tell him to leave. Or it depends on the company's policy if they have one. But i think the better/anarchist solution would be to ignore it.

 

However here in Europe he couldn't set one step into any populated place without wearing a blue police uniform. Actually i think its not blue anymore but black with a few yellow stripes recently... I'm guessing next upgrade will be bulletproof vests and then remote controlled army-grade robots maybe. Perhaps after that we get injected with nanobots so us tax-livestock can be remote-deactivated or tortured. Saves prison space. Hmmm i'm sounding like a darker version of the song "In The Year 2525" by Zager and Evans.

 

[Carl Green]

[Kaki]

Carrey (or myself) could still whine a bit about "well how do i know that you have enforcement rights from the property owners?"

 

So, if you go buy a burger, how do you know the person making the burger and taking your money actually owns the right to sell the burger and has the right to take your money for it?

 

Do you usually ask the cashier in the supermarket for her papers, contracts etc. before you buy something - just to make sure she was given the right to sell something to you? Seriously, how do you live your life if this is a concern of yours?

[J-William]

So, if you go buy a burger, how do you know the person making the burger and taking your money actually owns the right to sell the burger and has the right to take your money for it?

 

Do you usually ask the cashier in the supermarket for her papers, contracts etc. before you buy something - just to make sure she was given the right to sell something to you? Seriously, how do you live your life if this is a concern of yours?

 

You win this thread! 

[Omegahero09]

There seems to be some interest in situations where customers can be unreasonible, lets try a few different examples. So another real-world, non abstract unreasonible customer could be:

 

1. a super smelly+dirty person that buys a 1 euro ice-cream and tries to stay in the restaurant all day.

2. a person sitting and staring at some attractive cashier all day long.

3. a person refusing to leave an hour after closing time.

 

I hope i don't have to dig up any more real-world shitty situations from memory.

By the way even if the roles are reversed and the manager is really bad tempered, the same question of "does he have the right to..." still applies i think.

 

I'll put some solutions I could conjure up to the three non abstract unreasonible customer problems in an outline format:

 

1. A super smelly+dirty person that buys a 1 euro ice-cream and tries to stay in the restaurant all day.

    a) Point the vagrant to the "no loitering" sign on the wall, or any signage in the establishment that expresses the right of the establishment to kick people out.

    b) Watch him for when he breaks a rule- and then ask him to leave when he does. If he resists contact DRO.

 

2. A person sitting and staring at some attractive cashier all day long.

    a) Same as 1. Loitering in a business is loitering, regardless if whether or not they are being a creep.

 

3. A person refusing to leave an hour after closing time.

    a) Contact DRO. This is gross trespassing and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

 

It should be noted that resolving disputes without the confines of our statist laws and not knowing the context of rules and laws established in an ancap society - is going to be a little weird. We can assume on some level that the businesses will have far, far more power and agency to resolve these issues than they do with the state owning absolutely everything.

 

There's no way to know for sure how exactly it's going to work. However I've found it best in my conversations to stick to first principles. People are responsible for what they do.

 

If you owned the business where bums, creeps, weirdos and trespassers are interacting with you, your property and more importantly your customers- how would you think to deal with them?