4 ms·

This is just free market law enforcement. No reason to wait some self-designated "authorities" to deliver justice. Edit: I'd appreciate it if people who downvo

This is just free market law enforcement. No reason to wait some self-designated "authorities" to deliver justice. Edit: I'd appreciate it if people who downvote all my comments explain why they are downvoting. I am writing thoughtful responses to any of your questions. Downvoting just because you disagree isn't cool.

bartonfink 15y ago
Which is a terrible idea.
- ryandickherber 15y ago
  I think it's a much better than a monopoly on force, which is a moral hazard that will always be abused. We'd be much better off with a free market of law enforcement and courts, like with anything else.
  - rosser 15y ago
    Yeah, because for-profit courts will never be abused.
  - zmmz 15y ago
    I'm having a hard time imagining what a free-market court system would look like and how it would operate. Can you elaborate on how the system would look like? I understand how law enforcement could work (and in some ways, it does, for example public transport officials that check if you have a ticket), but leaving arbitration to the "free-market" seems far fetched. Can you clarify?
    - ryandickherber 15y ago
      Sure, I can tell you how I would think it would likely work, but of course people could be innovative and invent solutions that are better than what I envision. Basically, if you are the victim of a crime, you wouldn't want to just seek justice yourself, because your community might think you are the aggressor, and then your reputation would be damaged. So you would go to a court and pay them to rule on the issue. You would pick a court with a good reputation, so that everyone knew you're not just trying to cheat. The court would then rule, and if you won, you would be justified in paying some police to seek justice. The police would also want to make sure you had first sought judgement from a good court, since they have to worry about their own reputation as well. For instance, if someone stole something from you, you would bring your evidence to a court, and have them rule. If they rule in your favor, you could higher police to go retrieve your stolen property. Or if you are the victim of violence, you would follow the same procedure, and then be justified in having the aggressor locked up for a while. You'd probably want to have police/court insurance in case you are the victim of an expensive crime. For more info, here is a good video on this subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V0_Jd_MzGCw http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V... Also check out the works of Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio, and read the works of Murray Rothbard.
      - wanorris 15y ago
        So then organized crime could just set up its own courts and its own police force, confident that they're rich and powerful enough to outgun other forces. And after all, if mobsters paid you a visit and "suggested" that you use their court system, you wouldn't be dumb enough to turn them down would you? And if you would, then I bet the next guy wouldn't, after he heard about what happened to you. Another obvious problem is that if you rob someone thoroughly enough, they won't have the resources to hire police to get their stolen property back. It's the perfect crime! I haven't read all your source material, but from what you've said so far, these ideas simply don't make any sense.
      - notahacker 15y ago
        Rational people would much prefer a court inclined to rule in their favour (to a limited extent this already happens; patent trolls and other litigants tend to be selective about where they sue). Similarly, zeal for and efficacy in protecting my property will be a far more important criteria than reputation for fairness when I decide which police/defence force to pay. If I thought my kids are threatened by someone, I'd be looking for law enforcers who didn't care about maintaining a reputation for upholding the principle of innocence unless proven guilty. Inevitably the accuser and accused are going to disagree; the logical consequence is an impasse and no trial, unless the accused is incarcerated pending trial, in which case the accused is essentially coerced into accepting the terms of the accusers representatives, irrespective of their guilt. If parties are being paid by one party desiring a particular outcome, it's foolish to expect that "fairness" is going to be their prime motivation. One quality ultralibertarian capitalists seem to share with communists is excessive optimism about human nature. FWIW I don't think your post warranted the downvotes even though I disagree with it.
      - andrewflnr 15y ago
        +1. I disagree strongly, but I don't think you should be down voted for honest explanations of your views. That's not what the button is for.
      - anigbrowl 15y ago
        A homeless person is found murdered, identity unknown. Who takes up this victim's case?
    - jhales 15y ago
      There is actually already a lot of free market arbtration. It is just in the civil sector. Business tend to like them for their speed. David Freedman's "Machinery of Freedom" is a nice introduction to anarcho-capitalism which free market courts are a part of.
      - lawnchair_larry 15y ago
        Actually, businesses tend to like them because the outcomes tend to favor businesses.
        n09n 15y ago
        I hear this complaint a lot, but mostly from outraged consumers, who are surely biased. Do you know if there's any evidence that's true?
  - orthecreedence 15y ago
    What this implies is that the more money people have, the better justice they can afford. Justice is not afforded or bought in our current system. Yes, the rich have unusually light sentences, but they still stand in the same courts and have to answer to the same authority. It's not perfect, but it's better, I believe, than what you're suggesting. I believe a free-market court system will degrade into, like I said, a more-money-wins system. Here's a scenario: Company A runs a clean, respectable justice service. You cannot buy your way out of being announced guilty, and you cannot buy guilt onto another person. Company B allows you to spend more money to achieve more justice. Which court would you pick? If you're poor, A. If you're rich, B. Result? B gets more money, B buys A. Now the only court left is a money-buys-justice one. Does this system work? +1 for providing an interesting debate ;)
codezero 15y ago
Anonymous isn't putting anyone behind bars, that's the difference. Yes, the "authorities" will take more time, but that's because they have to build a case that will convince a jury and hopefully 1) lock the guys up, or at the very least 2) get them into a sex offender registry. The list of names released by Anonymous won't be considered authoritative.
- nanijoe 15y ago
  But surely, it will curb the activities of those involved, which should be the number one priority.
  - codezero 15y ago
    Not likely. Anonymous isn't a credible threat to them because they have no authority. Anyone whose name is released by them can just say they are the target of a smear campaign by a group of anonymous internet hackers.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Part of the reason we don't stop at shutting down child porn sites is that the people who use them the most are dangerously unlikely to themselves stop at just viewing pornography.
    - there 15y ago
      citation needed
      - tptacek 15y ago
        http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full
        nkurz 15y ago
        Strong citation, thanks! I'm not quite sure it proves your point, which seems to be that the sites are a gateway to criminal behaviour. "Studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child. It is difficult to know how many people progress from computerized pedophilia to physical acts against children and how many would have progressed to physical acts without the computer being involved. It is interesting that the NIBRS data from 2000 show that most child pornography crimes reported did not involve a computer or the Internet but were related to photographs, magazines, and videos." So while it's seems undeniably true that many users of child pornography sites are child molesters, I'm not sure that "stop at" has the right progression. I presume the more common case is that real life molesters are attracted to illegal sites, rather than that casual online viewers become criminals. Consider applying the same logic to heterosexual adult pornography sites, which are also illegal in some jurisdictions. I'd presume that the majority of individuals viewing such sites have also engaged in adult heterosexual behaviour, but I'd probably assign the causation in the other direction. As honeypots, though, the sites seem like great bait. But where's the line, and what should the response be. I've recently bought lye (for brining olives), sulfuric acid (for scarifying seeds), controlled antihistamines (for allergies) and looked at Erowid (for trying to understand SSRI's). How much intense police interest do I deserve for my "obvious" profile as a meth producer? Which, to be very clear, I'm not.
culled 15y ago
The actual authorities aren't self-designated, they're designated by our democratically elected government. Anonymous are the ones trying to act as "self-designated authorities".
- ryandickherber 15y ago
  But voters don't really have any power if all they can do is vote for representatives every two years. This is basically meaningless. They would have much more power if they could choose which police they used, which courts they went to, etc.
  - rauljara 15y ago
    I'm not sure you've taken any time to think through the implications of what you've just suggested. You are advocating multiple competing authorities (both police and courts). Who gets to decide which set of authorities gets used, the defendant or the prosecutor? If the prosecutor, courts that heavily favor the prosecutor with little regard for defendant's rights would gain dominance (why wouldn't a prosecutor choose one of them?). If the defender, the opposite problem would arise. How would you resolve either of those problems? What happens when two sets of authorities disagree? What happens when officers from competing police departments try to arrest the same person? If an authority is corrupt (confiscates property, basically acts like the mob, etc.) how will they be enforced against? If these are free market forces, what happens when someone is unable to afford to enlist the help of an authority? Absolutely no rule of law for them?
    - ryandickherber 15y ago
      > I'm not sure you've taken any time to think through the implications of what you've just suggested. Why would you assume that? I've put enormous thought into this and read much literature on it. See Murray Rothbard, Stefan Molyneux, Lew Rockwell, Doug Casey, etc., and my twitter feed @ryandickherber. > Who gets to decide which set of authorities gets used, the defendant or the prosecutor? The person who is the victim of the crime will obviously go to the court of their choice. The defender, meanwhile, may choose a different court. The courts will have to decide on an arbitrator. Since they only have finite resources and their reputations are on the line, all parties have an interest in working this out, and so it will happen. > What happens when two sets of authorities disagree? There are no "authorities", but if two people disagree they will seek arbitration. > What happens when officers from competing police departments try to arrest the same person? Only one will get there first, so only one will be able to arrest the person. > If an authority is corrupt (confiscates property, basically acts like the mob, etc.) how will they be enforced against? Again, there are no "authorities". If some police or courts become aggressors, then obviously people have a right to defend themselves and will employ resources including other police and courts to do this. The existing police already are corrupt in many cases, but because they have a monopoly, people are just screwed. A free market would solve this problem. > If these are free market forces, what happens when someone is unable to afford to enlist the help of an authority? Absolutely no rule of law for them? Most people have some community resources they can access in time of need. If they have nothing at all, then they are screwed. But it's the same way under a monopoly of force.
SCdF 15y ago
Sounds like the wild west to me. I didn't get a say in whether or not some random bored kids downloaded a bunch of CP and possibly wrecked a long term investigation run by people I actually did get in a say in electing (well, I don't live in the US, so I didn't, but you get the point).

bartonfink 15y ago

Which is a terrible idea.

ryandickherber 15y ago
I think it's a much better than a monopoly on force, which is a moral hazard that will always be abused. We'd be much better off with a free market of law enforcement and courts, like with anything else.
- rosser 15y ago
  Yeah, because for-profit courts will never be abused.
- zmmz 15y ago
  I'm having a hard time imagining what a free-market court system would look like and how it would operate. Can you elaborate on how the system would look like? I understand how law enforcement could work (and in some ways, it does, for example public transport officials that check if you have a ticket), but leaving arbitration to the "free-market" seems far fetched. Can you clarify?
  - ryandickherber 15y ago
    Sure, I can tell you how I would think it would likely work, but of course people could be innovative and invent solutions that are better than what I envision. Basically, if you are the victim of a crime, you wouldn't want to just seek justice yourself, because your community might think you are the aggressor, and then your reputation would be damaged. So you would go to a court and pay them to rule on the issue. You would pick a court with a good reputation, so that everyone knew you're not just trying to cheat. The court would then rule, and if you won, you would be justified in paying some police to seek justice. The police would also want to make sure you had first sought judgement from a good court, since they have to worry about their own reputation as well. For instance, if someone stole something from you, you would bring your evidence to a court, and have them rule. If they rule in your favor, you could higher police to go retrieve your stolen property. Or if you are the victim of violence, you would follow the same procedure, and then be justified in having the aggressor locked up for a while. You'd probably want to have police/court insurance in case you are the victim of an expensive crime. For more info, here is a good video on this subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V0_Jd_MzGCw http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V... Also check out the works of Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio, and read the works of Murray Rothbard.
    - wanorris 15y ago
      So then organized crime could just set up its own courts and its own police force, confident that they're rich and powerful enough to outgun other forces. And after all, if mobsters paid you a visit and "suggested" that you use their court system, you wouldn't be dumb enough to turn them down would you? And if you would, then I bet the next guy wouldn't, after he heard about what happened to you. Another obvious problem is that if you rob someone thoroughly enough, they won't have the resources to hire police to get their stolen property back. It's the perfect crime! I haven't read all your source material, but from what you've said so far, these ideas simply don't make any sense.
    - notahacker 15y ago
      Rational people would much prefer a court inclined to rule in their favour (to a limited extent this already happens; patent trolls and other litigants tend to be selective about where they sue). Similarly, zeal for and efficacy in protecting my property will be a far more important criteria than reputation for fairness when I decide which police/defence force to pay. If I thought my kids are threatened by someone, I'd be looking for law enforcers who didn't care about maintaining a reputation for upholding the principle of innocence unless proven guilty. Inevitably the accuser and accused are going to disagree; the logical consequence is an impasse and no trial, unless the accused is incarcerated pending trial, in which case the accused is essentially coerced into accepting the terms of the accusers representatives, irrespective of their guilt. If parties are being paid by one party desiring a particular outcome, it's foolish to expect that "fairness" is going to be their prime motivation. One quality ultralibertarian capitalists seem to share with communists is excessive optimism about human nature. FWIW I don't think your post warranted the downvotes even though I disagree with it.
    - andrewflnr 15y ago
      +1. I disagree strongly, but I don't think you should be down voted for honest explanations of your views. That's not what the button is for.
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      A homeless person is found murdered, identity unknown. Who takes up this victim's case?
  - jhales 15y ago
    There is actually already a lot of free market arbtration. It is just in the civil sector. Business tend to like them for their speed. David Freedman's "Machinery of Freedom" is a nice introduction to anarcho-capitalism which free market courts are a part of.
    - lawnchair_larry 15y ago
      Actually, businesses tend to like them because the outcomes tend to favor businesses.
      - n09n 15y ago
        I hear this complaint a lot, but mostly from outraged consumers, who are surely biased. Do you know if there's any evidence that's true?
- orthecreedence 15y ago
  What this implies is that the more money people have, the better justice they can afford. Justice is not afforded or bought in our current system. Yes, the rich have unusually light sentences, but they still stand in the same courts and have to answer to the same authority. It's not perfect, but it's better, I believe, than what you're suggesting. I believe a free-market court system will degrade into, like I said, a more-money-wins system. Here's a scenario: Company A runs a clean, respectable justice service. You cannot buy your way out of being announced guilty, and you cannot buy guilt onto another person. Company B allows you to spend more money to achieve more justice. Which court would you pick? If you're poor, A. If you're rich, B. Result? B gets more money, B buys A. Now the only court left is a money-buys-justice one. Does this system work? +1 for providing an interesting debate ;)

codezero 15y ago

Anonymous isn't putting anyone behind bars, that's the difference. Yes, the "authorities" will take more time, but that's because they have to build a case that will convince a jury and hopefully 1) lock the guys up, or at the very least 2) get them into a sex offender registry. The list of names released by Anonymous won't be considered authoritative.

nanijoe 15y ago
But surely, it will curb the activities of those involved, which should be the number one priority.
- codezero 15y ago
  Not likely. Anonymous isn't a credible threat to them because they have no authority. Anyone whose name is released by them can just say they are the target of a smear campaign by a group of anonymous internet hackers.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Part of the reason we don't stop at shutting down child porn sites is that the people who use them the most are dangerously unlikely to themselves stop at just viewing pornography.
  - there 15y ago
    citation needed
    - tptacek 15y ago
      http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full
      - nkurz 15y ago
        Strong citation, thanks! I'm not quite sure it proves your point, which seems to be that the sites are a gateway to criminal behaviour. "Studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child. It is difficult to know how many people progress from computerized pedophilia to physical acts against children and how many would have progressed to physical acts without the computer being involved. It is interesting that the NIBRS data from 2000 show that most child pornography crimes reported did not involve a computer or the Internet but were related to photographs, magazines, and videos." So while it's seems undeniably true that many users of child pornography sites are child molesters, I'm not sure that "stop at" has the right progression. I presume the more common case is that real life molesters are attracted to illegal sites, rather than that casual online viewers become criminals. Consider applying the same logic to heterosexual adult pornography sites, which are also illegal in some jurisdictions. I'd presume that the majority of individuals viewing such sites have also engaged in adult heterosexual behaviour, but I'd probably assign the causation in the other direction. As honeypots, though, the sites seem like great bait. But where's the line, and what should the response be. I've recently bought lye (for brining olives), sulfuric acid (for scarifying seeds), controlled antihistamines (for allergies) and looked at Erowid (for trying to understand SSRI's). How much intense police interest do I deserve for my "obvious" profile as a meth producer? Which, to be very clear, I'm not.

culled 15y ago

The actual authorities aren't self-designated, they're designated by our democratically elected government. Anonymous are the ones trying to act as "self-designated authorities".

ryandickherber 15y ago
But voters don't really have any power if all they can do is vote for representatives every two years. This is basically meaningless. They would have much more power if they could choose which police they used, which courts they went to, etc.
- rauljara 15y ago
  I'm not sure you've taken any time to think through the implications of what you've just suggested. You are advocating multiple competing authorities (both police and courts). Who gets to decide which set of authorities gets used, the defendant or the prosecutor? If the prosecutor, courts that heavily favor the prosecutor with little regard for defendant's rights would gain dominance (why wouldn't a prosecutor choose one of them?). If the defender, the opposite problem would arise. How would you resolve either of those problems? What happens when two sets of authorities disagree? What happens when officers from competing police departments try to arrest the same person? If an authority is corrupt (confiscates property, basically acts like the mob, etc.) how will they be enforced against? If these are free market forces, what happens when someone is unable to afford to enlist the help of an authority? Absolutely no rule of law for them?
  - ryandickherber 15y ago
    > I'm not sure you've taken any time to think through the implications of what you've just suggested. Why would you assume that? I've put enormous thought into this and read much literature on it. See Murray Rothbard, Stefan Molyneux, Lew Rockwell, Doug Casey, etc., and my twitter feed @ryandickherber. > Who gets to decide which set of authorities gets used, the defendant or the prosecutor? The person who is the victim of the crime will obviously go to the court of their choice. The defender, meanwhile, may choose a different court. The courts will have to decide on an arbitrator. Since they only have finite resources and their reputations are on the line, all parties have an interest in working this out, and so it will happen. > What happens when two sets of authorities disagree? There are no "authorities", but if two people disagree they will seek arbitration. > What happens when officers from competing police departments try to arrest the same person? Only one will get there first, so only one will be able to arrest the person. > If an authority is corrupt (confiscates property, basically acts like the mob, etc.) how will they be enforced against? Again, there are no "authorities". If some police or courts become aggressors, then obviously people have a right to defend themselves and will employ resources including other police and courts to do this. The existing police already are corrupt in many cases, but because they have a monopoly, people are just screwed. A free market would solve this problem. > If these are free market forces, what happens when someone is unable to afford to enlist the help of an authority? Absolutely no rule of law for them? Most people have some community resources they can access in time of need. If they have nothing at all, then they are screwed. But it's the same way under a monopoly of force.

SCdF 15y ago

Sounds like the wild west to me. I didn't get a say in whether or not some random bored kids downloaded a bunch of CP and possibly wrecked a long term investigation run by people I actually did get in a say in electing (well, I don't live in the US, so I didn't, but you get the point).