[ryandickherber]

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.

[culled]

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]

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]

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?

[orthecreedence]

I have to agree with you. It seems he's promoting anarcho-capitalist garbage.

In a world where everything is privatized, what purpose would there be for providing arbitration services, especially for those who can't afford them? There's no profit in that. The natural evolution of this is that if neither party has money, nothing happens. If aggressor has more money, (s)he walks free. If accuser has more money, aggressor is executed (there's no money in imprisoning someone).

This philosophy is built on pillars made of toothpicks and elmers glue, and completely disregards human nature. Our justice system has been finely tuned for centuries to account for an incredible amount of variations and circumstances. It's not perfect, but considering how completely ape-like humans can be, I'd say it's a step up.

[aidso]

I agree with AC on principle but I don't think society is ready for it. This idea to be able to govern yourself is something Thomas Jefferson felt was divine anarchy. This is an Illuminati-type (or an enlightened society) political model based on meritocracy.

Jefferson on Weishaupt:

"He is among those...who believe in the indefinite perfectibility of man. He thinks he may in time be rendered so perfect that he will be able to govern himself in every circumstance so as to injure none, to do all the good he can, to leave government no occasion to exercise their powers over him, & of course to render political government useless...

Wishaupt believes that to promote this perfection of the human character was the object of Jesus Christ. That his intention was simply to reinstate natural religion, & by diffusing the light of his morality, to teach us to govern ourselves. His precepts are the love of god & love of our neighbor.

And by teaching innocence of conduct, he expected to place men in their natural state of liberty & equality. He says, no one ever laid a surer foundation for liberty than our grand master, Jesus of Nazareth...

The means he proposes to effect this improvement of human nature are "to enlighten men, to correct their morals & inspire them with benevolence. Secure of our success, sais he, we abstain from violent commotions."

http://1.usa.gov/hGuGTJ (Library of Congress, LOC.GOV)

[orthecreedence]

I'm ideally an anarchist, believe it or not. I tend to lean towards anarcho-communism, the idea being that in order for our species to survive, we have to be working together towards common goals. Not to say competition is unhealthy...innovation comes from competition. I do think there's also a LOT to be said for cooperation, though.

Obviously, once humans are evolved to higher level, we won't need a government telling us what to do. I think this is a LONG way off though. I think we have to reach the spiritual level collectively to be able to sustain this way of life BEFORE devising systems to enact it. Any system we come up with now will be tainted with our ape-like nature and will inevitably change down the road anyway.

There's a lot of interesting discussion around anarcho-* socioeconomic systems. I do believe anarcho-capitalism is a dangerous system. Maybe one day it will work, but I kind of think that once humans are evolved enough to effectively do away with government, capitalism will also be a little less potent of an idea. This is obviously all conjecture.

My ultimate hope is that humanity survives into a more evolved being. As we are now, we are driven by fear, emotions, and greed, and it takes a lot of personal work and self-observation to rise above this. This is work most people will never do. We have a long way to go =].

EDIT - after reading the link you sent, it seems Jefferson and I share some ideas. Thanks for posting this.

[botker]

The Anarcho-Capitalist position has been thought through fairly well. You may disagree with it, but based on your questions it sounds like you haven't made much of an attempt to learn about it.

[indrax]

Every major Utpoia has been thought through fairly well. Including Utpoia.

Idealistic movements fail because either they are generally unpersuasive, lack a viable transition, or just don't work when implemented.

Modern democracy solved these problems, Communism mutated or proved unstable depending on who you ask. Anarcho-capitalism is where it is.

To claim a solution, you need a strategy that actually goes from the present to the goal. Otherwise it's just wishing.

[ryandickherber]

> 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.

[anigbrowl]

all parties have an interest in working this out, and so it will happen.

The volume of litigation that goes to trial is evidence to the contrary. Courts almost always encourage litigants to try mediation or arbitration, but many litiganta refuse to settle.

[jaspersfather]

> Only one will get there first, so only one will be able to arrest the person.

Where do you buy them real world semaphores, eh?

[ErrantX]

What about funding?

I know how police forces work because we contract to some of them.

The amount of funding required to investigate a crime is huge; where does that come from?

With multiple, competing, courts/police this becomes an expensive problem. It is infeasible to expect the suspect or victim to ultimately pay - for example any reasonable digital forensics investigation will cost the better part of £30,000 from seizure to court. And that is a lower bound.

Setting up a lab is non-trivial and costs millions - so either lab work has to be centralised or the funds would have to be found to pay for new ones. The former option isn't really an option, because you could end up in the problematic situation of two courts relying on the same lab for results in the same case (and calling the same people in as their expert witnesses...). This compromises the experts.

> 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.

I'm afraid this is impractical. Even reporting a simple robbery can be expensive for the police force (sending out an officer, sending our a scenes of crimes guy, doing at least the basic legwork to try and find the culprit).

In addition, one of the key roles of the police is as a deterrent. Who is going to drive down your road a couple of times if you notice a suspicious looking person hanging around?

Whilst I do "get" your theory and think that in a perfect world it would be interesting to explore. In practice it strikes me as more likely to satisfy the political ethos of anarcho-capitalism than actually help the public.

[aidso]

I bet the wouldn't down vote Peter Thiel.

Some of us are for anarcho-capitalism.

[burgerbrain]

The problem here is that even though you are correct, these are things the vast majority of people never want to hear (note your unreasonable downvoting).

What we need is a system that allows individuals to opt out of being governed, without needing the permission or approval of the tyrannous majority. I advise you take a look at crypto-anarchism. Not perfect by any stretch, but it's something..

[anigbrowl]

a system that allows individuals to opt out of being governed

"...Somalian pirates we!" http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/225458/somalian-pirate...

[rhizome]

Does this really have to be generalized to "implications?" It's not like this happens all the time, and nobody's saying "ALL RIGHT GUYS, IT'S EITHER US OR THE CRIMINALS NOW."

[burgerbrain]

To those intent on voting ryandickherber down so much, please consider the following:

Only ~19.8%^ of the United States population voted for Obama.

Is it really so unreasonable to question this system?

^ Popular Vote / Approximate 2008 United States Population

[tptacek]

I think it is, but either way: Obama was elected in an election with a turnout that exceeded FDR's.

[burgerbrain]

"Obama was elected in an election with a turnout that exceeded FDR's"

Yeah, I think that's a pretty strong point in my favor actually.

[grourk]

How's that?

[shadowflit]

I'm not sure what dividing by population is trying to prove. Using very fuzzy numbers, there's almost 100m (or about 30%) people not eligible to vote in those population numbers.

[burgerbrain]

Disenfranchisement is a very important part of the problem. I used total population not "voting citizens" quite deliberately.

[speleding]

I'm not sure why you are focussing on the percentage of people of the population. This may or may not be a problem depending on your point of view (an elitist might even think we should limit it some more) but by far a greater problem is surely that people only had two flavors they could realistically choose from. And the two flavors weren't all that different.

This is something that can relatively easily be changed. Europe has democracies with over 20 different political parties, as many as 15 getting elected representatives. Lots of inefficiencies with that many parties, of course, but at least more people get to choose something they agree with. Of course the only people who could change it would have to give up lots of power. Not going to happen. See Britain.

[codezero]

"this system" wasn't put in place by Obama.

[burgerbrain]

You have missed my point entirely. I am commenting on the nature of the democracy itself. My comment is meant to be neutral concerning Obama.

[FuzzyDunlop]

The inevitable end-game with a capitalist approach is that profit motives take precedence, and those of us who have a problem with that believe some things shouldn't and cannot be motivated by profit.

The analogue to this hypothetical situation is the US health system, both in terms of the political/economic ideal and the controversy.

[rhizome]

It makes more sense if you replace the problematic phrase with "bureaucratic authorities." Point being, elimination is elimination.

[dextorious]

Yeah, but we don't want "elimination", we want justice. And we have set up a procedure for delivering justice which cannot be dismissed as "bureaucracy". The laws and procedures for enforcing them have been developed taking into consideration tons of matters and responding to tons of real world feedback on how to be improved.

They are not perfect, far for it, but for the scope and extend that they cover, they are way better than what any vigilante jerk's version of "elimination" or "payback" is.

For example what stops me of adding your name in the exposed list of names, and ruining your life? I don't even have to do it with malice, maybe I'm just a nut that I am convinced that you too are a pedophile and see the addition of your name as justified.

[rhizome]

For example what stops me of adding your name in the exposed list of names, and ruining your life?

You mean like Richard Jewell, Bruce Ivins, and David Kelley?

[mc32]

But all those have recourse. They can sue the state and get restitution. So, yes, mistakes happen, but there is procedure to seek corrective action. There is a difference.

The only way to not investigate innocent people would be to know in advance who's guilty. And if you knew who was guilty in advance why even have courts? It'd be for show. Anyhow, that's be asking for more than we are capable of as a civilization. It's understood innocent people will be accused and acquitted thru the system; if the state is proven wrong and you suffered from the process, there is recourse. You sue the state.

How do you sue vigilantes who are by definition, outside the system?

[rhizome]

What recourse do Bruce Ivins and David Kelley have?

[dextorious]

No, I mean like everybody who ever got slandered by anyone in everyday life with no consideration, due process or authority at all. Because that's how this vigilante thing works.

It's not just being accused (or considered suspect) of something that's problematic, it's HOW and by WHOM this happens.

A police investigation can look into the wrong person too, sometimes can even convict (and even execute!) the wrong person, but there are tons of checks and balances in action there. And "the people" have chosen to have the police and judicial system do that work, not Anonymous.

[codezero]

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.

[darklajid]

Just to make this discussion more globally relevant:

A 'sex offender registry' is a whole different problem. Don't want to troll here, but please understand that in a global forum like this a remark a la 'at the very least' combined with a debatable ~local~ set of law(s) is a dangerous thing. In other words: No, I hope that at the very least no one ends up in any registry.

I'm all for prosecuting/convicting these people. I'm against any kind of (public) register, period.

[codezero]

Good point. Thanks for calling me out on that.

[nanijoe]

But surely, it will curb the activities of those involved, which should be the number one priority.

[codezero]

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]

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]

citation needed

[tptacek]

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full

[nkurz]

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.

[ryandickherber]

Anonymous isn't putting them behind bars, but by releasing names, communities can ostracize these people and keep them away from children.

[shalmanese]

Anonymous didn't release a list of names, it released a list of pseudonyms which is virtually useless (http://pastebin.com/88Lzs1XR). I presume these people are smart enough not to use the same pseudonym on other services so this list is pretty eminently useless.

[cullenking]

Actually, I just did a cursory google search on a few of the more unique looking names, and they come up all over the internet. One of them is definitely not too worried, their pseudonym is also registered on a bestiality/zoophilia forum as well as some overclocking forums. I think this is definitely enough information to nail some of these people, with the right investigation.

[maurits]

No guarantees though, choosing an existing handle/username with a tarnished reputation seems like a pretty good strategy to me for online shenanigans.

[codezero]

What if they put your name on the list? To what authority is Anonymous culpable, and what responsibility do they have to vet the names they release?

[msluyter]

Well, clearly, in the anarcho-capitalist utopia envisioned by ryandickherber, you would go to the private justice authorities of your choice and get a ruling in your favor by presenting evidence that you never download child porn. An empty hard drive, say, or the entire server logs for every website you've ever visited. Easy! ;)

More seriously, you hit on the problem, which is that a lot of people seem to be assuming that Anonymous' vigilante justice is error free. Those that are wrongfully accused of using child porn could have their lives seriously damaged.

[DasIch]

"Communities" can't do that as effectively as the government can nor are or should these people considered to be guilty unless proven in court.

[bartonfink]

Which is a terrible idea.

[ryandickherber]

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.

[orthecreedence]

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 ;)

[zmmz]

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]

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=V...

Also check out the works of Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio, and read the works of Murray Rothbard.

[wanorris]

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.

[koanarc]

As a self-described anarcho-capitalist, I have to say that most such theories of privately-owned and -operated courts and police that I see thrown about on the internet are terrible, extraordinarily simplistic systems that just make us all look like naive utopians.

To my mind, a much more sensible system would resemble the federalized structure we have now in the States, only without physical/territorial borders preventing an individual's migration from one jurisdiction to another, and without any considerable barriers to entry for emergent States.

Essentially, a minimal and immutable Constitution with a federal registry of member states and arbitration services -- member states which any group of people may establish on their own, and to which any individual may freely subscribe (or renounce); arbitration services publicly listed, from which the member states (and individuals) could select ordered preferences for, with a Federal arbitration council as a final fall-back option, should no parties have coincident arbitration services on their lists.

My notion of anarchism is not that it is against laws or the establishment of governments, only against compulsory subscription and subjugation to them. Removal of territorial borders as the basis for what constitutes a "State" and allowing a free market in decentralized legal systems to arise, under controlled conditions that provide rules and means for these budding governments to interact and cooperate with each other within a larger scope of law, is the only way any stable form of anarchism could ever occur.

tl;dr As an AnCap, I support a federalized breed of constitional clan politics, NOT Rent-A-Cops and Kangaroo Courts.

[andrewflnr]

Can states in your system overlap physically, or would they have borders at all? In either case, how would jurisdiction be decided?

[notahacker]

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.

[anigbrowl]

A homeless person is found murdered, identity unknown. Who takes up this victim's case?

[burgerbrain]

Who cares? He's dead and nothing will "fix" that. Seems like a shit-poor reason to oppress the living.

[andrewflnr]

+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.

[jhales]

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]

Actually, businesses tend to like them because the outcomes tend to favor businesses.

[n09n]

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?

[rosser]

Yeah, because for-profit courts will never be abused.

[SCdF]

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).