Gambling in Society

I don't much care for what I see as jamesd's preferred system for dealing with offenders.  He probably wouldn't like mine, either.

A State establishes a universal system for coping with offenders.  Perhaps it sets up one that jamesd likes, in which case I am obliged to be party to practices of which I disapprove; perhaps it sets up one more tolerable to me, in which case jamesd is made complicit in practices he objects to; perhaps it chooses some third program that offends jamesd and me equally (if for unlike reasons).

In an anarchy, if you burgle jamesd's home or otherwise trespass upon his personal sovereignty, he will do to you whatever it is he does in reaction to that, and I will not interfere, because that would be, in my view, a worse transgression against his sovereignty than merely messing with his physical property or being.  If it's my home you burgle, I expect neighbor jamesd not to interfere in whatever it is I do about that.

And neither of us is coerced into forking out time or money (e.g. taxes) to support an approach to criminal trespass that we don't respect.  At worst, we're obliged to put up with someone else somewhere doing something we don't like, but not to us -- and it's not like that never happens.

A restitution-based system would include not only returning what was stolen, and compensation for damages incurred in the burglary, but compensating the victim for the effort used in tracking down and apprehending the burglar, possibly paying one's advocate for her or his services, and certainly paying the judge. These charges could easily amount to, effectively, "treble damages."

Although, in most cases what would likely happen in simple burglary situations is that the insurance company would pay for losses and not likely make an effort to track down a burglar unless a string of burglaries -- and resultant claims -- make it worthwhile.

Of course, if Ceres has a "castle doctrine," which seems likely, a burglar also has to figure risk of getting shot and killed in the course of the burglary. We know already that they do this, because so-called "hot" burglaries (where the victims are at home) occur far less frequently in areas of high gun-ownership rates than they do in areas of low gun-ownership rates.

Finally, a recidivist in a place like the Belt faces the prospect of social shunning. A one-time offender may be forgiven but a repeat offender may find no one willing to trade or give him anything. And in the Belt, that could be fatal.

True, but it still would not be triple damages; you're just adding to the list of damages needed to make him whole. Restituition, not punishment.

.Now this is a curious assumption. (Actually, just goofy.) Even if Bert and Ernie had liability for, "letting a known dishonest individual" wander around at large without adequate supervision" that is not the case here. The three stooges were not found guilty of a status crime (i.e., being a drug addict or being a rapist). The result of the arbitration was that they had to pay the plaintiffs for damages and other expenses they caused them, not for being "known dishonest individuals."

Your imagined anarchic society is kinder and gentler to no-account broke low lifes than I would expect.  I would expect them to be sent out the airlock with no spacesuit.

But, assuming that at least some of the low lifes keep keep on misbehaving, as seems to be happening in the story, I would suspect the kindness and gentleness to run out pretty fast.
.

A restitution-based system would include not only returning what was stolen, and compensation for damages incurred in the burglary, but compensating the victim for the effort used in tracking down and apprehending the burglar, possibly paying one's advocate for her or his services, and certainly paying the judge. These charges could easily amount to, effectively, "treble damages."

True, but it still would not be triple damages; you're just adding to the list of damages needed to make him whole. Restituition, not punishment.

Agreed. I originally wrote "triple damages" as a sort of shorthand. As various people have pointed out, if you can steal and pay back what you took if you get caught but otherwise you keep it, then the overhead for stealing is not very high -- apart from social problems.

In the example, the thieves are clueless. Not unlikely if they had succeeded, they would have tried to take both ships. "What are you doing with my friends' ship?" "Oh, they sold it to us. Right before their accident."

Maybe they knew how to collect a mascon and just took that. Maybe they knew where to sell it. "Hey, this isn't the missing mascon that Bert and Ernie were working, is it?" "Oh no, this is another one we dug up ourselves. We went out mining -- over there." "On Cicero's claim? He didn't know there was a mascon there."

If you have criminals who know where to fence a stolen spaceship then it's a whole different story. But that requires a working criminal culture for them to be part of.

jamesd, that's one feature of AnCap law - in a sense, it is "kinder and gentler" in not requiring treble damages, nor punitive enslavement. But in another sense, it can be brutal. Using violence to rob armed AnCap citizens can be a "dead end career" in a most literal sense.

Old saying: better to be tried by a jury of twelve than carried by six. Armed robbers face a systemic disadvantage; they may "win" encounters 1, 2, . . . but lose everything in the nth encounter.

There's a fine line. In a case such as Bert and Ernie faced, it was possible to subdue and bring their attackers to justice. In a violent melee, one does not always have that choice. Deadly force is an acceptable method of preserving one's own life against immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

The latest panel shows a "ladyboy" delivering what may be a fatal kick to a cardshark. It's a judgment call; was her life endangered? If so, no jury would convict.

I am curious about how martial arts would adapt in low- or zero-g -- but that's another question. Momentum and mass still exist; hurling oneself into a powerful kick could be judged a form of assisted suicide.

Your imagined anarchic society is kinder and gentler to no-account broke low lifes than I would expect.  I would expect them to be sent out the airlock with no spacesuit.

That is because your expectation are always collectivist. An anarchist society is not gentle or cruel, nor does "it" throw people out the airlock. People are gentle or cruel and some might throw someone out the airlock. However, because MYOB* is the default setting in an AnCap society, there are a lot fewer people to agree with you about giving someone the old heave-ho. To the extent that people would prefer to preserve the ZAP status que, they might use force to stop you from initiating force on another. That would be perfectly acceptable under the ZAP.

* "Mind Your Own Business." Here's a bit of trivia. The pennies minted by the Continental Congress were inscribed with the words "Mind Your Own Business." They were designed by Ben Franklin.

The latest panel shows a "ladyboy" delivering what may be a fatal kick to a cardshark. It's a judgment call; was her life endangered? If so, no jury would convict.

I would assume, though, that people have more latitude for self-defense in an AnCap society than in a statist society.

Was there reason to believe that he owed her money, and was attempting to impede the determination of that fact? Yes.

Did he behave in such a manner to indicate that her life could have been endangered if she attempted to stop him from running away, and check him for the relevant evidence, in a gentler manner? Yes.

In a statist society, she is likely to have been required to accept the alternative of him running away and evading responsibility for his actions as a card shark in preference to using "excessive" force in such a case; after all, it's only money. That is not how it works, nor is it how it should work, in a free society.

The latest panel shows a "ladyboy" delivering what may be a fatal kick to a cardshark. It's a judgment call; was her life endangered? If so, no jury would convict.

I would assume, though, that people have more latitude for self-defense in an AnCap society than in a statist society.

Was there reason to believe that he owed her money, and was attempting to impede the determination of that fact? Yes.

Did he behave in such a manner to indicate that her life could have been endangered if she attempted to stop him from running away, and check him for the relevant evidence, in a gentler manner? Yes.

In a statist society, she is likely to have been required to accept the alternative of him running away and evading responsibility for his actions as a card shark in preference to using "excessive" force in such a case; after all, it's only money. That is not how it works, nor is it how it should work, in a free society.

All that aside, it might be culturally acceptable to have occasional lethal fights during certain sorts of card games. If you don't want to take that chance, stay away from those particular games.

Some places might tend to prevent that sort of thing. If you have a problem, call the bouncers and anybody who wants to resist them is volunteering for as much violence as it takes. For part of their arbitration they can refer to their recordings of their cameras. (If you don't trust them to keep your hands secret during regular games then play somewhere else.)

If you want to play with a rough crowd and you know the groundrules, who should stop you?

Here's a bit of trivia. The pennies minted by the Continental Congress were inscribed with the words "Mind Your Own Business." They were designed by Ben Franklin.

Here's a clipart graphic of the same:

Here's a clipart graphic of the same:

"Mind Your Own Business" means to keep one's nose out of other people's business. "Mind Your Business" means to work hard at one's own business. They're not the same thing.

Which is good. In my experience, "Mind your own business" is something usually said by thugs in an attempt by them to deal with their intended victims one by one, instead of all the honest citizens getting together to put an end to their depredations. So I'm glad that isn't what Ben Franklin put on the currency.

Here's a clipart graphic of the same:

"Mind Your Own Business" means to keep one's nose out of other people's business. "Mind Your Business" means to work hard at one's own business. They're not the same thing.

Which is good. In my experience, "Mind your own business" is something usually said by thugs in an attempt by them to deal with their intended victims one by one, instead of all the honest citizens getting together to put an end to their depredations. So I'm glad that isn't what Ben Franklin put on the currency.

Both with and without "own", the phrases have identical meanings.  "Own" simply adds emphasis for the dull-witted.  It has dual meanings; pay attention to your own business, and keep out of mine.

I have never encountered a "thug" stating either; in most cases they are attempting to "mind" my (or some third party's) business.  Those who use it and practice it have my respect; those who fail to mind their own have my pity, and those who try to mind mine have my ire.

I'm certainly  glad Quadibloc doesn't put his (or her) thoughts on money I use.

How are Cerieans bringing up their children?

People with a strong understanding of math , Probability and Games , might not enjoy a game of chance, or am I wrong and they would just want a more complicated game? I think that the median education level will make a diffrence either way.

Are children "free" at early ages?

Is integrety taught as a need?

Are children "free" at early ages?

Is integrety taught as a need?

Good question, I assume that children are free at early ages.  Most children are likely to stay with their parents unless the parents in question are particularly abusive.  This is pretty much the case in the U.S., wherein children under substantial abuse have the right to file emancipation paperwork and go to live on their own.  I see no reason why this would not be the case in an anarchic society (without the paperwork, of course.)

As for your second question: that's up to the parents.

By the way, hi, long time lurker first time poster.  I hope that my time on this forum will be both informative and enjoyable.

"Mind Your Own Business" means to keep one's nose out of other people's business. "Mind Your Business" means to work hard at one's own business. They're not the same thing.

My understanding is that Franklin intended "Mind Your Own Business," but that it was shortened to fit on the coin. In any case, "Mind Your Business" could also mean, "Mind Your Own Business."

In my experience, "Mind your own business" is something usually said by thugs in an attempt by them to deal with their intended victims one by one, instead of all the honest citizens getting together to put an end to their depredations. So I'm glad that isn't what Ben Franklin put on the currency.

I sincerely doubt you have ever had any experience with thugs saying "mind your own business." Be that as it may, in my experience the expression was only used by government types, "move along, nothing to see here," and the victims of snoops and officious intermeddlers. YMMV

I suspect that children on Ceres will be much more independent, like today's "Free Range" movement. They'll often be taught at home; excellent resources will be on the tanglenet equivalent of today's interweb; they'll mingle more freely with all sorts of people than today's cloistered youth do. They'll be articulate; they'll learn social norms appropriate to AnCap society, rather than to regimented factory you-will-do-as-you-are-told schools. Emancipation will happen without formal paperwork, and will depend on the child's preferences; they are unlikely to stay in abusive relationships. It is probable that youngsters will be more prone to accept invitations to bunk over with friends, sometimes for extended periods - a sort of voluntary and congenial form of foster parenting. The "age of reason" will move downward from 18 or 21; if I recall correctly, children as young as ten were presumed to be able to responsibly defend themselves at the age of ten in pre-War-between-states Massachusetts. Admiral Farrugut went to sea at the age of ten, and captained a ship at the age of twelve. Today, in farm country, one sees quite young children driving horses, cows, trucks, and tractors - and "bringing home the venison" with skilled and responsible use of firearms.

Regarding "Mind Your Own Business", there is a delightful story where MYOB is frequently heard. IIRC, the title is "And then there were none."

http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php