Just How Stupid Are We?

[Gumby]

I really do understand the point you're making, Gumby. I think we're all in agreement that a world with perfect people will never come to pass. And I agree with you that for the inevitable assholes who will be present in any society, there need to be consequences for bad behavior. Every society has had them and every society always needs them for the few who don't play nice. I think I just disagree that the consequences have to come from government. They can even be violent consequences!

What I'm saying is that I agree with you that they don't have to come from government. But, we seem to agree that the enforcement of even a private rule is the threat of violence. In other words, as long as people want rules to be followed, the violent consequences are a reality.

And my overall point is... How do you convince a neighbor to give up on supporting government when they want there to be violent consequences for the asshole who disobeys a private or public rule. It seems like an incredible waste of time.

[Pointedstick]

Yeah. I'm sure that serial killer or thief in the neighborhood is really worried about their "reputation report".

They should be. A murderer's report would be so bad that probably nobody would want to have anything to do with them. It would be a virtual sentence of exile. And of course, with so many places barring them entry, trespassing could get them killed and nobody would shed a tear.

[Gumby]

If he interferes, they will threaten him with their big scary black guns until he stops. If at this point he is revealed to be a completely irrational lunatic and attacks them, they will kill him. And nobody will shed a tear, because everyone will see that he was an irrational asshole lunatic. If his family members sue, they will lose.

Exactly. So, why would anyone in my neighborhood prefer that private "solution" when the town already has a solution in place?

[Pointedstick]

I really do understand the point you're making, Gumby. I think we're all in agreement that a world with perfect people will never come to pass. And I agree with you that for the inevitable assholes who will be present in any society, there need to be consequences for bad behavior. Every society has had them and every society always needs them for the few who don't play nice. I think I just disagree that the consequences have to come from government. They can even be violent consequences!

What I'm saying is that I agree with you that they don't have to come from government. But, we seem to agree that the enforcement of even a private rule is the threat of violence. In other words, as long as people want rules to be followed, the violent consequences are a reality.

Yes, exactly.

And my overall point is... How do you convince a neighbor to give up on supporting government when they want there to be violent consequences for the asshole who disobeys a private or public rule. It seems like an incredible waste of time.

I don't. It's a waste of my time trying to convince people who are not receptive to the argument. The only reason to do it at all is try try to sharpen my arguments or test ideas in the rough and tumble world of debate (like I've just done with my Reputation Report idea).

[Gumby]

Yeah. I'm sure that serial killer or thief in the neighborhood is really worried about their "reputation report".

They should be. A murderer's report would be so bad that probably nobody would want to have anything to do with them. It would be a virtual sentence of exile. And of course, with so many places barring them entry, trespassing could get them killed and nobody would shed a tear.

And who controls this "reputation report"? A group of elected leaders?

[Pointedstick]

If he interferes, they will threaten him with their big scary black guns until he stops. If at this point he is revealed to be a completely irrational lunatic and attacks them, they will kill him. And nobody will shed a tear, because everyone will see that he was an irrational asshole lunatic. If his family members sue, they will lose.

Exactly. So, why would anyone in my neighborhood prefer that private "solution" when the town already has a solution in place?

They probably won't, until the town egregiously abuses its monopoly position, as it is wont to do, being a monopoly with the power to tax.

[Pointedstick]

Yeah. I'm sure that serial killer or thief in the neighborhood is really worried about their "reputation report".

They should be. A murderer's report would be so bad that probably nobody would want to have anything to do with them. It would be a virtual sentence of exile. And of course, with so many places barring them entry, trespassing could get them killed and nobody would shed a tear.

And who controls this "reputation report"? A group of elected leaders?

A number of private firms, just like today's credit report firms. To anticipate your next question…

Another worry is that such a system would put too much power in the hands of the reputation firms. Couldn't they blackmail people by requiring them to purchase more and more insurance, or hold their reputation reports hostage in other manners? The principle of market competition makes this highly unlikely. A single reputation firm that engaged in such transparently sleazy behavior would quickly become known to issue unreliable information, and for such a firm, this would be a death sentence. Unreliable information about people's trustworthiness is worse than useless; merchants, schools, and all other organizations would quickly stop using the rogue firm's bad information, rendering any phony judgements of truly trustworthy people irrelevant as their competitors became known to provide the truth. And if all the reputation firms formed a cartel to monopolize the industry and simultaneously provide phony data backed up by the others, there would be no government for them to manipulate into squashing the competition that would result. In such a situation, the first new firm to become known for defying the cartel and providing accurate information would amass incredible wealth as it quickly gained near-total market dominance, encouraging further competition from honest firms eager to cash in themselves.

[Gumby]

If he interferes, they will threaten him with their big scary black guns until he stops. If at this point he is revealed to be a completely irrational lunatic and attacks them, they will kill him. And nobody will shed a tear, because everyone will see that he was an irrational asshole lunatic. If his family members sue, they will lose.

Exactly. So, why would anyone in my neighborhood prefer that private "solution" when the town already has a solution in place?

They probably won't, until the town egregiously abuses its monopoly position, as it is wont to do, being a monopoly with the power to tax.

My town has been existence for over a hundred years. How much longer do you think it will be before that happens?

[Gumby]

such a system would

My point is that it's a huge waste of time to go through life trying to convince other people of this hypothetical fantasy. We already have a system in place — however flawed it might be. So, few people are going to support such a massive change that will probably never happen.

Not that it isn't all a wonderful hypothetical idea.

[Libertarian666]

Yeah. I'm sure that serial killer or thief in the neighborhood is really worried about their "reputation report".

They should be. A murderer's report would be so bad that probably nobody would want to have anything to do with them. It would be a virtual sentence of exile. And of course, with so many places barring them entry, trespassing could get them killed and nobody would shed a tear.

I'd sign up for that arrangement voluntarily, and so would other non-criminally-inclined people if they managed to consider it fairly in spite of the usual brainwashing.

You might also want to look at the "General Submission to Arbitration" that has been around for awhile, which would have much the same effect.

[Pointedstick]

They probably won't, until the town egregiously abuses its monopoly position, as it is wont to do, being a monopoly with the power to tax.

My town has been existence for over a hundred years. How much longer do you think it will be before that happens?

Depends on the town. Where my parents live, their normal midwestern middle-class house is now costing them more than $10,000 a year in property taxes that are obviously wasted, as the schools are dismal and crime is on the rise. There is a virtual revolt, and the city council is practically under siege.

Does this mean that the people are going to disband the city and form a private society? Of course not. We're not to that point yet. The morality of government is still widely accepted, and it's been a very, very short period of time in human history that people have had such power in their own hands coupled with progressively better parenting and less brutal and oppressive social mores. It will take a long time.

[Pointedstick]

such a system would

My point is that it's a huge waste of time to go through life trying to convince other people of this hypothetical fantasy. We already have a system in place — however flawed it might be. So, few people are going to support such a massive change that will probably never happen.

Not that it isn't all a wonderful hypothetical idea.

I am highly receptive to this line of argumentation. You're right. It may never happen, and it probably won't happen in my lifetime. But if I can make a small difference to try to change the minds of people whose curiosity is already piqued, I think that's worth doing. And it also gives me pleasure to debate and discuss things (as you've probably noticed ). Besides, even if it never happens, getting more people to believe in marketplace solutions to problems even within the context of a government society is a good thing in my book. Despite our debates here, I suspect that we actually all (except for doodle) agree on a substantially more limited government than the average American voter does.

[moda0306]

They should be. A murderer's report would be so bad that probably nobody would want to have anything to do with them. It would be a virtual sentence of exile. And of course, with so many places barring them entry, trespassing could get them killed and nobody would shed a tear.

And who controls this "reputation report"? A group of elected leaders?

A number of private firms, just like today's credit report firms. To anticipate your next question…

Another worry is that such a system would put too much power in the hands of the reputation firms. Couldn't they blackmail people by requiring them to purchase more and more insurance, or hold their reputation reports hostage in other manners? The principle of market competition makes this highly unlikely. A single reputation firm that engaged in such transparently sleazy behavior would quickly become known to issue unreliable information, and for such a firm, this would be a death sentence. Unreliable information about people's trustworthiness is worse than useless; merchants, schools, and all other organizations would quickly stop using the rogue firm's bad information, rendering any phony judgements of truly trustworthy people irrelevant as their competitors became known to provide the truth. And if all the reputation firms formed a cartel to monopolize the industry and simultaneously provide phony data backed up by the others, there would be no government for them to manipulate into squashing the competition that would result. In such a situation, the first new firm to become known for defying the cartel and providing accurate information would amass incredibly wealth as it quickly gained near-total market dominance, encouraging further competition from honest firms eager to cash in themselves.

Who says it would have to be so obvious?  It could take decades for under-the-table deals to come to the surface with these firms...

And forget about these firms... what about the arbitrators?  Between arbitrators and these "reporting firms," there's so much room for manipulation that I don't think people would put much trust in either of them.  Keep in mind, for the kind of trust you're talking about to be established, entities (whether private or public) usually have to prove themselves for a LONG time.  And without the trust of the private sector, there would be very little demand.

And let's not forget that if someone has stolen from someone else, it is arguably within the right of the person stolen from to reclaim that property.  So this world of arbitration firms and reporting firms is fine and good, but in the absence of these being worth the time/effort (people just want their property back), you'd essentally have the person with little/no violent capabilities becoming the victim of the one who did have those capabilities.  Those with those capabilities could say "Look, we see this as our property, and are willing to send two of our death agents in in-cognito to claim it as ours, and we know you're not well-armed, so we'd win... or, you can give us 60% of what you owe us, not report us to the arbitrator or reporting agency, and we'll leave you alone."

I mean in the end, if someone has stolen from me (in my mind), and I have the legitimate right to violently reclaim my property, the domino effects of this drive everything.  Violent acts are now acceptable in CERTAIN circumstances, but there are 3 stories as to what happened, or would potentially be, and one of those stories is always going to be "he stole from me so I was within my rights."  Is the 3rd party reporting firm going to investigate that?

Those with little/no option to be violent are always going to be in a very tough predicament.  Some really bad choices by the powerful could likely have little-to-no consequences, unless someone is willing to violently reclaim (if they can) the property stolen. 

[Pointedstick]

Those with little/no option to be violent are always going to be in a very tough predicament.  Some really bad choices by the powerful could likely have little-to-no consequences, unless someone is willing to violently reclaim (if they can) the property stolen.

It's true. But honestly, I don't see a way for the weak to ever have power in any society. It's a contradiction in terms. You can't derive power from weakness. Even a government that purports to lend you the use of its power can just oppress you instead if it feels like it and then what are you going to do? You're powerless, remember! It's an intractable problem that IMHO simply can't be solved without gaining some power of your own.

[Gumby]

But if I can make a small difference to try to change the minds of people whose curiosity is already piqued, I think that's worth doing.

Sure. I think that's fine. It's something to talk about with comrades over cocktails.

And it also gives me pleasure to debate and discuss things (as you've probably noticed ).

You know I always love a good debate!

Besides, even if it never happens, getting more people to believe in marketplace solutions to problems even within the context of a government society is a good thing in my book.

And I thank you for that. Your perspective has definitely opened my mind to those kinds of solutions in ways I hadn't imagined before.

Despite our debates here, I suspect that we actually all (except for doodle) agree on a substantially more limited government than the average American voter does.

Precisely. So, I guess I just don't understand KShartle's mission of turning every conversation about government into a conversation about how useless and terrible government is with its "threat of force". I mean, we all get the concept already. But, as we've basically all agreed here, even non-government solutions typically involve the threat of force. So, I don't know why these private solutions are so much better than a government solution in terms of violence. At the end of the day, they both result in the threat of force by some private or public institution.

[moda0306]

Yeah. I'm sure that serial killer or thief in the neighborhood is really worried about their "reputation report".

They should be. A murderer's report would be so bad that probably nobody would want to have anything to do with them. It would be a virtual sentence of exile. And of course, with so many places barring them entry, trespassing could get them killed and nobody would shed a tear.

I'd sign up for that arrangement voluntarily, and so would other non-criminally-inclined people if they managed to consider it fairly in spite of the usual brainwashing.

You might also want to look at the "General Submission to Arbitration" that has been around for awhile, which would have much the same effect.

This works great for certain arrangements, but when push comes to shove, nobody gives a crap what some arbitrator has to say.

I wonder, in a "free society," what is the true punishment for murder?  A bad mark on a "murderer report?"  If the death penalty isn't enough to stop people from killing others, how is this supposed to?

And let's back this up a bit.  Usually people are at least a little bit careful to not make it obvious that it was them that killed... what are a victim's family supposed to do... hire a company to do an $80,000 investigation into their daughter's murder so the killer ends up on a "murder report?"

I suppose "murder-investigation insurance" companies could develop. You pay a premium and if you have someone murdered in your family, they'll investigate.

But then they do the investigation, but with no real legal power.  They can't arrest people, or question people with any reliabiable recourse if they lie, and they can't get search warrants.

But what if a husband murders a wife?  Her family wants an investigation, but he says "you can't come in my home" to the investigators.  Would this alone get him on a murderer-report list?  Why?  It's his property?

It sure sounds like murder would be easy to get away with in this world.

[Pointedstick]

Despite our debates here, I suspect that we actually all (except for doodle) agree on a substantially more limited government than the average American voter does.

Precisely. So, I guess I just don't understand KShartle's mission of turning every conversation about government into a conversation about how useless and terrible government is with its "threat of force". I mean, we all get the concept already. But, as we've basically all agreed here, even non-government solutions typically involve the threat of force. So, I don't know why these private solutions are so much better than a government solution in terms of violence. At the end of the day, they both result in the threat of force by some private or public institution.

I totally agree. It frustrates me to no end. I don't think he realizes that he's actually sabotaging himself.

[Pointedstick]

I wonder, in a "free society," what is the true punishment for murder?  A bad mark on a "murderer report?"  If the death penalty isn't enough to stop people from killing others, how is this supposed to?

And let's back this up a bit.  Usually people are at least a little bit careful to not make it obvious that it was them that killed... what are a victim's family supposed to do... hire a company to do an $80,000 investigation into their daughter's murder so the killer ends up on a "murder report?"

Pastebomb from the book I'm writing:

But a problem emerges for more severe damages and injuries, or even murder. If, for instance, an unemployed and penniless murderer is apprehended and his victim's life is decided by a mediator to have been worth $8 million, how could the perpetrator ever possibly compensate the victim's family? With no money, he would in all likelihood never possibly succeed in earning such a vast sum even if he were forced to work every day for the rest of his life and turn over 100% of the income to the victim's family.

This is actually a case that is not as difficult to solve as it may first seem. The risk of being forced to pay such a sum is small, but devastating. And it is a risk that is reasonably calculable to third parties that possessed knowledge of people's past actions that were known risk factors for becoming a murderer. In short, this would be an insurable risk, and the reputation firms would possess the applicable knowledge!

Therefore, one likely market solution to this problem would be for the reputation report firms to require individuals they classify as presenting a high risk of committing crime to carry “crime insurance”? that would pay the fee in such circumstances. Why would such individuals comply? Because the reputation firms would otherwise make a mark of it on their report. Being marked as a likely criminal without crime insurance would probably result in drastic consequences, such as being disqualified from even entering pizza parlors, riding the bus, or shopping at a grocery store without paying a hefty deposit. People in this situation would be rightfully avoided due to the risks they posed to life and limb.

Wouldn't this simply encourage potential violent criminals to become actual violent criminals as a result of the knowledge that the required insurance would pay any fees incurred by their criminal acts? It is unlikely. Despite what TV crime dramas portray, most criminals are irrational brutes with poor impulse control who generally do not think in this manner. And for the few sociopaths capable of making such calculations, the black mark of being a rational, cold-blooded murderer would stay on their reputation reports for a very long time and most likely result in effective banishment from society as nobody wanted to have further dealings with them. Additionally, keep in mind that the Private Society is likely to be a heavily-armed society. With no legal restrictions on carrying weapons, a significant percentage of average folks would be carrying concealed pepper spray, stunguns, and pistols, ready to defend themselves or others from a criminal who goes mad in a Pizza Hut out of frustration that he must pay a $200 deposit to enter or who rationally calculates that he can get away with murder.

[moda0306]

PS,

I was JUST saying that you have to publish/release/post that damn thing!

[Pointedstick]

PS,

I was JUST saying that you have to publish/release/post that damn thing!

I'm working on it! 102 pages and counting. Once I've got a polished draft, I'd be happy to show it to anyone here who's interested in the ideas and wanted to poke holes in them. I've already abandoned dozens of my own ideas after doing a bunch of research and deciding that they weren't realistic.

[moda0306]

I wonder, in a "free society," what is the true punishment for murder?  A bad mark on a "murderer report?"  If the death penalty isn't enough to stop people from killing others, how is this supposed to?

And let's back this up a bit.  Usually people are at least a little bit careful to not make it obvious that it was them that killed... what are a victim's family supposed to do... hire a company to do an $80,000 investigation into their daughter's murder so the killer ends up on a "murder report?"

Pastebomb from the book I'm writing:

But a problem emerges for more severe damages and injuries, or even murder. If, for instance, an unemployed and penniless murderer is apprehended and his victim's life is decided by a mediator to have been worth $8 million, how could the perpetrator ever possibly compensate the victim's family? With no money, he would in all likelihood never possibly succeed in earning such a vast sum even if he were forced to work every day for the rest of his life and turn over 100% of the income to the victim's family.

This is actually a case that is not as difficult to solve as it may first seem. The risk of being forced to pay such a sum is small, but devastating. And it is a risk that is reasonably calculable to third parties that possessed knowledge of people's past actions that were known risk factors for becoming a murderer. In short, this would be an insurable risk, and the reputation firms would possess the applicable knowledge!

Therefore, one likely market solution to this problem would be for the reputation report firms to require individuals they classify as presenting a high risk of committing crime to carry “crime insurance”? that would pay the fee in such circumstances. Why would such individuals comply? Because the reputation firms would otherwise make a mark of it on their report. Being marked as a likely criminal without crime insurance would probably result in drastic consequences, such as being disqualified from even entering pizza parlors, riding the bus, or shopping at a grocery store without paying a hefty deposit. People in this situation would be rightfully avoided due to the risks they posed to life and limb.

Wouldn't this simply encourage potential violent criminals to become actual violent criminals as a result of the knowledge that the required insurance would pay any fees incurred by their criminal acts? It is unlikely. Despite what TV crime dramas portray, most criminals are irrational brutes with poor impulse control who generally do not think in this manner. And for the few sociopaths capable of making such calculations, the black mark of being a rational, cold-blooded murderer would stay on their reputation reports for a very long time and most likely result in effective banishment from society as nobody wanted to have further dealings with them. Additionally, keep in mind that the Private Society is likely to be a heavily-armed society. With no legal restrictions on carrying weapons, a significant percentage of average folks would be carrying concealed pepper spray, stunguns, and pistols, ready to defend themselves or others from a criminal who goes mad in a Pizza Hut out of frustration that he must pay a $200 deposit to enter or who rationally calculates that he can get away with murder.

You're making A LOT of assumptions about how things would actually work...

1) an insurance company would insure crime (I specifically see that exempted in disability insurance).  Murder insurance would make committing murder and getting caught have a ridiculously small price to it. This is called a moral hazard.  Most insurance companies avoid these like the plague.
2) People would buy insurance for such a ridiculous eventuality (assumes this reputation report actually punishes you harshly for not having insurance, and anyone actually cares about this damn report)
3) People caring about the report.  It would take decades of reputation before a firm became an authority to the degree where Pizza Hut required you to reveal your report to enter... in fact just saying this is a possibility sounds ridiculous to me. 
4) That murder is more about someone's economic value than intrinsic life value.  What if the person murdered is a little old lady?  How do you measure her value?  Isn't the entire concept of "rights" or "liberty" in the first place built on the fact that there's something extremely "special" about each individual human being?  If someone kills my mom, do they owe me $4 million, or do they owe me their life?

What does the report think of vengeance or reclaiming property?

[Pointedstick]

You're making A LOT of assumptions about how things would actually work...

1) an insurance company would insure crime (I specifically see that exempted in disability insurance).  Murder insurance would make committing murder and getting caught have a ridiculously small price to it. This is called a moral hazard.  Most insurance companies avoid these like the plague.

I think the risk of becoming a criminal is an insurable issue, for the reasons I gave earlier. Right now insurance companies don't do this, it's true. But given enough information about the risk factors for crime and sufficiently clever actuaries, why shouldn't it be insurable?

2) People would buy insurance for such a ridiculous eventuality (assumes this reputation report actually punishes you harshly for not having insurance, and anyone actually cares about this damn report)

They would buy it if they cared… see #3:

3) People caring about the report.  It would take decades of reputation before a firm became an authority to the degree where Pizza Hut required you to reveal your report to enter... in fact just saying this is a possibility sounds ridiculous to me.

I think they would care. The trustworthiness of strangers is a major issue in complex societies. Right now all we really have to go on is proximate effects like the "quality" of a neighborhood, or people's personal appearance. This system would allow people and firms to make much better decisions about the trustworthiness of strangers.

4) That murder is more about someone's economic value than intrinsic life value.  What if the person murdered is a little old lady?  How do you measure her value?  Isn't the entire concept of "rights" or "liberty" in the first place built on the fact that there's something extremely "special" about each individual human being?  If someone kills my mom, do they owe me $4 million, or do they owe me their life?

Which would you prefer? The money, or the knowledge that the killer was trapped in a small, unpleasant box for the rest of their lives? Or even the knowledge that they had been killed in return?

Vengeance is problematic in a justice system. The "vengeance" impulse is exactly the sort of thing that leads to "vigilante justice" that's supposed to be prevented by government. If the system is set up to hurt the bad person as much as he hurt his victim, how is it much better than the family going out with shotguns and doing the same thing themselves?

Vengeance also gets in the way of other goals of your average criminal justice system. You can't have vengeance, rehabilitation, restitution, deterrence, or isolation all at the same time. You need to settle on one as the ultimate goal, since they're all basically mutually exclusive. A system that isolates prisoners forever can't offer vengeance, and rehabilitation is pointless. A system that purports to deter crime through public displays of brutal punishment can't isolate offenders or compensate their victims. And so on and so forth.

What does the report think of vengeance or reclaiming property?

The arbitrators would mandate the return of property, but people doing it themselves is something I need to think more about. It's probably the case that they would simply take a risk of being wrong, in which case their victim would begin proceedings against them. If they were correct, and took back their stolen property, then probably nobody would care and the arbitrator would decide that it was a moral outcome (given that it's what he would have ordered himself). Just a guess though. Need to think about this some more.

[moda0306]

You're making A LOT of assumptions about how things would actually work...

1) an insurance company would insure crime (I specifically see that exempted in disability insurance).  Murder insurance would make committing murder and getting caught have a ridiculously small price to it. This is called a moral hazard.  Most insurance companies avoid these like the plague.

I think the risk of becoming a criminal is an insurable issue, for the reasons I gave earlier. Right now insurance companies don't do this, it's true. But given enough information about the risk factors for crime and sufficiently clever actuaries, why shouldn't it be insurable?

2) People would buy insurance for such a ridiculous eventuality (assumes this reputation report actually punishes you harshly for not having insurance, and anyone actually cares about this damn report)

They would buy it if they cared… see #3:

3) People caring about the report.  It would take decades of reputation before a firm became an authority to the degree where Pizza Hut required you to reveal your report to enter... in fact just saying this is a possibility sounds ridiculous to me.

I think they would care. The trustworthiness of strangers is a major issue in complex societies. Right now all we really have to go on is proximate effects like the "quality" of a neighborhood, or people's personal appearance. This system would allow people and firms to make much better decisions about the trustworthiness of strangers.

4) That murder is more about someone's economic value than intrinsic life value.  What if the person murdered is a little old lady?  How do you measure her value?  Isn't the entire concept of "rights" or "liberty" in the first place built on the fact that there's something extremely "special" about each individual human being?  If someone kills my mom, do they owe me $4 million, or do they owe me their life?

Which would you prefer? The money, or the knowledge that the killer was trapped in a small, unpleasant box for the rest of their lives? Or even the knowledge that they had been killed in return?

Vengeance is problematic in a justice system. The "vengeance" impulse is exactly the sort of thing that leads to "vigilante justice" that's supposed to be prevented by government. If the system is set up to hurt the bad person as much as he hurt his victim, how is it much better than the family going out with shotguns and doing the same thing themselves?

Vengeance also gets in the way of other goals of your average criminal justice system. You can't have vengeance, rehabilitation, restitution, deterrence, or isolation all at the same time. You need to settle on one as the ultimate goal, since they're all basically mutually exclusive.

What does the report think of vengeance or reclaiming property?

The arbitrators would mandate the return of property, but people doing it themselves is something I need to think more about. It's probably the case that they would simply take a risk of being wrong, in which case their victim would begin proceedings against them. If they were correct, and took back their stolen property, then probably nobody would care and the arbitrator would decide that it was a moral outcome (given that it's what he would have ordered himself). Just a guess though. Need to think about this some more.

F*ck me... Freedom isn't free.  My head hurts at just the thought of it!

I don't care how smart the actuary is, if the existence of insurance significantly alters my course of behavior (and their risk), it's going to be much more hazardous for them to allow me to transfer it to them.

And keep in mind, this is only if they can prove you did it to close enough of a degree to put you on the murder report. Who's to say that the parents would even hire an investigator?  Seems to me murder insurance would be more necessary by the victims family than the purpetrator, if they wanted it investigated.  Life insurance would be FAR more efficient at replacing the lost income (for the family)... but then the insurance company would subrogate the loss and be able to "investigate" the murder.

Maybe I was wrong... murder will only be easy if you're victim is poor, and you know any investigation will be nonexistant.

[Kshartle]

So if 5 different electricity companies want to run power to my neighborhood and have to pay for all the overhead, are you sure this is not what economists call a "natural monopoly," where the overhead costs involved with doing business are so high, and steady service is so important to the economy, that one company does it better even without competition?

Free market monopolies are great. That means no one else has figured out how to offer a better combination of service and price.

The idea that a group of guys with guns can declare they have the right to certain economic activity alone and this can somehow lower prices is nonsense.

[Pointedstick]

Maybe I was wrong... murder will only be easy if you're victim is poor, and you know any investigation will be nonexistant.

Unfortunately, this is likely to be more true than we would prefer. However, in that respect, it would be like life in government societies. It's pretty common knowledge that justice isn't  income blind, so we shouldn't pretend that the status quo is some kind of magnificent achievement.