Do we all need to be in a huge database for anarchy to work?

[RamynKing]

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.

[aviet]

These huge databases already exist. At some point I'd like to do a write-up on the data industry and how to keep your data from being collated.

If you live in The West, and maybe even if you don't, you're almost definitely in such a database.

When you open a bank account, all the personal details you give them are sent to credit check agencies. They have your real time bank balance, your income, your debt, your debt restructuring, debt terms. This data has been bound up with multiple different sources to create tables with 100s of columns. They've been merged with voter files, which contain political affiliation and race. They've been bound with religious donations to give religion; mobile phone databases, land line databases, family size, all manner of magazine subscription lists, immigration records, emails, whether you have a swimming pool

When you buy anything like mobile phone contracts, insurance, credit; in that big contact you sign but don't read they tell you in jargon that pretty much everything they have on you will be for sale. It's a big industry that is worth billions. I have one UK database that is for one year (2013). It has 18 million entries, some duplicates, with all manner of details and the name of the company of who sold them. Some of the companies: TESCO, EE, ASDA, Virgin, Aviva, Direct Line.

If you value your privacy, the biggest mistake you can make is signing up for one of these loyalty points cards. When you do that, these companies sell your entire purchase history and bind it up to the above mentioned huge databases to create detailed profiles on you.

In the last few years a new bumper crop of data has arisen - social media, in particularly LinkedIn, who openly sell all your data to companies who bind it up to the above data.

Large companies will have databases with thousands of fields of info on you. And this is only the legal side. Who knows what else may go on. And on top of that you have the dark side of hackers who are increasingly getting hold of this info. I was able to bind up about half of the Ashley Madison dump, which includes sexual perversions, to credit rating data with income, address, family size, debt and so on. It's not my intention to use it this way, but it's a motherload of blackmail info. One of the highest value hacked data sets is medical records. For blackmail.

Some of the best simple things you can do to maintain privacy:

Set up a catch all email on a domain and use a unique email for every site <- use this when you have to give out an address
Get an account with Scryptmail and use a unique email for each site <- use this when you are signing up for sites anonymously, like forums
Don't maintain accounts with large stores like Walmart, Sainsbury's etc.
Don't use loyalty cards

More advanced:

Get a second passport, often quite easy if you have some foreign ancestry: Indian, Serbian, Polish, Armenian, Germany - among others.
Keep your money in a backwater like Saint Vincent, Seychelles, or at least Hong Kong or Seychelles
Buy a house in an obscure country



So, most large companies have these databases and they use them in part as you suggest, to establish trust. And it's not really difficult to get access to them as a private citizen, especially if you live in the US when you can use sites like InstantCheckMate. In other countries you need to go through a PI.

I don't think there is any need for such databases for what you suggest. In a much freer market we would have more cowboys/low quality setting up as the barrier to entry would be much lower. The result would be that people would have to be more diligent with their purchases, which I think is a good thing. Right now people expect to just fall back on the government or a bank if things don't go as planned. You may be more likely to get burnt, but that's life. With the level of regulation we have now, I've been burnt.

[Donnadogsoth]

Aren't monopolies anathema to ancap?

[webdever]

I'm sure you are already in several such databases, like credit scores, court records, social networks (especially if you freelance or earn money through any web service like uber that tracks reviews). 

 

You asked the same question about insurance companies, if they are cable of such great evil, why trust them? And you gave the answer that competition would keep them in line.

 

If we have the same problem with databases, that their owners could be capable of great evil, shouldn't the same apply here? Competition and free markets will keep the database maintainers in line?

[DaVinci]

My take on this is that if humans were more connected to each other that it would largely negate the need for DRO's. I think our view of DRO's living in a not free society is thinking of them as replacing mountains when a society that is peaceful will actually only need a few scattered hills worth of DRO's. 

[Drew.]

Just to add a bit to what you, Ramynking, were arguing in your initial post, the news has popped up with a recent incident of how economic ostracism has proven effect. Rachel Dolezal hasn't been able to find employment for quite some time after being exposed, and there is no universal database yet.

[NotDarkYet]

Anarchy can work with zero technology.

 

Two people on an deserted island can accomplish zero aggression.

[RamynKing]

great replies all!

i'd like to prod some of them further:

 

In a much freer market we would have more cowboys/low quality setting up

 

could you explain this a little more in terms of databases?

 

 

Aren't monopolies anathema to ancap?

my understanding is that they'd be simply ineffectual. without antitrust laws to protect them, they'd be constantly  outdone by upstarts.

 

but in terms of data, yea, in my admittedly short-sighted thinking, you would want one main trusted database for ostracism to take the place of prison (restitution vs retribution?)

 

 

If we have the same problem with databases, that their owners could be capable of great evil, shouldn't the same apply here? Competition and free markets will keep the database maintainers in line?

i'd like to think so! but for instance, if a database service starts going bad, and they hold the rights to the database, you wouldn't want to jump to a new service that doesn't have as robust a collection of data, yea?

 

 

My take on this is that if humans were more connected to each other that it would largely negate the need for DRO's. I think our view of DRO's living in a not free society is thinking of them as replacing mountains when a society that is peaceful will actually only need a few scattered hills worth of DRO's. 

 

i hope so! because when i hear stef go down the DRO rabbit hole, it makes my head spin pretty fast.

 

 

Just to add a bit to what you, Ramynking, were arguing in your initial post, the news has popped up with a recent incident of how economic ostracism has proven effect. Rachel Dolezal hasn't been able to find employment for quite some time after being exposed, and there is no universal database yet.

 

ha! i need to read the articles, but i'm sure she could land an entry level job! maybe she could become a white supremacist!

 

...

...

 

i've come up with a rudimentary solution just from typing my reply. it's funny how sometimes i just don't feel like putting my mind to a probably solvable problem. but i thought it warranted discussion due to this topic being seemingly under-explored by experts.

 

 

so maybe there is NO master database at all. instead you have a sort of credit system that you keep on your person. maybe via carrying card, or implant.

 

-every time you have a successful transaction, you exchange positive tokens with the other party. each person could have a unique token that only they can issue. the tokens can contain a simple upvote, or textual data, so you can give good or bad reviews.

 

-you build these up over your lifetime, creating trustworthy people by the time they are grown.

 

-in the case of violent crime, it get's a little hairy. but maybe what happens is the relatives or survivor of your crime pay a DRO to track you down and forcibly* issue something like a MURDER token to your personal collection.  so essentially you are walking around branded. there could then of course be ways of contesting it before or after branding. this last paragraph sounds HORRIBLE, but i bet there are ways of peacefully accomplishing the process.

 

*the force would of course be warranted once the murder was sufficiently proven to the DRO, and after the defendant failed to pay agreeable restitution, and still disagreed to accept a murder token etc.

[Donnadogsoth]

my understanding is that they'd be simply ineffectual. without antitrust laws to protect them, they'd be constantly  outdone by upstarts.

 

but in terms of data, yea, in my admittedly short-sighted thinking, you would want one main trusted database for ostracism to take the place of prison (restitution vs retribution?)

 

 

Why wouldn't the monopolies collude on reinstituting the state, before the upstarts can grow large enough to challenge them?

[DaVinci]

 

 

i hope so! because when i hear stef go down the DRO rabbit hole, it makes my head spin pretty fast.

 

 

 

Think about it like this. Have you ever been through a situation in your life and thought "Next time that happens I know how I can get through it" but then you realize "I'm not even going to get into that situation again". In other words, going through a storm teaches you how to go through a storm, but also makes you realize to sit out storms and wait for a clear day instead. I think the same thing will be true of humanity. By the time we get DRO's we will have largely outgrown the need for them. I think DRO's would be most likely during the transition from government to no government, (as the government was being disassembled), and then they would be largely phased out over time. 

[Mister Mister]

ha! i need to read the articles, but i'm sure she could land an entry level job! maybe she could become a white supremacist!

 

 

  I wasn't aware that was a career

[RamynKing]

Why wouldn't the monopolies collude on reinstituting the state, before the upstarts can grow large enough to challenge them?

interesting!

 

if a western government somehow got vaporized in our lifetime, i think walmart, samsung, and exxon could have a clear shot at buying up a ton of weapons and preserving the state.

 

but i can think of other conditions where it might not work out for those companies.

 

if peaceful parenting took off, and we manage to shrink the size of gov enough that iqs go up significantly, our collective knowledge might lead us to more rothbardian ideals, in which case the population might push towards statelessness on principle.  in such a case of increased morals, an attempt by residual corporations might be seen as an attack on our new way of life; an attempt to bring back what we recognized as slavery. at the very least there would be a bloody fight that could give the would-be bullies a major run for their money.

 

another scenario: if we keep chipping away at existing government monopolies, and things like private roads pop-up, a domino effect could happen where the government would find itself providing very few services that people aren't getting esleware for cheaper. i think of this as the snowcrash scenario, where the government is never abolished, they keep existing in their own minds and yet have no effect on the citizenry. in this chip-away scenario, by the time we realize there is no effective state, the monolith companies we know are already outcompeted by upstarts. and then we can apply stefs scenarios in practical anarchy to deal with anyone who gets the bright idea of creating a state with their available resources.

[Tyler H]

Aren't monopolies anathema to ancap?

Only coercive ones.  Monopolies are for the most part a result of the state apparatus and would be nearly impossible to create or sustain in a free market environment. They could only come about by providing the absolute highest quality product at the absolute lowest cost.  Nothing wrong with that, right?  Aside from that there will be a market for superior products at a higher cost and inferior products at a lower cost.  

 

 

Why wouldn't the monopolies collude on reinstituting the state, before the upstarts can grow large enough to challenge them?

 

For a free society to come about a vast majority of people in a given area will have rejected the use of force as a way of organizing society and would also therefore exercise a great deal of caution in the prevention of a new state being formed.  Furthermore, without the quasi-socially granted monopoly to initiate the use of force these purely free market institutions who are finding it difficult to compete with upstarts as it is will find it far more difficult, if not impossible, if they need to raise their prices to allocate resources to their undeclared weapon procuring divisions.  Violence is expensive; so without the state (or any coercive institution) to disperse cost and risk while simultaneously centralizing profit no company would be able to remain viable while incurring costs its competitors could eschew.

 

If we get to the point where everything is voluntary because of a philosophical enlightenment then any rumor of a company trying to resurrect a state would send its stock price into free fall.  The chances of the state returning after this enlightenment are the same as slavery making a comeback. It could possibly happen, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a good thing to get rid of it in the first place and it doesn't mean that there isn't a preferred state(of being).

[Donnadogsoth]

Only coercive ones.  Monopolies are for the most part a result of the state apparatus and would be nearly impossible to create or sustain in a free market environment. They could only come about by providing the absolute highest quality product at the absolute lowest cost.  Nothing wrong with that, right?  Aside from that there will be a market for superior products at a higher cost and inferior products at a lower cost.  

 

Unless the monopoly company decides it can get along without running the monopoly anymore, and so closes it down, leaving no one with the available factories or other capital needed to produce said product.

 

For a free society to come about a vast majority of people in a given area will have rejected the use of force as a way of organizing society and would also therefore exercise a great deal of caution in the prevention of a new state being formed.  Furthermore, without the quasi-socially granted monopoly to initiate the use of force these purely free market institutions who are finding it difficult to compete with upstarts as it is will find it far more difficult, if not impossible, if they need to raise their prices to allocate resources to their undeclared weapon procuring divisions.  Violence is

expensive; so without the state (or any coercive institution) to disperse cost and risk while simultaneously centralizing profit no company would be able to remain viable while incurring costs its competitors could eschew.

 

If we get to the point where everything is voluntary because of a philosophical enlightenment then any rumor of a company trying to resurrect a state would send its stock price into free fall.  The chances of the state returning after this enlightenment are the same as slavery making a comeback. It could possibly happen, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a good thing to get rid of it in the first place and it doesn't mean that there isn't a preferred state(of being).

 

What if WaterCo has a water monopoly and merges with ElectroCo, FoodCo, and GunCo?  And then makes a move for hegemony?  At what point does the enlightened populace decide to break up the monopolies or prevent the mergers?

[Tyler H]

Unless the monopoly company decides it can get along without running the monopoly anymore, and so closes it down, leaving no one with the available factories or other capital needed to produce said product.

Why do they close down? This is a massive company with a board of directors and investors, why would they all be motivated to do this? What do they do with their assets? Retain ownership while unutilized?  How would they get along without the income from their industry or the sale of their assets?

 

My guess is that anyone with the know how to operate that company will capitalize on the hole left in the market and make a killing.  The profits would be so attractive to entrepreneurs that more and more will enter the market until it reaches close to equilibrium with supply and demand.

 

 

What if WaterCo has a water monopoly and merges with ElectroCo, FoodCo, and GunCo?  And then makes a move for hegemony?  At what point does the enlightened populace decide to break up the monopolies or prevent the mergers?

 

I think the theory is that the company won't get to the point where they are a monopoly because anyone concerned with monopolies will alter their consumption if any one company looks to be heading in that direction.  Also the market has a limiting effect on the creation of monopolies in that as one company starts buying up other companies and it becomes apparent that they are moving towards monopoly then the remaining companies know that if they are the last hold out then they will be able to demand the highest price.  With a significant portion of the populace concerned with the emergence of a monopoly the hold outs will have plenty of customers so I don't think that you could argue the larger company is pushing them all out of business and they can't compete, but maybe that could happen.  Still, if you're concerned about voluntary monopolies surely the answer is not to create a coercive monopoly to steal from you in order to prevent monopolies.

 

I think one important idea to keep in mind is that people are far more diligent about their own money than other people's money.  If companies are bound to satisfying customers in order to make a profit and the customers are hell bent on voluntarism then there will be infinitely more checks and balances in those companies by all involved with a stake in the profits than any government, anywhere, ever.

 

This was some of the most fascinating subject matter to me when I started learning about how a free society could operate. If you're interested too Stef does a way better job of explicating it with his entrepreneurial background than I do. Here's a podcast from way back in the day.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

One thing that always seems to be missing in this discussion is the cultural awareness of childhood abuse, narcissism, sociopathy, psychopathy, and other common NAP-violating aspects of humans. Right now a psychopath can get a job as a police officer or politician because there's no cultural recognition for it or test to check for it.

 

In one of Frank Herbert's novels, it was either Heretics of Dune or Chapterhouse: Dune, Herbert wrote a scene from the protagonist's view, where she was training to fly with another young Bene Gesserit woman by a non-Bene Gesserit pilot. The young woman suddenly got on a power trip and took control of the flight, causing it to go briefly out of control while she shouted at the pilot, "You must obey me! I'm Bene Gesserit!"

 

The woman was never allowed an authoritative position in the future, because her susceptibility to power addition was recognized early on.

[Tyler H]

One thing that always seems to be missing in this discussion is the cultural awareness of childhood abuse, narcissism, sociopathy, psychopathy, and other common NAP-violating aspects of humans. Right now a psychopath can get a job as a police officer or politician because there's no cultural recognition for it or test to check for it.

I'm confused why you would screen for NAP-violating character traits for a job that requires the violation of the NAP. Unless I've misunderstood what you mean.

[Donnadogsoth]

I'm confused why you would screen for NAP-violating character traits for a job that requires the violation of the NAP. Unless I've misunderstood what you mean.

 

There may be two levels to this, the absolute NAP level and the everyday level.  Most of what a police officer's everyday job entails is concerned with things that a DRO officer's job would entail.  Very few police are out  there arresting tax evaders.  Most of them are arresting people for assault, rape, murder, arson, fraud, and theft, or giving people tickets for speeding.  So, presuming we need such social-defense activity--which we do, one way or another--it's not unreasonable to move to screen for psychopathy during hiring.

[Tyler H]

One thing that always seems to be missing in this discussion is the cultural awareness of childhood abuse, narcissism, sociopathy, psychopathy, and other common NAP-violating aspects of humans. Right now a psychopath can get a job as a police officer or politician because there's no cultural recognition for it or test to check for it.

 

In one of Frank Herbert's novels, it was either Heretics of Dune or Chapterhouse: Dune, Herbert wrote a scene from the protagonist's view, where she was training to fly with another young Bene Gesserit woman by a non-Bene Gesserit pilot. The young woman suddenly got on a power trip and took control of the flight, causing it to go briefly out of control while she shouted at the pilot, "You must obey me! I'm Bene Gesserit!"

 

The woman was never allowed an authoritative position in the future, because her susceptibility to power addition was recognized early on.

There may be two levels to this, the absolute NAP level and the everyday level.  Most of what a police officer's everyday job entails is concerned with things that a DRO officer's job would entail.  Very few police are out  there arresting tax evaders.  Most of them are arresting people for assault, rape, murder, arson, fraud, and theft, or giving people tickets for speeding.  So, presuming we need such social-defense activity--which we do, one way or another--it's not unreasonable to move to screen for psychopathy during hiring.

Oh I think maybe I did misunderstand part of what Dylan was saying. In a free society based on voluntary transactions and adherence to the NAP positions of power would be screened for the traits mentioned. The point I thought I needed to make was that currently these positions of "authority" are based on violence and coercion so sociopathy is beneficial to career success. To your point on the everyday duties of present day law enforcement I would push back with regards to the war on drugs occupying a decent portion of those activities. But even if it didn't, the important thing I think is that violating the NAP is still a job requirement. Most soldiers don't kill anyone, but nevertheless when you sign up it's something you know is in the job description.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

I'm confused why you would screen for NAP-violating character traits for a job that requires the violation of the NAP. Unless I've misunderstood what you mean.

 

I didn't mean to emphasize job screening. I meant to emphasize whether or not the general culture recognizes signs of pathology, specifically the susceptibility for corruption from power. That's why I gave the Dune example; the woman who goes on the power trip is instantly recognized as someone who should not hold a position of authority.

 

I doubt there is a culture on earth, including the West, that would recognize such behavior and come to the same conclusion.

 

Psychological screening would be a definite necessity, particularly for work that involved security or managing others' assets.

[unimaginative]

Why do they close down? This is a massive company with a board of directors and investors, why would they all be motivated to do this? What do they do with their assets? Retain ownership while unutilized?  How would they get along without the income from their industry or the sale of their assets?

 

My guess is that anyone with the know how to operate that company will capitalize on the hole left in the market and make a killing.  The profits would be so attractive to entrepreneurs that more and more will enter the market until it reaches close to equilibrium with supply and demand.

 

 

 

I think the theory is that the company won't get to the point where they are a monopoly because anyone concerned with monopolies will alter their consumption if any one company looks to be heading in that direction.  Also the market has a limiting effect on the creation of monopolies in that as one company starts buying up other companies and it becomes apparent that they are moving towards monopoly then the remaining companies know that if they are the last hold out then they will be able to demand the highest price.  With a significant portion of the populace concerned with the emergence of a monopoly the hold outs will have plenty of customers so I don't think that you could argue the larger company is pushing them all out of business and they can't compete, but maybe that could happen.  Still, if you're concerned about voluntary monopolies surely the answer is not to create a coercive monopoly to steal from you in order to prevent monopolies.

 

I think one important idea to keep in mind is that people are far more diligent about their own money than other people's money.  If companies are bound to satisfying customers in order to make a profit and the customers are hell bent on voluntarism then there will be infinitely more checks and balances in those companies by all involved with a stake in the profits than any government, anywhere, ever.

 

This was some of the most fascinating subject matter to me when I started learning about how a free society could operate. If you're interested too Stef does a way better job of explicating it with his entrepreneurial background than I do. Here's a podcast from way back in the day.

 

You can kinda see this with Bitcoin and the mining pools. A vulnerability of Bitcoin is a group having a large portion of hashing power under their control. While there have been a few pools coming near to 51% of the hash power, miners have managed to spread themselves out among various pools to keep the hash power diversified.