If we go AC who gets the governments stuff? - Page 5

BCPVP · #41 09-13-2006, 02:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
SO if I hire my own court, say, consisting of my brother in law as a judge....he could disagree with my neighbors court, and we could go to appeal.

At the appellate court, I could hire my Unlce as for my own appellate court, which would of course disagree witht he findings of the neighbors appellate court.

Another draw, no consensus, we go round and round until the neighbor runs out of money or interest, meanwhile I'm paying my brother in law and uncle $1 each to serve my purposes?

Is that a legitimate scenario, or are their measures that would prevent that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming that the neighbor has contracted reputable courts the decisions reached by them are likely to allow action by enforcement companies. Your "courts" are not likely to be respected by anyone so you'll probably be SOL in trying to get people to defend you.

If the neighbor pulls the same thing that you do then no reputable enforcement firm will be willin gto risk their financial existance on dealing with either of you. So if you feel you have a legitemate case, it is in your best interest to find the most reputable court you can afford.

RedBean · #42 09-13-2006, 02:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Assuming that the neighbor has contracted reputable courts the decisions reached by them are likely to allow action by enforcement companies. Your "courts" are not likely to be respected by anyone so you'll probably be SOL in trying to get people to defend you.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if the two courts disagree, who determines which is respected and reputable? Is it determined by the amount paid, or by the amount of business one does over the other?

Do the enforcement companies determine which is reputable? If so, who is paying the enforcement company? My neighbor?

In that scenario, you have my neighbor sending me away based on the decisions of people he hired, doing his bidding, with no authoratative oversight.

There has to be protection against that. What is it?

[ QUOTE ]

If the neighbor pulls the same thing that you do then no reputable enforcement firm will be willin gto risk their financial existance on dealing with either of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if we are both poor, then no reputable enforcement firm will deal with either of us?

So one of us gets away with murder, and the other lives their life in constant fear because they couldn't afford the tremendous expense?

tolbiny · #43 09-13-2006, 05:48 AM

I highly suggest freedommainradio as a source for some ideas on how the system would work.
Essentially AC land would be a plce of contracts. You hire an insurance company to insure your house, car and life. In that contract choose an independant organization who specializes in arbritration. Now you have the option along with your life insurance to pay for a clause where your agency would invetigate your death should it be suspicious, you also have the option for insurance to cover legal fees should you have a dispute with someone. As long as the dispute is with someone who has insurance you have no problems as their insurance company isn't going to let them pick uncle buck as an arbitrator. The insurance companies aren't going to dick around with each other- they make their money on premiums so its in their best interest to settle disputes quickly to appease their customers. If Insurance company A tries to dick over company B-G whenever there is a claim against them they will get exactly the same treatment back when their claiment is in the right- meaning they will never collect from another insurance company and will be run out of buisness in short order. There are more complicated issues with the uninsured, but the general idea is that the uninsured will be highly marginilized. No one will rent an apartment to someone who is uninsured, or hire them, or let them into an amusment park.
[ QUOTE ]

What if we are both poor, then no reputable enforcement firm will deal with either of us?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what puts the C in AC land. For it to work a very high majority have to be able to afford food, shelter and insurance, and is why somolia isn't a good example of what the situation would turn into.

RedBean · #44 09-13-2006, 08:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]

There are more complicated issues with the uninsured, but the general idea is that the uninsured will be highly marginilized. No one will rent an apartment to someone who is uninsured, or hire them, or let them into an amusment park.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in place of government, your essentially forced to buy this new kind of insurance, and rely on the insurance company to provide deterrent for crimes due to their reputable business practices?

Back to my example, let's say I am convicted of the crime by a reputable insurance company that dealt with my insurance company, as you mentioned.

I am sentenced to life in prison. I am expected to live for the next 40+ years getting 3 square meals a day, in a nice big secure facility that has adequate guard, and I refuse to do hard labor to earn my keep, as I am a prisoner, and you can't very well force me to work. I am but a mere prisoner.

Who is paying for all that? Is my neighbor going to foot that bill? The insurance company of the victim?

Those are going to be some AWFULLY high insurance premiums.

[ QUOTE ]

This is what puts the C in AC land. For it to work a very high majority have to be able to afford food, shelter and insurance, and is why somolia isn't a good example of what the situation would turn into.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically, you are saying if you start off with Utopia, where everyone can already afford what they need, and they are rational and get along with one another, then AC will work. Wouldn't most systems work well given those highly favorable circumstances that just don't exist in reality?

WillMagic · #45 09-13-2006, 08:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is what puts the C in AC land. For it to work a very high majority have to be able to afford food, shelter and insurance, and is why somolia isn't a good example of what the situation would turn into.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically, you are saying if you start off with Utopia, where everyone can already afford what they need, and they are rational and get along with one another, then AC will work. Wouldn't most systems work well given those highly favorable circumstances that just don't exist in reality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um...this situation already exists in this country. People living well below the poverty line have both food and shelter, and if they don't have insurance often they have good reason - they already have a government program covering what they would be insured for, and because of overregulation insurance is both expensive and not easy to tailor to people's specific needs.

pvn · #46 09-13-2006, 08:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
SO if I hire my own court, say, consisting of my brother in law as a judge....he could disagree with my neighbors court, and we could go to appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hired my own university, consisting of my brother-in-law as the dean. I got four PhDs from that university. They are right here, hanging on my wall.

Brainwalter · #47 09-13-2006, 08:31 AM

RedBean life in prison with 3 meals a day etc. is a ridiculously expensive, inefficient punishment and I don't think it would be selected by the market very often.

tolbiny · #48 09-13-2006, 08:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Who is paying for all that? Is my neighbor going to foot that bill? The insurance company of the victim?

Those are going to be some AWFULLY high insurance premiums.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they will be that high-
[ QUOTE ]
State, federal and local governments spent an "average" of $209 for every person living in the US in 2003

[/ QUOTE ]

From this source

[ QUOTE ]
Prisoners sentenced for drug offenses constituted the largest group of Federal inmates (55%) in 2003

[/ QUOTE ]

drug facts

With no prisoners for drugs your 209$ figure per person should drop to under 100$ per person per year. When you figure in other crimes which won't result in jail time in an AC society, prostitutes, pimps, bookies, tax cheats who won't be incarcerated you would be looking at a 70% across the board reduction in costs from total inmates.
In addition to this you can also confiscate part of the persons property as punishment and use that to pay for part of the incarceration.

[ QUOTE ]
So in place of government, your essentially forced to buy this new kind of insurance, and rely on the insurance company to provide deterrent for crimes due to their reputable business practices?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could put it that way. You will be "forced" to buy the insurance only in the sense that to do buisiness with certain people you will have to have insurance. No different from a bank requiring you to have house insurance to qualify for a mortgage.

[ QUOTE ]
So basically, you are saying if you start off with Utopia, where everyone can already afford what they need

[/ QUOTE ]

Not nessecarily everyone, but a vast majority. There will still be charities and other options to help out the minoritie groups. And we are not talking about everyone being able to afford a Lexus, but enough to afford food and shelter which basically means employment.

RedBean · #49 09-13-2006, 08:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
RedBean life in prison with 3 meals a day etc. is a ridiculously expensive, inefficient punishment and I don't think it would be selected by the market very often.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think would be selected?

RedBean · #50 09-13-2006, 09:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There will still be charities and other options to help out the minoritie groups. And we are not talking about everyone being able to afford a Lexus, but enough to afford food and shelter which basically means employment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a minute....they can't get employment without the insurance you mentioned, so they have to pay a big premium for that too, don't forget.

It sounds like we're going to have a large population in poverty in AC land, and we aren't prepared to handle them here. At least not in a civil fashion.