tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9877021.post114556664129955933..comments2024-02-25T14:27:56.075-05:00Comments on Freedomain Radio: The Logic of Personal and Political Freedom with Stefan Molyneux: Stateless PrisonsStefan Molyneuxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11898315223778903374noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9877021.post-27410566082286912132009-12-01T13:13:35.307-05:002009-12-01T13:13:35.307-05:00I think the proposed DRO system is well worth tryi...I think the proposed DRO system is well worth trying. Many times. Then, after (or during) the experiments, we would have direct evidence whether such a system works, and what the problems with it are. At the moment, we have nothing but speculation.Steven Wayne Lytlenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9877021.post-53038397840014036252009-09-23T11:54:00.889-04:002009-09-23T11:54:00.889-04:00So, you also advocate a strong national ID system?...So, you also advocate a strong national ID system? Otherwise, you could just have a stash of cash and vital supplies in the house, escape and get a fake ID. Hell, you could establish a fake ID long before and have a sizeable amount of assets already under your other ID.<br /><br />Who would administer this system? Would each DRO have to be able to validate every other's IDs? Ever hear of the n² problem? Or would they be able to control where their customers could go by only making agreements with some DRO. The right to move about freely isn't all that important after all!<br /><br />Maybe we would need a central authority of some kind, perhaps made up of representatives of every DRO chosen by the customers of each to ensure that each is fairly represented.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9877021.post-35113557105952659812008-09-23T16:30:00.000-04:002008-09-23T16:30:00.000-04:00To the anonymous poster 3 posts above:Which organi...To the anonymous poster 3 posts above:<BR/><BR/>Which organization would deal with or form any reciprocal arrangement with a DRO aimed specifically at providing services to rapists, murderers, and other outlaws? One that wanted to lose ALL of its non-raping-and-murdering customers.<BR/><BR/>Some niche markets are just a little too small.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9877021.post-19986851710736119542008-06-16T14:40:00.000-04:002008-06-16T14:40:00.000-04:00Some of the comments criticizing this article are ...Some of the comments criticizing this article are painfully irrational and smack of blind faith statism. Do you people not understand that this is a VOLUNTARY system?! The DRO/voluntary model is the only model capable of effectively dealing with crime and injustice. Molyneux should be applauded for his work in this area. Not a single argument raised in these comments/critiques has any weight or hasn't already been fully disputed countless times through rational argument and logical iteration. Great post.mrlukedukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17079182292436780660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9877021.post-77831562488451170602008-05-28T14:01:00.000-04:002008-05-28T14:01:00.000-04:00Above comments notwithstandingThis is the best way...Above comments notwithstanding<BR/><BR/>This is the best way of dealing with crime in a society thats based on voluntarism and the non-agression principle i've come across. <BR/><BR/>There is a big difference between this method of resolving violent crimes and what the state does.. The State is responsible Most of the violence that goes on if we consider wars, jails, police brutality...... to say its no big difference between what was proposed and the state, after reading this article sounds like an emotional response.<BR/><BR/>Its this kind of thought and innovation that allowed us the freedoms we have now.. who cares what some band of rapists are doing on some island.. at least they'll only be raping and murdering each other if they're that hungry for violence. The whole point is to protect the people who want to be free from such offenses. <BR/><BR/>Thanx for the Article, very helpful!! :)PrinceJerome2008https://www.blogger.com/profile/12565507101196640547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9877021.post-74134586210171459662007-11-17T23:17:00.000-05:002007-11-17T23:17:00.000-05:00What if someone got together with a bunch of rapis...What if someone got together with a bunch of rapists, murderers, thieves, etc. and started a DRO that would provide them with all of the services. Then, what incentive would the rapist have to comply with the DRO? He could just escape and go join the DRO that will provide him with his services. In fact, he'd probably belong to it already.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9877021.post-47224943712203992812007-05-27T17:48:00.000-04:002007-05-27T17:48:00.000-04:00Your model for a stateless penitentiary system is ...Your model for a stateless penitentiary system is an orwellian burgeois nightmare: One commits a felony and there goes all one's house conveniencies, and if one wants them back, one has to be a wage-slave for the DRO. What would prevent the DROs of outlawing most citizens in order to make a profit from cheap felon work force? What you propose is not anarchism, it is a corporate dystopia. <BR/><BR/>My question is: why does that person commits the felony in the first place? What personal, psychological, social circumstances induce that individual to harm another? I believe crime would be reduced within a social context that prevents it, with a psycho-prophylactic culture. For example, rape would rarely occur in a healthy society with little sexual dissatisfaction and fewer taboos for bodily contact between people. <BR/><BR/>And if it does occur, it would command therapy on both parties. In a profoundly individualistic society, justice would be a personal matter. Remember, impersonal authority is statist alienation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9877021.post-4651438078271424692007-03-10T14:27:00.000-05:002007-03-10T14:27:00.000-05:00Stefan is correct in one assertion - if large numb...Stefan is correct in one assertion - if large numbers of people are evil government cannot work. However, if a vanishingly small fraction of people are evil, why do we need some giant, institutionalized bureaucracy (no matter what term is used for it) to deal with that fact? Why not leave it entirely to the individual to ameliorate their own risk as they see fit? There is not any court (at least one cannot make a rational case for one) in which one may seek redress for damage by accidents of fate that are not caused by a human. If the incidence of damage by human-caused (culpably) events is comparable or less, where is the need? If the price is coerced membership in a government or a DRO, where is the gain? Is there any basis to make a special case for retribution in the case of human-caused harm that does not ultimately rest on the irrational concept, promoted by every religion, that every man and woman born is essentially evil? Other mechanisms may arise to deal with rogue violence, mechanisms that to not require coercion. I think Jim Bell may have invented one that is about right...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9877021.post-1162505293493605612006-11-02T17:08:00.000-05:002006-11-02T17:08:00.000-05:00I don't see how you can have courts and lawyers in...I don't see how you can have courts and lawyers in an anarchistic system. The presence of lawyers indicates the presence of laws which indicate the presence of government. Who has made these laws if not a government? How can you have a trial without government? You can call it something else but it's still government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9877021.post-1157489875083912432006-09-05T16:57:00.000-04:002006-09-05T16:57:00.000-04:00This will just create an opportunity for someone t...This will just create an opportunity for someone to have a private outlaw town - where anyone can buy things at 10-times bigger price, but without a proof of being in a DRO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9877021.post-1147013270207147662006-05-07T10:47:00.000-04:002006-05-07T10:47:00.000-04:00The more things change, the more they stay the sam...The more things change, the more they stay the same. Or, as King Solomon might have said, “There is nothing new under the sun.”<BR/><BR/>First, what you are proposing is nothing more than forced restitution. This idea is not new. In fact, thousands of years ago, it was written into the Mosaic Code. As an example, paraphrased loosely, “If a man steals his neighbor’s ox, he shall pay five times over.” This payment wasn’t to go to the State, but to the victim. The State was simply a tool used to make sure the restitution was made.<BR/><BR/>Second, you are really giving us nothing more than what appears to be no-fault insurance. A woman would buy rape insurance against the possibility that some man would attack her. Presumably, she would also buy theft, assault and battery, life, and good name insurance as well in the event that he decided to kill her by beating her, steal everything she had including her clothing, and leave her naked in the street. Should anything like this occur, the relevant “insurance” companies (DRO's) would negotiate peacefully or duke it out in court, with the loser paying the winner and attempting to recoup some of its losses from the perpetrator.<BR/><BR/>Today we have universal no-fault auto insurance (basic liability, personal injury, uninsured motorists, bodily damage, comprehensive, collision, etc.)in case of an accident. This is comparable to what you have described. The State is the means we have chosen by which these ends are reached. You have chosen DRO’s. No big difference. <BR/><BR/>Third, your system of coercive restitution (DRO, insurance) must inevitably become universal and total to work properly. If it doesn’t, there will always be a means of escape (loopholes). Everyone would have to be included, submit DNA samples, retina, facial, and vocal scans, fingerprints, ID cards, etc. Anything which could be used to identify a person would, by necessity, be required. From everyone. Before a crime was committed or after. Freely or forcibly. Isn’t this the direction our society (and every society worldwide) is headed?<BR/><BR/>What if the man involved wasn’t part of a DRO? What if he were destitute to start with? Who would pay? Would <I>he</I> be represented by pro bono lawyers? Would the woman still receive her half-million? If she did, doesn’t this mean that other people, generally “good”, who subscribe to that particular DRO would be required to pay more to make up the loss? Would you force everyone to purchase “insurance”? Whoa, hold it, wait just a minute! Isn’t this what we have today in the form of the welfare state, taxation, and redistribution of wealth?<BR/><BR/>Fourth, you are presuming (I assume) that there will be some kind of universal money system which the offended DRO could use to apply complete pressure on the convicted rapist. I thought that in a Libertarian society there would be <I>any</I> form of payment (cash, credit, barter, sex, vouchers, etc.) and that no one could be <I>forced</I> into a particular system. What if your rapist said, "I'm not buying in." What if half the population refused to cooperate? How would you force him to comply? <BR/><BR/>Perhaps I’m not understanding your proposal correctly. Allow me to express in my own words what I believe you are saying. OK? <BR/><BR/>I hear you saying to an alleged rapist. “You have been charged with a crime. You are under arrest. You will be put on trial. You will appear at this trial. You will be found innocent or guilty. If innocent, you will be set free. (Incidentally, you never mention restoring this man's reputation or good name in society, which is a major complaint about our judicial system today.) If you are found guilty, you will come with us and do everything we tell you to do, up to and including forced incarceration and labor, rehabilitation, and thought, mental, and emotional manipulation. Of course, all this is for your own good since we know better than you what is best.”<BR/><BR/>“On the other hand, should you choose to <I>not</I> allow us to exercise our will against you and attempt to fight back or flee our justice, we will use <I>every</I> means at our discretion and disposal to <B><I>hunt you down like a dirty dog and either force you to submit or kill you in the process</I></B>.”<BR/><BR/>Really? Haven’t I just described our judicial system today? Personally, I fail to see the difference except that one is “ours” and the other is “theirs”. <BR/><BR/>There will always be individuals who do not control themselves properly in society. As long as there is one person who allows his own selfish desires to inflict damage against someone else, there will be a need for corrective, forceful action. If six billion people live in some libertarian nirvana, utopia, heaven, etc., (take your pick), but the six billionth plus one person is a violent, malevolent sociopath, nobody is safe until he (she) is forcibly dealt with. Civil government, call it what you will, (dictatorship, democracy, DRO, etc.) is going to be with us for a very long time.<BR/> <BR/>Government is not imposed from the top down as so many people believe. It permeates from the bottom up, beginning with self-government, which emanates from God. We have the government today that we deserve because we, and generations before us, have failed to govern ourselves rightly. Furthermore, because there are so many “evil” people in society today (greedy, selfish, impatient, envious, lustful, murderous, hateful, etc.), and because “evil men wax worse and worse”, this cycle of societal government is going to continue until it exhausts itself and collapses, at which point some other form will take its place. <BR/><BR/>Mr. Molyneaux, you have only designed another form of civil government. Yours may be better than the one we now have, but it is still a government. Nevertheless, your idea is plausible and worth considering further. Good work. Carry on.<BR/><BR/>Finally, Isaiah 9:1-7 mentions the ultimate government. This government is called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace. It says that "Of the <I>increase</I> of His government <I>and</I> peace, there will be no end.” Love never ends.<BR/><BR/>Government is not an option. It's not a choice of government or no government, but rather <I>which</I> government, <I>whose</I> government, we decide to live with and submit ourselves to. We have to learn how to choose wisely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com