I recently finished reading Chaos Theory: Two Essays On Market Anarchy, while I was able to follow the arguments of the idea of voluntary laws, I has some problems with the criminal law.
Would the entire system of punishment be based on insurance? People would have to register with an insurance company, and would not be allowed onto premises without it?
While it may be voluntary, it seems like the insurance companies would have more influence on our private lives than the state does today. And we would have to carry around the equivalent of a national id card in order to prove our level of insurance coverage.
I think the only way you could have a secure society is if at the minimum all citizens were requited to have a minimum of both victim and criminal insurance. The victim's insurance company would immediately pay-out a market rate compensation for any crime committed. The VIC would then have a monetary incentive to apprehend the criminal and bill the criminal's IC.
Would prison be based purely on property rights? In that by entering my property you agree if you commit X crime, you agree to forfeit your liberty for X years.
Who would bear the cost if a non-insured person committed a crime?
If a crime victim has not registered with a private police force, would the criminal get away with it scot free? Even if you argue that the victim made a market choice, the criminal who is more likely to commit further crimes puts the general public in danger.
While ancap legality may deal with aspects of compensation and deterrent, it does not protect people from those more likely to commit future crimes.
Also it seems that police investigation would be far more difficult. The majority of crimes are solved by interrogation, but without the threat of state coercion, there is little incentive to talk to private detectives voluntarily.
haghenick: Would the entire system of punishment be based on insurance? People would have to register with an insurance company, and would not be allowed onto premises without it?
No one know what bright things entrepreneurs will come up with. What you have read is only one possible business model to meet the demand of safety and justice.
Who exactly would have reason to require this to do business with you and why?
Or we could just arm ourselves and shoot criminals in the head...
Again I am not sure which business models would prevail. But we can speak of right and wrong responses to crime and what we have a right to do against criminals. For murderes I think it is just to do whatever we want with them. I am of the opinion that they have basically forfeit there right to life, ie you can not murder a murderer. Persons that have proven themselves to be dangerous can be removed from society based on the risk they are causing to there surroundings.It would also be just to imprison people if that is necessary to obtain financial compensation for a crime from them.
(Just to be clear here I do not support the death-penalty. It is not wrong on moral grounds but it is legally repulsive. I would never patron a court that was in the practice of sentencing people to death thus potentially committing murder itself. Courts should acknowledge they can commit error and leave the door open for financial restitution when such occur.)
Security is a service like any other. It costs money to provide and the consumers of the service pay for it.There are many ways in we can try to achieve security and do it as cost effective as possible.
1. We can buy guns.
2. We can pay to have criminals prosecuted. Hopefully being able to transfer some of the cost to the people causing them.
3. We can reduce the financial risk of being a victim to crime by insurance solution.
4. We can combine these methods...
Criminals can pay restitution for individual crimes, they do not pay for our security services and there is no reason they should.You have to differentiate between a potential and a actual crime.
If a crime victim has not registered with a private police force, would the criminal get away with it scot free? Even if you argue that the victim made a market choice, the criminal who is more likely to commit further crimes puts the general public in danger. While ancap legality may deal with aspects of compensation and deterrent, it does not protect people from those more likely to commit future crimes.
Entrepreneurs in the security industry would most likely choose to pursue all violent criminals in order to provide a better service and reduce cost.
In America there is this thing called the fifth amendment and it doesn't seem to have made solving crimes impossible. Further more you could easily create strong incentives to divulge information by blacklisting and social expulsion of people that obstruct justice. Finally everyone that isn't a criminal will benefit if criminals are caught so why wouldn't they help? As for criminals ratting on each other I don't see how a private justice system would be less capable of extracting information from criminals.
Escaping Leviathan - regardless of public opinion
"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx
Well at least from the model in Chaos Theory, insurance companies play a major role in ancap society, replacing many of the functions of the government including the military. While all relations are voluntary, the main safe-guard from crime is that in order to be allowed onto property or gated communities, applicants would have to be ensured so that the community will be sure of compensation should he commit any crimes. Since the monetary value of certain crimes would be beyond the ability of an average person to pay, insurance would be the only guarantee that victims would be compensated.
Forget Chaos Theory. It makes no sense.
I LOVE that book, the best from an Austrian Economists since Rothbard, and it had a very profound influence on my life.
Now, my take on what you ask…
To paraphrase: would you, as a china shop owner, allow anyone in without liability insurance? That’s up to you but I highly suspect that, in time, most premises would require “guest” to have LI.
haghenick: While it may be voluntary, it seems like the insurance companies would have more influence on our private lives than the state does today. And we would have to carry around the equivalent of a national id card in order to prove our level of insurance coverage.
Do you resent having to carry a metro card to use the underground? Or a celphane? Or a credit card? An LI coverage card would be no different. If anything, I’d thing that someone would actually come out with a multipurpose card, in which dozens of other “cards” can be loaded. Where is privacy at risk here?
haghenick:I think the only way you could have a secure society is if at the minimum all citizens were requited to have a minimum of both victim and criminal insurance. The victim's insurance company would immediately pay-out a market rate compensation for any crime committed. The VIC would then have a monetary incentive to apprehend the criminal and bill the criminal's IC.
“Required” is far too harsh. People are free to do as they wish. If they value increased security, both physical and financial ,they will purchase both types of insurance. As a side note, Guillory and Drake have a couple of exquisite articles here on property insurance. Besides being minutely detailed, they also make it clear that property insurance would only be supplementing, not competing with, liability insurance.
haghenick:Would prison be based purely on property rights? In that by entering my property you agree if you commit X crime, you agree to forfeit your liberty for X years.
I don’t think it would work like that. Rather like this: if A is considered guilty of a crime, his liability company offers a money price to the offended party to make them relinquish they right of retaliation. If they don’t accept, or if A had no LI coverage to begin with, than the offended party just takes revenge as it sees fit.
If the offer is accepted, than A is free but his premium has just skyrocketed. Without LI coverage NO ONE will allow him on his premises. He won’t be able to buy bread, or indeed go out at all! So, the insurance company approaches him with this offer:”you can’t possibly pay you new premium, and you are now condemned to living within this house forever. If, however, you agree to come with me to a secure facility, when you’ll work for us, we’ll set your premium back in X years. So, you either work for us in our facility (form which you can leave whenever you want, but where would you be allowed to go?) for X year, or you stay here forever or you just shoot yourself. Here is my number, when you’ve made u your mind, call me”.
Molineux’s Practical anarchy (I cant provide the link right now, my connection is killing me) is very well-though out in this respect.
haghenick:Who would bear the cost if a non-insured person committed a crime?
Your property insurer, and if you have none, you. Hope you're a good shot.
haghenick:If a crime victim has not registered with a private police force, would the criminal get away with it scot free? Even if you argue that the victim made a market choice, the criminal who is more likely to commit further crimes puts the general public in danger.
You have the right to retaliate. So just pay some agency to “prosecute him” so that you may get satisfaction in knowing that he’s been beaten up (if he stole you car), if you’re into that of course. Mobsters already perform this service (as in the Godfather), and it is indeed invaluable. In anarchy it would only get more appreciated. How does a good old broken leg look like a "disincentive"?
haghenick:While ancap legality may deal with aspects of compensation and deterrent, it does not protect people from those more likely to commit future crimes.
Armed citizenry, a good property insurer with PX4-armed patrols and frigin’ dogs, or secret-service-like trained “retaliation agencies” would.
And than again, the absolute majority of crimes are small-time, property theft. Violent crimes are a small minority (and would drastically decrease under statelessness: look at Switzerland).
haghenick: Also it seems that police investigation would be far more difficult. The majority of crimes are solved by interrogation, but without the threat of state coercion, there is little incentive to talk to private detectives voluntarily.
Again to take a leaf from Molineux. Say my car has been stolen and I strongly suspect my neighbor’s son to be involved. If I only could get his fingerprint, I would know. My (or his) LI company goes over to him and says: “son, you’re the prime suspect of such crime. Now, you either collaborate and give me you fingerprints, or else I’ll be forced to hold you responsible without any poof at all. Now, would you like to cooperate?”
See, this guy’s property right is not being broken, as even if found “guilty”, he wouldn’t pay a penny. His LI company will (his premium rates would skyrocket though). Thus, interrogation would, without coercion, be much more effective as it would pay for the criminal to voluntarily “come clean” is suspected. As it turns out, suspects are most of the time the true perpetrators.
I hope I’ve answered some of you questions.
scineram: Forget Chaos Theory. It makes no sense.
Sarcasm?
ok just sort of flushing this idea out in text, it might not make sense by the end.
Its about social ostracism as a deterrent/penalty.
I think its pretty obvious that there would be a black market for these ostracized folks, or at least the demand certainly wouldn't go away. Maybe that is just the point, that you can't prevent these people from buying bread, but you can force them to pay the "black market tax" on everything thing they buy, and it would be very risky for businesses to try and break their agreements not to sell to these black listed folks because off of one person they can only make so much profit, but could potentially lose a lot if they are found out and then themselves blacklisted.
One problem I see is the networking effect. The more companies that get exposed for dealing with black listed customers, the less of an issue it becomes.
Joe: ok just sort of flushing this idea out in text, it might not make sense by the end. Its about social ostracism as a deterrent/penalty. I think its pretty obvious that there would be a black market for these ostracized folks, or at least the demand certainly wouldn't go away. Maybe that is just the point, that you can't prevent these people from buying bread, but you can force them to pay the "black market tax" on everything thing they buy, and it would be very risky for businesses to try and break their agreements not to sell to these black listed folks because off of one person they can only make so much profit, but could potentially lose a lot if they are found out and then themselves blacklisted. One problem I see is the networking effect. The more companies that get exposed for dealing with black listed customers, the less of an issue it becomes.
Greta insight. I might only add that calling it a “black market” would be inappropriate. No one is forbidding transactions with non-covered guys. It just makes no sense to transact with them,. But it is true, they would come to buy and sell (perhaps a home-delivery system would spring up). Yet, I can’t really imagine them being able to get out of their homes, and there’s no way around that. So, they either remain under house arrest as long as they live, or they accept some years of hard labor and get over it.
Merlin: scineram: Forget Chaos Theory. It makes no sense. Sarcasm?
From what I've seen, Contrarian - a person who deliberately behaves in a way that is different from the people around them.
So, he chooses to be a statist. Where most people act helpful, he chooses to be unhelpful.
In terms of the OP - How would police investigation work in Anarcho-capitalist society?
Answer: Well.
The Right to Self-Defense by MNR, answers a lot of your questions.
Merlin: Joe: ok just sort of flushing this idea out in text, it might not make sense by the end. Its about social ostracism as a deterrent/penalty. I think its pretty obvious that there would be a black market for these ostracized folks, or at least the demand certainly wouldn't go away. Maybe that is just the point, that you can't prevent these people from buying bread, but you can force them to pay the "black market tax" on everything thing they buy, and it would be very risky for businesses to try and break their agreements not to sell to these black listed folks because off of one person they can only make so much profit, but could potentially lose a lot if they are found out and then themselves blacklisted. One problem I see is the networking effect. The more companies that get exposed for dealing with black listed customers, the less of an issue it becomes. Greta insight. I might only add that calling it a “black market” would be inappropriate. No one is forbidding transactions with non-covered guys. It just makes no sense to transact with them,. But it is true, they would come to buy and sell (perhaps a home-delivery system would spring up). Yet, I can’t really imagine them being able to get out of their homes, and there’s no way around that. So, they either remain under house arrest as long as they live, or they accept some years of hard labor and get over it.
Well I didn't mean black market in being illegal, although maybe it would be illegal if you had a retail shop and entered into a contract with a credit reporting company that part of the deal is that they agree to give you instant screens on your customers if you also agree not to sell to anyone below a certain level of reputation. Or at least you would not be able to advertise in your shop window "Only sell to 90% reputation and up" if you actually followed through with the promise. And then the rep agency could send in test subjects that would screen as not up to standard, and if the shop failed the test they could be penalized and eventually blacklisted themselves.
So what I meant by black market would be doing deals in the shade, selling an a criminal some groceries at 1000% mark up. But on the other hand like you pointed out, it would be hard to get anywhere, or at least anywhere that was worth being without a good rep. Parks, sidewalks, streets, might all have an incentive to try and cater to only people with high enough reps.
Another thing is what prevents us from having reputation companies now? Discrimination laws? Assuming that all the bad people would be put in jail by the state? or its not important in the market? or something else? And I know that we do have them in some things like ebay, but I guess there could be some minimum threshold for where it would matter to check for reputations ? Such as people might not care about what sort of fast food restaurant they go to (in terms of what reputation standards it holds for its clients) and thus a company that pays the extra money (or sacrifices the potential money) to only cater to upstanding people would be at a disadvantage to one that did not discriminate. I guess only the market could know such a thing.
So maybe you could buy groceries, but it would be much harder to get a loan, a job or an apartment, or buy a gun, which I guess is already the case in a way.
What?
I haven't read Chaos Theory yet, but reading the responses there is one thing I don't understand.
How could insurance companies insure you against you committing a crime? Insurance only works on things that are uncertain, such as accidents, as described here by Hoppe: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/uncertainty-insurance.html.
Whether or not you are going to steal someone's car is not an unpredictable event. You are either going to commit crimes or you aren't. This means that non-criminals who buy "liability insurance" will be subsidize criminals. Why would anyone who doesn't plan on stealing or killing anyone buy this insurance? The only people who would need it are people who are going to commit crimes, at which point the insurance companies could not profit.
BobT: I haven't read Chaos Theory yet, but reading the responses there is one thing I don't understand. How could insurance companies insure you against you committing a crime? Insurance only works on things that are uncertain, such as accidents, as described here by Hoppe: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/uncertainty-insurance.html. Whether or not you are going to steal someone's car is not an unpredictable event. You are either going to commit crimes or you aren't. This means that non-criminals who buy "liability insurance" will be subsidize criminals. Why would anyone who doesn't plan on stealing or killing anyone buy this insurance? The only people who would need it are people who are going to commit crimes, at which point the insurance companies could not profit.
not an expert but I think it is supposed to work like car insurance. If you run into somebody else that person's car insurance is going to get money from your insurance and then your insurance is going to raise your rates.
Liability insurance doesn’t insure you, rather the party whom you tort. They will be offered a price to forfeit their right to retaliate on you. So you live, and they get some money. And the offended party has no influence of whether it will suffer a tort or not. So it works.
I'm not sure how it would work but it probably wouldn't take 2+ years for you to get justice after your loved one was murdered, all while being camera'd, and all of the necessary evidence provided up front.
Legal justice in this country needs to be desperately cleaned up. Anyone who has had to go through the state justice department knows this. It's terribly disfunctional atm.
Merlin:Liability insurance doesn’t insure you, rather the party whom you tort. They will be offered a price to forfeit their right to retaliate on you. So you live, and they get some money. And the offended party has no influence of whether it will suffer a tort or not. So it works.
Some people said that if you aren't insured, no one will let you on there property. To me this makes it sound like I will pay a premium to the insurance company, and they will pay anyone that I commit a crime against. This also fits with what I think you are saying. Am I misinterpreting it?
If I am not, then it is still the same problem. Why would I buy insurance if I do not plan on committing a crime?
If I am misinterpreting, and I would buy insurance to cover crimes against me, I suppose that would make sense.
BobT:Some people said that if you aren't insured, no one will let you on there property. To me this makes it sound like I will pay a premium to the insurance company, and they will pay anyone that I commit a crime against. This also fits with what I think you are saying. Am I misinterpreting it?
Exactly!
BobT:Why would I buy insurance if I do not plan on committing a crime?
Well, next time you want to get admitted to a campus, or enter some shopping mall, just promise that you wont kill anyone, or shoplift, and I’m sure they’ll let you in.
See, a LI company gets paid not only to keep the criminal from being wacked. It also guarantees your name. No one needs to know you personally to certify that you’re a trustworthy guy. A simple LI coverage will do that. It works just as VISA or Moody’s: someone is paid to rate people, so that I myself can devote the resources I’d need to ascertain myself you reliability, to other uses. So, the what I see it, you have two choices, and two alone: you pay a small (and decreasing!) premium and you’re freed forever from fear of retaliation and enjoy low prices in everything you buy, or else you confine yourself to doing business with at most a small community where everyone knows everybody. The choice be yours.
PS: Even if you don’t plan on committing a crime, you should understand that most “crimes” are unintentional. A car accident, breaking something, etc.
Merlin:Well, next time you want to get admitted to a campus, or enter some shopping mall, just promise that you wont kill anyone, or shoplift, and I’m sure they’ll let you in.
I'm on a campus right now. If I steal something, I will be held accountable. Why is insurance needed?
Merlin:PS: Even if you don’t plan on committing a crime, you should understand that most “crimes” are unintentional. A car accident, breaking something, etc.
I still don't see why it wouldn't make sense in most cases for the property owner to insure his property, rather than everyone insuring themselves against having to pay for stuff they break.
BobT:I still don't see why it wouldn't make sense in most cases for the property owner to insure his property, rather than everyone insuring themselves against having to pay for stuff they break.
It is true that LI and property insurance (against crime) would seem to be mutually exclusive. But as I said earlier Guillroy designed just the kind of property insurance that would help, instead of hinder, LI insurance. To make a long story short, suppose that for small crimes, i.e. vandalism or break-in attempts, patrols would be efficient. Everything that can be stopped right there, around your house, would be handled by insurers patrols.
More serious crimes, such as successful theft (which have been unsuccessfully prevented by patrols), severe property damage, health-damaging crimes and generally crimes that do not happen in the premises of you house (fraud), would probably be handled by LI. It is not difficult to se how both types of insurance could be offered in a package, at least some of the time.
You would of course be free to elect top have one, both or neither. I believe that most people would agree to have both. To se why, Guillray calculates that the pure premium rate of a patrol-property insurance (against crime alone) such as he devised would amount to 30 USD per year! Add in some profits and you get…50, at most 100 USD per year. Does one even consider that?
Merlin:It is true that LI and property insurance (against crime) would seem to be mutually exclusive. But as I said earlier Guillroy designed just the kind of property insurance that would help, instead of hinder, LI insurance. To make a long story short, suppose that for small crimes, i.e. vandalism or break-in attempts, patrols would be efficient. Everything that can be stopped right there, around your house, would be handled by insurers patrols. More serious crimes, such as successful theft (which have been unsuccessfully prevented by patrols), severe property damage, health-damaging crimes and generally crimes that do not happen in the premises of you house (fraud), would probably be handled by LI. It is not difficult to se how both types of insurance could be offered in a package, at least some of the time. You would of course be free to elect top have one, both or neither. I believe that most people would agree to have both. To se why, Guillray calculates that the pure premium rate of a patrol-property insurance (against crime alone) such as he devised would amount to 30 USD per year! Add in some profits and you get…50, at most 100 USD per year. Does one even consider that?
Well, I don't see how he can calculate that, but I plan on reading the book anyway, so maybe that will answer my questions.
haghenick: Well at least from the model in Chaos Theory, insurance companies play a major role in ancap society, replacing many of the functions of the government including the military. While all relations are voluntary, the main safe-guard from crime is that in order to be allowed onto property or gated communities, applicants would have to be ensured so that the community will be sure of compensation should he commit any crimes. Since the monetary value of certain crimes would be beyond the ability of an average person to pay, insurance would be the only guarantee that victims would be compensated.
This doesn't make any sense at all for dealing with violent crime.
It could work like this for civil cases and accidents.But a violent criminal won't give a shit about being let in in the first place. He is there to commit violent crime, ohh but the guard told him he needs insurance to come in an beat people up so that solved everything...
Society have to fight a constant war against violent crime and we have to pay for this ourselves. It is just the way things are in any society. The market being more efficient will however be able to reduce the costs and place a somewhat larger portion of the cost on the criminals it catches then the state can.
If I do business with you the only thing I will care about is what type of insurance the contract will have. I don't see why I would have any reason to care about your personal insurance policies.
I guess there are a few special cases where you could use the mandatory traffic insurance argument. However in most cases enforcing mandatory insurance will probably cost more then everyone having insurance that covers damages caused by non-insured people.
Especially if we take the example of a road and you have some safety standards on vehicles instead. No one is going to want to go in anything that isn't insured if it can't be a wreck anyhow...
hkarnoldson: This doesn't make any sense at all for dealing with violent crime. It could work like this for civil cases and accidents.But a violent criminal won't give a shit about being let in in the first place. He is there to commit violent crime, ohh but the guard told him he needs insurance to come in an beat people up so that solved everything... Society have to fight a constant war against violent crime and we have to pay for this ourselves. It is just the way things are in any society. The market being more efficient will however be able to reduce the costs and place a somewhat larger portion of the cost on the criminals it catches then the state can.
True, violent crime will be handled either by property insurance patrols, or simply by my PX4. LI can only help with “passion crimes”, those committed at a moments rage fit (the majority of violent crimes in a decent, i.e. weapons-free, society). Serial killers, robbers, rapists, abductors etc., will most probably be dealt with the good old way: shoot them where they stand.
Still, one should be much more concerned about economic crime as it is statistically much more frequent. Even if we were left to deal with such crimes ourselves while the State dealt (with its impeccable efficiency) with violent crime, it would still be a very, very good society. Example: how many violent crimes do the military-grade armed Swiss face in a year?
Merlin: Still, one should be much more concerned about economic crime as it is statistically much more frequent. Even if we were left to deal with such crimes ourselves while the State dealt (with its impeccable efficiency) with violent crime, it would still be a very, very good society. Example: how many violent crimes do the military-grade armed Swiss face in a year?
I am not sure what you mean with economic crime here...
Wikipeida:A violent crime or crime of violence is a crime in which the offender uses or threatens to use violent force upon the victim. This entails both crimes in which the violent act is the objective, such as murder, as well as crimes in which violence is the means to an end, such as robbery. Violent crimes include crimes committed with and without weapons.
that is what i meant with violent crime if there was some confusion. Really what I mean in this particular context should include all kinds of theft though.
I am not sure making sure everyone that could potentially commit a crime of passion is insured is sensible in any way. It would be ridiculously expensive and how often do such crimes happen on the spot in a place where you have a right to force insurance?
People get stopped at the club, they go home and get a gun then go back and shoot at the club entrance. How would checking insurance solve that?Most of these crimes are either like this, happen in the home or happen in various down-town public areas where it would be very difficult to control insurance.
For the nightclub say it is a much better solution to have some guards then check everyone's insurance. They will need guards either way and guards are enough to keep order in a club.It doesn't seem sensible to check insurance in malls and such either cause maybe there is a one in a million chance someone will go berzerk, they will also need a few guards either way.
hkarnoldson:I am not sure what you mean with economic crime here...
I mostly think of fraud and generally tort. But again, some violent crime, specifically those committed under the influence of some substance, out of rage, out of despair, accidents and basically all such crimes that are unlikely to be repeated, do fall under the LI sphere of interest, and indeed can be effectively tackled by ostracism (the whole point of a LI insurer is to coordinate ostracism).
Take away those and you get…serial killers, psychos, gangsters and all those guys. But what a percentage of crimes is committed by such individuals (assume away narc-related crime: those wouldn’t exist at all)? Negligible, I’d say, my own gun should do the trick.
Merlin: Take away those and you get…serial killers, psychos, gangsters and all those guys. But what a percentage of crimes is committed by such individuals (assume away narc-related crime: those wouldn’t exist at all)? Negligible, I’d say, my own gun should do the trick.
Almost 100% of all robberies. Granted few non drug related robbers are organised, but these are generally planned or at least intended crimes. Every first-degree murder is also (by definition) not a crime of the moment. Theft can be booth, but you will never catch the unintentional thief anyhow so they don't matter here and we are left with theft as almost 100% planned crime too.The intent is what is important, someone intending to commit a crime will be in just the same situation to be able to circumvent the "insurance check" as any professional criminal.
hkarnoldson:The intent is what is important, someone intending to commit a crime will be in just the same situation to be able to circumvent the "insurance check" as any professional criminal.
LI insurance is not supposed to prevent the crime itself (property insurance does that), rather its repetition. Now imagine that you’ve committed some crime: you’ll either thing of doing that again or not. If you plan to commit other crimes, than you’ll never get insurance again, since you still have to pay massive premium rates form you first crime, and there’s no point in paying those (it would take 20 years of hard work for bodily injuries) if you know that an even more massive premium will be loaded within months. But there’s the entire point of LI: rate individual into “risky” (no LI coverage) and “far less risky“ (LI coverage). Uncovered individual will be well known in the community and perhaps LI companies will provide confidential lists to property insurers, for them to keep an eye on these guys. It is easy to see that having a good rating of risky individual would be very helpful in preventing “planned” crimes. But perhaps more importantly, the incentive to commit a gain-related crime is almost null. You mentioned robberies and theft. Now, what is the point of stealing when no one will sell you anything ever again or at the very least you’ll always be confined to your house (if you have any)? Does one seek money only to enjoy the view of money? Would people be ready to risk being shot be superbly trained private patrolmen in order to gain that? Iit seems pretty counter-productive to me. So again, taking away unplanned crime, those committed by people that don’t plan to commit others and every crime aimed at getting some monetary benefit, only a small fraction of crimes is left for Property insurers to tackle. But of course these crimes will happen nevertheless, otherwise there would be no property insurance or indeed guns!
LI insurance is not supposed to prevent the crime itself (property insurance does that), rather its repetition.
Now imagine that you’ve committed some crime: you’ll either thing of doing that again or not. If you plan to commit other crimes, than you’ll never get insurance again, since you still have to pay massive premium rates form you first crime, and there’s no point in paying those (it would take 20 years of hard work for bodily injuries) if you know that an even more massive premium will be loaded within months. But there’s the entire point of LI: rate individual into “risky” (no LI coverage) and “far less risky“ (LI coverage). Uncovered individual will be well known in the community and perhaps LI companies will provide confidential lists to property insurers, for them to keep an eye on these guys. It is easy to see that having a good rating of risky individual would be very helpful in preventing “planned” crimes.
But perhaps more importantly, the incentive to commit a gain-related crime is almost null. You mentioned robberies and theft. Now, what is the point of stealing when no one will sell you anything ever again or at the very least you’ll always be confined to your house (if you have any)? Does one seek money only to enjoy the view of money? Would people be ready to risk being shot be superbly trained private patrolmen in order to gain that? Iit seems pretty counter-productive to me.
So again, taking away unplanned crime, those committed by people that don’t plan to commit others and every crime aimed at getting some monetary benefit, only a small fraction of crimes is left for Property insurers to tackle. But of course these crimes will happen nevertheless, otherwise there would be no property insurance or indeed guns!
Merlin is way off base on this and Bob T is correct.
First off...Nobody buys liability insurance right now yet people are still allowed on private property. There is a chance I will commit a crime when on private property... of course, but then I get sued civilly and am personally held liable. There isn't one person buying this type of criminal liability insurance at present, yet people still traverse other people's property. It will remain the same in anarchy as it is now. You wont need to show proof of insurance to be admitted anywhere. Your entire framework of people not being allowed out of their houses after having committed a crime is way off base.
Second, Crimes are not "accidental" as you claim. A crime by definition is intentional. If it isn't intentional it isn't a crime. There may be damages that I owe civilly but not jail time unless it is intentional. Since the purpose of your "keep me out of jail insurance" is to keep someone who is guilty of a crime from serving jail time...people who don't plan on committing a crime will not buy it. The only people who would buy it are people who plan to commit crimes, at which point its no longer insurance and any firm offering that service would go bankrupt. Bob T is right.
While I believe in AC you might see a sentencing procedure that allows the guilty to negotiate down the jail time with the victim in exchange for money, the guilty would have to pay that amount out of pocket not insurance. Most people probably would not have enough money to pay meaning they would do jail time, and not be let out of jail like you suppose.
At least he wasn't a Keynesian!
cpacia: Merlin is way off base on this and Bob T is correct. First off...Nobody buys liability insurance right now yet people are still allowed on private property. There is a chance I will commit a crime when on private property... of course, but then I get sued civilly and am personally held liable. There isn't one person buying this type of criminal liability insurance at present, yet people still traverse other people's property. It will remain the same in anarchy as it is now. You wont need to show proof of insurance to be admitted anywhere. Your entire framework of people not being allowed out of their houses after having committed a crime is way off base. Second, Crimes are not "accidental" as you claim. A crime by definition is intentional. If it isn't intentional it isn't a crime. There may be damages that I owe civilly but not jail time unless it is intentional. Since the purpose of your "keep me out of jail insurance" is to keep someone who is guilty of a crime from serving jail time...people who don't plan on committing a crime will not buy it. The only people who would buy it are people who plan to commit crimes, at which point its no longer insurance and any firm offering that service would go bankrupt. Bob T is right. While I believe in AC you might see a sentencing procedure that allows the guilty to negotiate down the jail time with the victim in exchange for money, the guilty would have to pay that amount out of pocket not insurance. Most people probably would not have enough money to pay meaning they would do jail time, and not be let out of jail like you suppose.
I believe that I’ve made my point against these arguments in my previous posts.
I strongly believe that LI will come to be universally used, just as VISA ratings are used today (and we do not even know that). But of course there’s little point in purchasing LI when settling criminal acts outside courts is illegal just as is retaliation (the very core of LI theory) (and when LI intelsf is highly regulated, and allowed to cover only a few risks). Give people the right to punish themselves all crimes, allow for strictly private courts and abolish Prosecution offices altogether and LI will spring up from nowhere. The alternative is endless feuds. I really see no problem here. (as a side note, this means that LI is most viable in those countries where the ‘rule of law’ is laxest)
Still, these ideas shall ultimately be proved on the marketplace. Let us wait and see.
Merlin: I strongly believe that LI will come to be universally used, just as VISA ratings are used today (and we do not even know that). But of course there’s little point in purchasing LI when settling criminal acts outside courts is illegal just as is retaliation (the very core of LI theory) (and when LI intelsf is highly regulated, and allowed to cover only a few risks). Give people the right to punish themselves all crimes, allow for strictly private courts and abolish Prosecution offices altogether and LI will spring up from nowhere. The alternative is endless feuds. I really see no problem here. (as a side note, this means that LI is most viable in those countries where the ‘rule of law’ is laxest)
I don't get it. This seem to assume that you people would be willing to protect criminals making prosecution difficult in a non-monopoly situation.
No one will protect criminals, there just isn't any profit it in. Thus LI will be just as useless as it is today, I can prosecute any criminal as much as I want with no one defending them and no feud happing either way.
The criminal would probably be protected until he is proven guilty. But the party protecting him only have an interest in finding out the truth here so if he is guilty that shouldn't be very difficult. When he is proven guilty there contract with the criminal is null and void, no one will start feuds over him after that...
Land lords,, shooting ranges and airlines might want to assess "criminal risk" for there clients. But for everyone else it is just a waste of money to care about it...
hkarnoldson: Merlin: I strongly believe that LI will come to be universally used, just as VISA ratings are used today (and we do not even know that). But of course there’s little point in purchasing LI when settling criminal acts outside courts is illegal just as is retaliation (the very core of LI theory) (and when LI intelsf is highly regulated, and allowed to cover only a few risks). Give people the right to punish themselves all crimes, allow for strictly private courts and abolish Prosecution offices altogether and LI will spring up from nowhere. The alternative is endless feuds. I really see no problem here. (as a side note, this means that LI is most viable in those countries where the ‘rule of law’ is laxest) I don't get it. This seem to assume that you people would be willing to protect criminals making prosecution difficult in a non-monopoly situation. No one will protect criminals, there just isn't any profit it in. Thus LI will be just as useless as it is today, I can prosecute any criminal as much as I want with no one defending them and no feud happing either way. The criminal would probably be protected until he is proven guilty. But the party protecting him only have an interest in finding out the truth here so if he is guilty that shouldn't be very difficult. When he is proven guilty there contract with the criminal is null and void, no one will start feuds over him after that... Land lords,, shooting ranges and airlines might want to assess "criminal risk" for there clients. But for everyone else it is just a waste of money to care about it...
This could very easily be true. After all LI is a service like all others: it provides some utility against some price. It could come to be used, or it could not. There is no way to tell. What I believe we’re discussing here, is just whether it could possibly work, i.e. whether a business could function on that basis.
Thus, when you say that once found guilty no one would protect the wrongdoer, that is not strictly true. I have a contract with the wrongdoer, to do my best to convince the wronged party to forgive him. Now, let us not illude ourselves, if A kills you son, you wont forgive him, no mater how many millions offer you. You’ll just shoot him and be off with it.
But what if A broke you leg? Will you break his, as you have a right to? You could, but your leg wont heal. Wouldn’t it be better if I just gave you some good money, and you forgive the chap (who’ll be confined to his house for a long time anyways)?
Or what about the all-present fear of: “how can I be sure that the wrongdoer will have the means to compensate any loss he caused me?” No problem, the company will pay for him (that is, if you’ve had the good sense of allowing only insured persons in). So, if he burned your house accidentally (and the company agrees that this is indeed wrong, as I believe it is), he might well have no many to compensate you (suppose he lives in decrepit rented condo). How do you punish him? Kill him? Chop of a leg? What if LI just pays your home back? Would you agree? Would you at least be tempted?
Finally its not true that if A is found guilty, no one would avenge him if you punish him. But who guarantees you that As relatives have your own cannons of what is just? if they don’t (as it happens often in the real world) they will see you punishing A as an aggression. Feuds can easily spring up here. LI steps on and voluntarily setlles the thing, avoiding such calamities. Trust me, I know practical anarchy since it exists to this day in northern Albania: blood feuds are precisely its most fearsome issue. Every time you allow people to act on they personal conceptions of justice, such problem will arise. Avoiding them is by far LIs greatest potential.
You see, as son as we leave the immediate concern of violent, non-monetary crimes and see the vast majority of accidents, frauds, monetary-oriented crimes and small body injuries going on around us, we can see that LI would indeed seem very alluring.
So, what I’m saying is that such services are viable. Whether they come to be required, that of course remains to be seen (I myself have staked my future career on that).
PS: I highly recommend reading Chaos Theory here at the site, for I cannot explain the whole book in these already too long posts. I’m sure you’ll see the beauty of the thing after you read it.
Who the hell would insure someone against his crime?
scineram: Who the hell would insure someone against his crime?
Your auto insurer does.
They pay you if I willfully run you over?
scineram: They pay you if I willfully run you over?
They would if the Prosecutor General would allow the victim to forgive you (the whole point).
And they pay you court defence even today.
If you what you mean was that "moral hazard" prevents crime insurance (i.e. if I have control over it, than it cannot be insured), that's a myth: insurers regularly cover Bankrutpcy! Crime is nothing compared to that. (Game Theory explains why moral hazard in not a problem in real life)