Privatizing the legal system

[Libertarian666]

Read Chapter 12 in https://cdn.mises.org/For%20a%20New%20L ... esto_3.pdf, then comment here.

[Mark Leavy]

That's pretty dry reading, Tech.

Chapter 11 of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is much more fun.

[Libertarian666]

That's pretty dry reading, Tech.

Chapter 11 of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is much more fun.

TMIAHM is definitely more fun, but possibly not as directly relevant to the current situation.

[Mark Leavy]

The article is well written and hard to pick apart. But it doesn't sit well with me.

First, Tech, I want to say that I wish the world worked that way. I really do.

But everywhere, throughout history, a "protection racket" is the only solution that successfully evolves and dominates. Whether it is a legal, government subsidized racket or the local neighborhood taking care of its own. A forced enrollment protection racket is the only structure that ever survives in the real world.

I'm with you on all of the arguments as to why it should be better, but everything I've seen is that the protection racket scheme is the system that survives and grows. All others die off or are conquered. There must be a reason for it.

[Kriegsspiel]

Every reader of detective fiction knows that private insurance detectives are far more efficient than the police in recovering stolen property.

How is that an argument?

Not only is the insurance company impelled by economics to serve the consumer—and thereby try to avoid paying benefits—but the major focus of the insurance company is very different from that of the police. The police, standing as they do for a mythical “society,” are primarily interested in catching and punishing the criminal; restoring the stolen loot to the victim is strictly secondary. To the insurance company and its detectives, on the other hand, the prime concern is recovery of the loot, and apprehension and punishment of the criminal is secondary to the prime purpose of aiding the victim of crime. Here we see again the difference between a private firm impelled to serve the customer-victim of crime and the public police, which is under no such economic compulsion.

I've seen this argument from a BLM twit pretty much verbatim.

Ok, now to the part I don't like the sound of.

A private Central Park would be guarded efficiently in order to maximize park revenue, rather than have a prohibitive curfew imposed on innocent—and paying—customers. A free market in police would reward efficient and courteous police protection to customers and penalize any falling off from this standard. No longer would there be the current disjunction between service and payment inherent in all government operations, a disjunction which means that police, like all other government agencies, acquire their revenue, not voluntarily and competitively from consumers, but from the taxpayers coercively.

Another thing BLM people don't like is how police enforce "petty" laws. What if they, or someone funding them, are able to afford the biggest private security firm, and they impose their rules on Central Park (or wherever). And it becomes a shitty place. Or a drug cartel moves in and prevents any kind of civilized security from operating there. The only thing preventing a well-funded and well armed group from establishing itself as "the police" wherever it wants, and that's other groups funded by people with different ideas.

He kinda says the market will decide, but the market deciding who gets to enforce their will in a particular area sounds like what we call "war" nowadays.

To avoid emotionalism let us take two hypothetical countries: “Ruritania”and “Walldavia.” If both Ruritania and Walldavia were dissolved into a libertarian society, with no government and innumerable private individuals, firms, and police agencies, the only clashes that could break out would be local, and the weaponry would necessarily be strictly limited in scope and devastation.

Again, what stops competing private security firms from becoming Free Companies, proxy armies for different factions?

If both Ruritania and Walldavia were dissolved into a libertarian society, with no government and innumerable private individuals, firms, and police agencies, the only clashes that could break out would be local, and the weaponry would necessarily be strictly limited in scope and devastation.

I think that's all he said about it. It's not really convincing to simply say it can't happen. PW Singer, author of Corporate Warriors, would argue that private security firms have access to quite a bit of heavy weaponry and technology. Plus, you can do a lot of damage to society with very simple weapons, as a casual survey of Afghanistan, or Africa would show.

But if Company A battles with Company B, the most that can happen is that the respective customers of each company may be dragged into the battle—but no one else.

... How does that make any sense? If a few rich New Yorkers pool their money and hire a large security company to enforce their rules of "no black people in Central Park" and another group wants to enforce their rules of "yea, black people can go to Central Park" and they start battling, people who aren't part of those groups but who happen to be chilling in Central Park could obviously get caught up in it. Or Company A finds out what bar Company B likes going to, and attacks them there. I mean, there are tons of ways people outside of their respective customers could get dragged into the battle.

A libertarian world, then, even if anarchic, would still not suffer the brutal wars, the mass devastation, the A-bombing, that our State-ridden world has suffered for centuries.

The Free Companies plundered and extorted cities all over Europe after the 100 Years War.

Even if local police clash continually, there would be no more Dresdens, no more Hiroshimas.

They were "cited as a factor as strong as plague or famine in the reduction of Siena from a glorious rival of Florence to a second-rate power during the later fourteenth century; Siena spent 291,379 florins between 1342 and 1399 buying off the free companies." And Free Companies sacked other cities, like Cesena (google John Hawkwood).

Pre-Renaissance Italy seems like a pretty fair historical testing ground for the idea of privatized police in a limited-scope, libertarian patchwork. He wants us to just take his word that the private companies will demand that their customers will hire "private courts or arbitrators to decide who is in the wrong," because it would be good for business. But looking at what actually happened in Italy, that's not what was best for business. The Free Companies were open to being paid off, extortion, switching teams, etc.

[Libertarian666]

The article is well written and hard to pick apart. But it doesn't sit well with me.

First, Tech, I want to say that I wish the world worked that way. I really do.

But everywhere, throughout history, a "protection racket" is the only solution that successfully evolves and dominates. Whether it is a legal, government subsidized racket or the local neighborhood taking care of its own. A forced enrollment protection racket is the only structure that ever survives in the real world.

I'm with you on all of the arguments as to why it should be better, but everything I've seen is that the protection racket scheme is the system that survives and grows. All others die off or are conquered. There must be a reason for it.

Yes, there is a reason for it: Honest people don't pay attention when things look okay. It takes eternal vigilance to restrain power, no matter how it begins.

As for whether forced enrollment is necessary, it is not. Did you read the part about the Irish experience? They had no state and yet had public order provided by, in essence, competing security organizations which people could join or leave voluntarily. That is historical fact, not surmise.

For a more recent example, here's an anecdote that was told to me by my former wife.

She lived in an apartment building in Queens, in a good neighborhood but one that bordered on a bad one.
Most of the residents were middle-aged or elderly, and they were easy pickings for the thugs that came over from the bad neighborhood.
They would call the police when they got mugged, but the police would say "What do you want us to do? Have a patrol car there all the time?" and then hang up.

Eventually the residents of the building got tired of this and asked for a voluntary contribution from every household to pay for a private security company to have their squad car come by several times a day.
This cost, IIRC, $30 per household per month. With a hundred apartments to contribute, that came out to enough to pay the security company.
They had no way to compel payment, but enough did contribute anyway to make it work.
The muggings stopped.

But I think we're going to find out very soon now whether neighborhood defense councils will work, because the police won't be there. What will people do, just give up? Not likely. I think they will fight back, and win.

[Kriegsspiel]

I think you've overlooked a few things.

A drug cartel cannot exist in the absence of police who attempt to prevent buying and selling drugs.

We probably wouldn't call it a drug cartel, but the hierarchical group of guys with heavy weapons, knowledge of small unit tactics, and close bonds to each other would remain, especially if there was a heavy demand for their skillset.

A private Central Park would be managed by its owner, just as Disneyland is managed by the Disney company. Thus, your scenario of warfare in Central Park is just as likely as warfare in Disneyland.

They'd only remain the owner as long as they employed a strong (and loyal) enough security company to enforce their claim. I'd imagine the same thing would happen in Disneyland, since so much money stands to be made for whoever is in control of it.

Common people did not own firearms in the 14th Century. With such ownership, it is much more difficult to oppress the general public. There's a reason the Colt .45 was called "The Equalizer". This goes double for women, who are much weaker than men. And in fact there is a negative correlation between crime and gun ownership among non-criminals. Gun ownership would obviously be much higher in NYC, at least among non-criminals, without the police to enforce gun control laws.

VALID POINT. I just think that an anarcho-capitalist setup would look a lot like pre-Renaissance Italy. The group dynamics would play out the same way as they did with the Free Companies when you have the same incentives and situations.

[Libertarian666]

I think you've overlooked a few things.

A drug cartel cannot exist in the absence of police who attempt to prevent buying and selling drugs.

We probably wouldn't call it a drug cartel, but the hierarchical group of guys with heavy weapons, knowledge of small unit tactics, and close bonds to each other would remain, especially if there was a heavy demand for their skillset.

Tell me: why don't liquor wholesalers or retailers engage such groups?
They used to during Prohibition.

A private Central Park would be managed by its owner, just as Disneyland is managed by the Disney company. Thus, your scenario of warfare in Central Park is just as likely as warfare in Disneyland.

They'd only remain the owner as long as they employed a strong (and loyal) enough security company to enforce their claim. I'd imagine the same thing would happen in Disneyland, since so much money stands to be made for whoever is in control of it.

No money would be made from Disneyland if visitors couldn't be almost certain that they would be safe there. That militates (no pun intended) against gang warfare there.

Common people did not own firearms in the 14th Century. With such ownership, it is much more difficult to oppress the general public. There's a reason the Colt .45 was called "The Equalizer". This goes double for women, who are much weaker than men. And in fact there is a negative correlation between crime and gun ownership among non-criminals. Gun ownership would obviously be much higher in NYC, at least among non-criminals, without the police to enforce gun control laws.

VALID POINT. I just think that an anarcho-capitalist setup would look a lot like pre-Renaissance Italy. The group dynamics would play out the same way as they did with the Free Companies when you have the same incentives and situations.

The incentives and situations would not be even remotely similar. Today we have telecommunications, rapid transportation, inexpensive and powerful personal weapons, and social media. No one would be able to get away with nearly the same level of violence that happened in pre-Renaissance Italy. Their business would go broke due to a lack of customers almost instantly.

[WiseOne]

I read through it quickly...

It makes what may be valid arguments, but it consists of one long stream of assertions not supported by any evidence whatsoever. I don't find it very convincing.

Without some form of level playing field that all of society accepts, it is going to come down to "might makes right". That can work out well, but it can also end very badly. In the case of a city that disbands its police force, the criminal justice system will effectively not exist unless a lot of changes are made. For example, a defendant cannot currently be tried in absentia except in very limited cases. If the defendant doesn't show up, the trial can't happen. That law would have to change.

And if a criminal defendant is found guilty, how is that person going to be carted off to jail? Who will do it? And who will keep him there once in? The examples you cite from the Middle Ages is from an era where jails mostly didn't exist...the only real option for punishment was execution.

As far as NYC goes, good piece of news (from a friend on the inside): it turns out that the cuts to the NYPD budget were developed as a response to the fact that the city is facing a $9b hole. They're doing things like extending the lifetime of equipment, reducing uniform budgets, and limiting overtime. It's not about reducing policing. De Blasio just took this plan and magically spun it as "we're defunding the police to make the rioters happy." So it'll work out fine....the police will keep doing what they do, the city budget shortfall will be reduced, and the Left will be under the impression that they got what they wanted.

[Libertarian666]

I read through it quickly...

It makes what may be valid arguments, but it consists of one long stream of assertions not supported by any evidence whatsoever. I don't find it very convincing.

Without some form of level playing field that all of society accepts, it is going to come down to "might makes right".

That is what it comes down to now as well. If you don't believe me, try resisting a law that is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, e.g., the involuntary servitude called the "military draft":

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
(13th Amendment to the US Constitution)

What will happen to you?

That can work out well, but it can also end very badly. In the case of a city that disbands its police force, the criminal justice system will effectively not exist unless a lot of changes are made. For example, a defendant cannot currently be tried in absentia except in very limited cases. If the defendant doesn't show up, the trial can't happen. That law would have to change.

And if a criminal defendant is found guilty, how is that person going to be carted off to jail? Who will do it? And who will keep him there once in? The examples you cite from the Middle Ages is from an era where jails mostly didn't exist...the only real option for punishment was execution.

As far as NYC goes, good piece of news (from a friend on the inside): it turns out that the cuts to the NYPD budget were developed as a response to the fact that the city is facing a $9b hole. They're doing things like extending the lifetime of equipment, reducing uniform budgets, and limiting overtime. It's not about reducing policing. De Blasio just took this plan and magically spun it as "we're defunding the police to make the rioters happy." So it'll work out fine....the police will keep doing what they do, the city budget shortfall will be reduced, and the Left will be under the impression that they got what they wanted.

Are kings necessary?

You may say that it's obvious that they aren't, but it was anything but obvious to people until the American revolution.

Until the American Revolution almost everyone would have said that kings were necessary, because until that time, for almost the entirety of history, kings had ruled people.

In fact, anyone who claimed that kings weren't necessary was called... an anarchist!

In other words, to say "We don't have any real-world examples to point to" does not mean that the arguments are not correct.

In fact, we do have limited experience with anarchism. Did you read the part about anarchic Ireland? They had well-developed rules for handling miscreants, mostly involving shunning and sureties (people who guaranteed others' debts). The same was true for medieval Iceland, which was also anarchic.

Here's a small anarchic republic that lasted for 385 years in the middle of Europe, into the 19th Century: https://dailyanarchist.com/2015/03/11/t ... f-cospaia/.

Interestingly enough, a number of groups have tried to buy land from governments on which to start their own non-governmental societies. For some reason, no government, no matter how poor and desperate for revenue, will sell land from which they withdraw their claim to sovereignty. Does that seem odd to you?

Other attempts have been made to start non-governmental societies on otherwise unoccupied territory, such as Sealand (https://sealandgov.org/) and Liberland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland). For some reason, governments refuse to acknowledge the legality of such societies, even though they have no problem recognizing tyrants. I wonder why that is?

But it is true that recent real-world experience is limited. That means we have to explore these possibilities mostly by one of two means:
1. Logical arguments about how they could play out; and
2. Fictional depictions of free societies.

"For a New Liberty" is an example of the first of these, while the fictional works I've cited previously are examples of the second.

Of course the lack of practical examples of things that haven't yet been done is not limited to libertarianism; thinking about things that don't exist yet is the essence of invention.

[Mark Leavy]

Eventually the residents of the building got tired of this and asked for a voluntary contribution from every household to pay for a private security company to have their squad car come by several times a day.
This cost, IIRC, $30 per household per month. With a hundred apartments to contribute, that came out to enough to pay the security company.
They had no way to compel payment, but enough did contribute anyway to make it work.
The muggings stopped.

You can claim that this (very cool story) is voluntary enrollment in protection, but I disagree.
I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that not only did the "non contributing" members get slower service, but they might have also had a few more random broken windows.

I'm not judging - I think that sort of enterprise will always arise to fill a need - but it won't be based on altruism. And if some of the locals need to be nudged to contribute... it will happen. Call it marketing. It's just good business.

[Mark Leavy]

But it is true that recent real-world experience is limited. That means we have to explore these possibilities mostly by one of two means:
1. Logical arguments about how they could play out; and
2. Fictional depictions of free societies.

"For a New Liberty" is an example of the first of these, while the fictional works I've cited previously are examples of the second.

Of course the lack of practical examples of things that haven't yet been done is not limited to libertarianism; thinking about things that don't exist yet is the essence of invention.

i have often thought about trying to start an online anarchist experiment forum, (i would name it Luna after "the moon is a harsh mistress") what would happen in a forum where everybody was a moderator with the ability to ban hammer the other members? i think it would be interesting to see how it played out, how conversations and arguments get resolved, how trolls get dealt with and so on..

I like this idea. To make it work, moderation should include risk. If you ban hammer someone, it comes at a risk of loss. With great power comes great responsibility. The moderator has to have skin in the game.

Maybe the moderators put up a bond - a bond that is forfeited if the community disagrees - after 6 months of introspection. Or... a small payment if the community agrees - again, after 6 months of introspection. It should be assymetrical. A large loss for an illegitimate ban and a small gain for a correct ban. No decisions without allowing for the dissipation of the fog of war.

A just and wise moderation is profitable - and a powerful force for the community. A foolish and quick moderator is winnowed out.

Xan is worth his weight in gold.

Mark

[Libertarian666]

Eventually the residents of the building got tired of this and asked for a voluntary contribution from every household to pay for a private security company to have their squad car come by several times a day.
This cost, IIRC, $30 per household per month. With a hundred apartments to contribute, that came out to enough to pay the security company.
They had no way to compel payment, but enough did contribute anyway to make it work.
The muggings stopped.

You can claim that this (very cool story) is voluntary enrollment in protection, but I disagree.
I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that not only did the "non contributing" members get slower service, but they might have also had a few more random broken windows.

I'm not judging - I think that sort of enterprise will always arise to fill a need - but it won't be based on altruism. And if some of the locals need to be nudged to contribute... it will happen. Call it marketing. It's just good business.

I can guarantee you there were no broken windows due to not contributing.
For one thing, it was a high-rise apartment building with no apartment windows on the ground floor, so that would have been very difficult to arrange.
Secondly, the problem wasn't even broken windows in the first place; it was old ladies getting mugged as they went in and out of the building.
And thirdly, the service wasn't personal and they didn't call for it when the problem occurred; it was a security detail that came around the front of the building at random intervals.

Other than that, good guess!

[Libertarian666]

But it is true that recent real-world experience is limited. That means we have to explore these possibilities mostly by one of two means:
1. Logical arguments about how they could play out; and
2. Fictional depictions of free societies.

"For a New Liberty" is an example of the first of these, while the fictional works I've cited previously are examples of the second.

Of course the lack of practical examples of things that haven't yet been done is not limited to libertarianism; thinking about things that don't exist yet is the essence of invention.

i have often thought about trying to start an online anarchist experiment forum, (i would name it Luna after "the moon is a harsh mistress") what would happen in a forum where everybody was a moderator with the ability to ban hammer the other members? i think it would be interesting to see how it played out, how conversations and arguments get resolved, how trolls get dealt with and so on..

I like this idea. To make it work, moderation should include risk. If you ban hammer someone, it comes at a risk of loss. With great power comes great responsibility. The moderator has to have skin in the game.

Maybe the moderators put up a bond - a bond that is forfeited if the community disagrees - after 6 months of introspection. Or... a small payment if the community agrees - again, after 6 months of introspection. It should be assymetrical. A large loss for an illegitimate ban and a small gain for a correct ban. No decisions without allowing for the dissipation of the fog of war.

A just and wise moderation is profitable - and a powerful force for the community. A foolish and quick moderator is winnowed out.

Xan is worth his weight in gold.

Mark

I'm on board with the general idea but I think it should be possible to come up with a means to handle trolls and other dishonest participants without needing a ban hammer at all.

Perhaps a rating system based on approval/disapproval of a given member by other members would work. If you get too many demerits you get a time-out according to a sliding scale of time, e.g., a day for 2 demerits, a week for 5. Merits might cancel out demerits at least to a certain extent.

Comments?

[Libertarian666]

i was thinking full anarchy.. ban hammer is tossing a Loonie out the air lock, and anyone could toss ... or rescue anyone.. trolls would get repeatedly tossed, bad actors would be seldom rescued and if they are rescued without cause or time passing the rescuer would risk the airlock themselves. ideally the mod controls would be comprehensive. the ability to move/edit posts etc.. but this would require some programing to allow changes to be recorded and visible to all, including who made them.. and reversible by all.


edit to add.. i suspect that an unofficial culture of what is and isn't acceptable would develop organically, exactly what it would look like i am not sure. ....but... ! interesting !

it is also possible that it would all descend into a troll pit with mobs of vandals and nothing to offer but edit/ban wars between factions...

the anarchist in me would argue it probably wont. ....but... ! interesting !

Sounds good to me. Do you have the technical ability and the time to do it? Although I'm a programmer by trade, I know next to nothing about web programming, so I wouldn't be able to help significantly.

i have some time and some ability, i am not a programmer and my skills on the admin end of forum management are badly dated (but re-learnable), xan is our tech wizard here.. knowing which forum software to use and how to make modifications would be an early hurdle to clear.

[shekels]

But it is true that recent real-world experience is limited. That means we have to explore these possibilities mostly by one of two means:
1. Logical arguments about how they could play out; and
2. Fictional depictions of free societies.

"For a New Liberty" is an example of the first of these, while the fictional works I've cited previously are examples of the second.

Of course the lack of practical examples of things that haven't yet been done is not limited to libertarianism; thinking about things that don't exist yet is the essence of invention.

i have often thought about trying to start an online anarchist experiment forum, (i would name it Luna after "the moon is a harsh mistress") what would happen in a forum where everybody was a moderator with the ability to ban hammer the other members? i think it would be interesting to see how it played out, how conversations and arguments get resolved, how trolls get dealt with and so on..

Reminds Me of this

My finger slipped..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hOOGWLshtE

LOL it could play out that way..

or it could end up being a lot like this forum where " really the reason that things generally run smoothly around here is the participants, not the moderators. You all make it easy". only the participants would be the moderators...

[Xan]

Xan is worth his weight in gold.

You're too kind, Mark. I certainly appreciate the sentiment! And l82start does a lot around here too. But really the reason that things generally run smoothly around here is the participants, not the moderators. You all make it easy.

[Xan]

i was thinking full anarchy.. ban hammer is tossing a Loonie out the air lock, and anyone could toss ... or rescue anyone.. trolls would get repeatedly tossed, bad actors would be seldom rescued and if they are rescued without cause or time passing the rescuer would risk the airlock themselves. ideally the mod controls would be comprehensive. the ability to move/edit posts etc.. but this would require some programing to allow changes to be recorded and visible to all, including who made them.. and reversible by all.


edit to add.. i suspect that an unofficial culture of what is and isn't acceptable would develop organically, exactly what it would look like i am not sure. ....but... ! interesting !

Sounds good to me. Do you have the technical ability and the time to do it? Although I'm a programmer by trade, I know next to nothing about web programming, so I wouldn't be able to help significantly.

It would be an interesting experiment. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to hack on bulletin board software to try to make it happen. Also, I would think the forum would need to be about something else, rather than a test forum for the forum software. That would be very meta. Ideally you'd convert an existing forum about something else to that mode. Like this one. But I doubt you'd find any forums willing to take the chance of destroying something successful by trying it.

Another issue: you'd have to find a way to make all changes undoable. That isn't really the case already. For example, a banhammer deletes all posts, and the posts are gone.
Yes, you could unban, but the posts are gone.

Another issue is that mods/admins have the ability to edit posts. I don't believe that's undoable either. And even if you had a way to keep a complete record of what posts used to be, you could still have edit wars where people are changing not only what they said, but what other people said!

[Libertarian666]

i was thinking full anarchy.. ban hammer is tossing a Loonie out the air lock, and anyone could toss ... or rescue anyone.. trolls would get repeatedly tossed, bad actors would be seldom rescued and if they are rescued without cause or time passing the rescuer would risk the airlock themselves. ideally the mod controls would be comprehensive. the ability to move/edit posts etc.. but this would require some programing to allow changes to be recorded and visible to all, including who made them.. and reversible by all.


edit to add.. i suspect that an unofficial culture of what is and isn't acceptable would develop organically, exactly what it would look like i am not sure. ....but... ! interesting !

Sounds good to me. Do you have the technical ability and the time to do it? Although I'm a programmer by trade, I know next to nothing about web programming, so I wouldn't be able to help significantly.

i would propose that the "topic" of the forum would be enlightened or rational anarchy, and that it would have "other discussion" areas much like we do here, the problem of programing the undo delete/undo edit is a bit beyond my skill set, if there was a record kept and they could be undone it could lead to wars, but it could also lead to a equilibrium where if you are making ridiculous edits or bans you will be banned by the community. a parallel to the armed society is a polite society concept..

+1 on the topic of the forum.

[Mark Leavy]

Eventually the residents of the building got tired of this and asked for a voluntary contribution from every household to pay for a private security company to have their squad car come by several times a day.
This cost, IIRC, $30 per household per month. With a hundred apartments to contribute, that came out to enough to pay the security company.
They had no way to compel payment, but enough did contribute anyway to make it work.
The muggings stopped.

You can claim that this (very cool story) is voluntary enrollment in protection, but I disagree.
I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that not only did the "non contributing" members get slower service, but they might have also had a few more random broken windows.

I'm not judging - I think that sort of enterprise will always arise to fill a need - but it won't be based on altruism. And if some of the locals need to be nudged to contribute... it will happen. Call it marketing. It's just good business.

I can guarantee you there were no broken windows due to not contributing.
For one thing, it was a high-rise apartment building with no apartment windows on the ground floor, so that would have been very difficult to arrange.
Secondly, the problem wasn't even broken windows in the first place; it was old ladies getting mugged as they went in and out of the building.
And thirdly, the service wasn't personal and they didn't call for it when the problem occurred; it was a security detail that came around the front of the building at random intervals.

Other than that, good guess!

Okay Tech. I can believe all of that. Especially in a tight knit community - where the youngins looked out for the elders.
Do you want your payment in dollars or doughnuts

Mark

[Mark Leavy]

And l82start does a lot around here too.

Damn. I completely overlooked that. Likewise. I hope neither of you weigh too much. I only have so much gold...

[Xan]

More thoughts on the "anarchic forum": somebody has to run the server.

If everybody has the keys to the server, then you lose the ability to see what different people did and to undo something someone has done. Anybody with access to the server has complete access to do absolutely anything, including push the nuclear button and the site is gone.

Potentially the group could hire an outside party to run the server. Of course there are many issues with that. One is, who pays? (In fact that's an issue regardless of who manages the server.) It seems like the people paid to manage the server would have to be "in on it", in that they could only take action when some percentage of the membership agreed. Then you have to decide who gets a vote, what the thresholds are, etc etc. All this is getting uncomfortably close to a government, but I don't see much way around it.

i think admin and server functions would be kept in the hands of the founders/and programmers, there would undoubtedly be a breaking in period where forum and mod control setup would be a bit in flux as they get set up to best represent an anarchist "no government" space, and this would involve some philosophy vs what is possible discussions to sort out. once the setup is complete the admin/programmers have to be into the experiment enough to take a hands off, updates and maintenance only role.. after that any improvements or changes to the space would need to be discuses and ramifications considered.. essentially the admin is a non active position and if the founders/programmers are active it should only be with a second "equal to all" mod account..
cost might be an issue, i have no idea what domain registration and server space cost but if it was in my budget i would cover it.. or accept donations from interested participants.

[Xan]

As a practical matter, yes, those issues can be overcome.

But philosophically, the actual situation is that the forum has no government as long as the person who's actually in charge allows it to. So... Is there really nobody in charge?

In fact that person would be the person to get sued/prosecuted/whatever if copyright violations, pornography, who knows what else ends up on the site.

well its an experiment to find out what happens in an anarchist society, so yes they should be "nobody in charge" because the people setting it up want to see if the principals hold up in practice..

liability is an issue.. and i am not sure how that would be dealt with if it came down to a tangle with the law and order world that the forum must exist in, (any lawyers in the house?)
practical reality is that responsible party's (and everybody else) would be able to delete fix most problems with there -in experiment- mod account, but if the forum went full "chaos anarchy" and was over run with illegal crap, the experiment would be over and need to be shut down or rethought...

[Libertarian666]

Eventually the residents of the building got tired of this and asked for a voluntary contribution from every household to pay for a private security company to have their squad car come by several times a day.
This cost, IIRC, $30 per household per month. With a hundred apartments to contribute, that came out to enough to pay the security company.
They had no way to compel payment, but enough did contribute anyway to make it work.
The muggings stopped.

You can claim that this (very cool story) is voluntary enrollment in protection, but I disagree.
I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that not only did the "non contributing" members get slower service, but they might have also had a few more random broken windows.

I'm not judging - I think that sort of enterprise will always arise to fill a need - but it won't be based on altruism. And if some of the locals need to be nudged to contribute... it will happen. Call it marketing. It's just good business.

I can guarantee you there were no broken windows due to not contributing.
For one thing, it was a high-rise apartment building with no apartment windows on the ground floor, so that would have been very difficult to arrange.
Secondly, the problem wasn't even broken windows in the first place; it was old ladies getting mugged as they went in and out of the building.
And thirdly, the service wasn't personal and they didn't call for it when the problem occurred; it was a security detail that came around the front of the building at random intervals.

Other than that, good guess!

Okay Tech. I can believe all of that. Especially in a tight knit community - where the youngins looked out for the elders.
Do you want your payment in dollars or doughnuts

Mark

You can buy me a doughnut the next time you come through East Texas.

[Libertarian666]

More thoughts on the "anarchic forum": somebody has to run the server.

If everybody has the keys to the server, then you lose the ability to see what different people did and to undo something someone has done. Anybody with access to the server has complete access to do absolutely anything, including push the nuclear button and the site is gone.

Potentially the group could hire an outside party to run the server. Of course there are many issues with that. One is, who pays? (In fact that's an issue regardless of who manages the server.) It seems like the people paid to manage the server would have to be "in on it", in that they could only take action when some percentage of the membership agreed. Then you have to decide who gets a vote, what the thresholds are, etc etc. All this is getting uncomfortably close to a government, but I don't see much way around it.

Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules", it means "no rulers".
Any community, whether in real life or online, must have rules.
So the question is not whether there are rules, but whether some of the participants get to make or enforce the rules without the other participants' continuing agreement.