The Pedo Bear strike

.... Nonetheless, since it is not itself the initiation of force, the threat of force or fraud, you may say it with impunity--at least physical impunity. Anyone could certainly refuse to do business with you.

....

+ You vote in favor of a referendum that would empower the police to initiate force against someone who has not initiated force against anyone else, i.e., a victimless "crime" such as prostitution. That sort of advocacy is a violation of the ZAP.

Agreed. Siccing the police on people who do victimless crimes is not a good thing.

Now consider this example: You have strong reason to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD which can cause serious illness. But when you suggest to her that she get tested and treated, she says she is in a hurry to make $10,000 to pay off a debt and she'll get treatment after that.

You could take it to arbitration, and with the inevitable delays there will be a strong chance that she will have her $10,000 and get treatment before the arbitration begins.

You could insist, and with force partly moral and partly physical get her treated. This is aggression on your part, but you could justify it on the grounds that she is committing physical force on each of her clients.

But say you merely announce to everybody who might be interested in her, by linking to her Facebook page and everything else you can think of, that Ginger is a prostitute who has a dangerous untreated STD. Then you are not committing any physical force at all against her and there is no question whether you might be wronging her, you definitely are not.

It looks to me like there's something screwy about this reasoning. it's logically self-consistent but something feels wrong about it to me.

.... Nonetheless, since it is not itself the initiation of force, the threat of force or fraud, you may say it with impunity--at least physical impunity. Anyone could certainly refuse to do business with you.

....

+ You vote in favor of a referendum that would empower the police to initiate force against someone who has not initiated force against anyone else, i.e., a victimless "crime" such as prostitution. That sort of advocacy is a violation of the ZAP.

Agreed. Siccing the police on people who do victimless crimes is not a good thing.

Now consider this example: You have strong reason to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD which can cause serious illness. But when you suggest to her that she get tested and treated, she says she is in a hurry to make $10,000 to pay off a debt and she'll get treatment after that.

You could take it to arbitration, and with the inevitable delays there will be a strong chance that she will have her $10,000 and get treatment before the arbitration begins.

You could insist, and with force partly moral and partly physical get her treated. This is aggression on your part, but you could justify it on the grounds that she is committing physical force on each of her clients.

But say you merely announce to everybody who might be interested in her, by linking to her Facebook page and everything else you can think of, that Ginger is a prostitute who has a dangerous untreated STD. Then you are not committing any physical force at all against her and there is no question whether you might be wronging her, you definitely are not.

It looks to me like there's something screwy about this reasoning. it's logically self-consistent but something feels wrong about it to me.

No reason for self-doubt; you walked yourself right through it. You came up with a solution consistent with the ZAP. It is probably not the only solution, but certainly a good one. BTW, I doubt you could even get into arbitration on such a flimsy suspicion. Your solution is very parsimonious, congrats.

(I already know what the ignoramuses are going to claim. I think I'll give them the opportunity to put their feet in their mouths first. It's more sporting.)

So spreading malicious rumours is in line with your ideal world?

Now consider this example: You have strong reason to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD which can cause serious illness. But when you suggest to her that she get tested and treated, she says she is in a hurry to make $10,000 to pay off a debt and she'll get treatment after that.

You could take it to arbitration, and with the inevitable delays there will be a strong chance that she will have her $10,000 and get treatment before the arbitration begins.

On what grounds would one take her to arbitration? 

You could insist, and with force partly moral and partly physical get her treated. This is aggression on your part, but you could justify it on the grounds that she is committing physical force on each of her clients.

How is she committing non-consensual physical force?  This would assume that (a) Ginger in fact does have a dangerous and communicable STD (which hasn't been established), (b) Ginger engages in activities which may communicate said STD (which a third party would not generally have knowledge of), (c) Ginger is withholding or giving false information about whether or not she has said STD.

But say you merely announce to everybody who might be interested in her, by linking to her Facebook page and everything else you can think of, that Ginger is a prostitute who has a dangerous untreated STD. Then you are not committing any physical force at all against her and there is no question whether you might be wronging her, you definitely are not.

What if it is not true?  There is nothing to indicate that Ginger is a prostitute in the information given, nor is there any evidence that she has an STD beyond one person's "strong reason" to believe so.  There is also no evidence that if the first two items are true that prophylactic practices to minimize infection are not in place.

How is she committing non-consensual physical force?  This would assume that (a) Ginger in fact does have a dangerous and communicable STD (which hasn't been established), (b) Ginger engages in activities which may communicate said STD (which a third party would not generally have knowledge of), (c) Ginger is withholding or giving false information about whether or not she has said STD.

If there are not grounds to suspect that all three of these factors are true with high probability, then the scenario proposed does not exist.

However, in the case of (c), it should be noted that people would not necessarily ask about such a thing, for obvious reasons, and it is thus a failure to give warning, not active misinformation or even non-response to inquiries from interested parties (from which the obvious conclusion could be inferred in any case) that is culpable.

The scenario, as I understand it, is that there is strong reason to believe (a), the truth of (b) is also implied, and (c) follows from (b).

However, in the case of (c), it should be noted that people would not necessarily ask about such a thing, for obvious reasons, and it is thus a failure to give warning, not active misinformation or even non-response to inquiries from interested parties (from which the obvious conclusion could be inferred in any case) that is culpable.

It is incredibly stupid to not ask someone whom one believes to be sexually active about any known or presumed STDs as a matter of course - if not offered automatically. There is no obvious reason, other than being a sexual prude, that one would not ask.   In any case, I did include the word "withhold" as well. 

The scenario, as I understand it, is that there is strong reason to believe (a), the truth of (b) is also implied, and (c) follows from (b).

There is no[ good reason given to believe (a), no reason at all given to believe (b), and (c) is already covered.

Further, J Thomas has suggested that it is appropriate to make statements one knows may not be true  -- he does not suggest passing on a strong reason for the suspicion  (which would then naturally call for the supporting evidence for that suspicion), but rather stating it as an absolute truth.

He also suggested arbitration for a matter in which there is apparently neither contract nor tort.

There's no evidence that anyone has done anything wrong (assuming that no one took his advice, of course), which he doesn't like. 

It's no more malum in se (in any way) to issue truthful public notice in warning that a person is harboring a dangerous communicable disease than it is to post on the Tanglenet a notification that a particular individual has perpetrated theft or assault and has evaded compensation determined remediative in arbitration.

Which latter is, I remind all reading here, the way the AnCap society on Ceres and in the Belt customarily addresses malefactors who refuse to render whole the people whose rights they have violated. 

To make such statements erroneously or falsely is itself an action undoubtedly imposing damages upon the wronged party, and arbitration would certainly ensue to determine the material compensation required of the foolish or malevolent perpetrator.  No "sovereign immunity" in an AnCap society to insulate a government thug against the consequences of impugning the reputations of people even on the basis of arguable best intentions. 

If a medical practitioner on Ceres determines that the canons of his profession require the promulgation of a public health notice of any kind, he'd damn' well better be prepared to back up his diagnosis and risk assessment, hadn't he?

Confused here. Do they report dangerous disease carriers due to medical ethics or laws or both?

Confused here. Do they report dangerous disease carriers due to medical ethics or laws or both?

Given that statute laws in an AnCap society have effectively no force even if they can be presumed to exist, the canons of the profession - "medical ethics" - would be the driving impetus behind a clinician's promulgation of a communicable disease warning on the Tanglenet.

Standards of care tend relatively reliably to obtain (with real puissance) without resort to the force of law or any other kind of coercion.  Much more a matter of real collegial "peer pressure" than anything else. 

Damned few of us want to look like an irresponsible bloody ignoramus in the opinion of those people best qualified to judge our competence. 

Well this thread has drifted into .. something 

On the subject at hand, I for once think that a An-Cap society would be more conservative, especially since the cost of recklessness won't be shifted to somebody else through benefits et al.

The cost has to carried either by the Parents or they are unwilling the youngster would had bear it by becoming an adult working et al.

I find the somewhat pro-NAMBLA tone disturbing, especially since it is mixed with Stephane Molineux/Bork nonsense concerning children. The truth is that Children become adults around 18 years old and before that they don't have the mental capacity to consent or make certain choices ...

Since there was never a society where it was socially acceptable to let your kids with a sexual freak, I bet NAMBLOID caught would get in a hell of problem, has the children guardians can castrate him. I find it a great flaw of AnCap to say that ''children are free'' will at the same time blidning themselves to the fact that same children don't have the mental, emotional and personal capacity to make most choices

Congrats to Sandy, Rhonda pissed bitch face is priceless ... Am I a masochist if it turn me on

Now consider this example: You have strong reason to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD which can cause serious illness. But when you suggest to her that she get tested and treated, she says she is in a hurry to make $10,000 to pay off a debt and she'll get treatment after that.

You could take it to arbitration, and with the inevitable delays there will be a strong chance that she will have her $10,000 and get treatment before the arbitration begins.

On what grounds would one take her to arbitration?

I suppose in the most legalistic sense you could contact some of her customers and wait until one of them tests positive and develops symptoms.

Is this one of those things where common sense is involved?

You could insist, and with force partly moral and partly physical get her treated. This is aggression on your part, but you could justify it on the grounds that she is committing physical force on each of her clients.

How is she committing non-consensual physical force?  This would assume that (a) Ginger in fact does have a dangerous and communicable STD (which hasn't been established),

For the sake of discussion, let's say that you do know the truth about this. In reality there might be some room for doubt, leaving you with a moral concern. If you are only 90% sure, then you must balance the damage she may do to lots of people versus the damage you do her which she could sue you over, if you are wrong. At some particular level of doubt you will be completely undecided. With considerably more doubt you will comfortably do nothing, and with considerably less doubt you will confidently act.

Of course, if she's a reasonable person she might agree to get tested and settle the issue to the degree that the testing works. Each test will have some fraction of false positives and some fraction of false negatives, but if it's a false positive then no real harm done unless the treatment is expensive or dangerous. A false negative is worse, but we can only do the best we can.

But in this story she has chosen not to voluntarily cooperate to the extent that a reasonable person would.

(b) Ginger engages in activities which may communicate said STD (which a third party would not generally have knowledge of),

For the sake of discussion, let's say that you do know about this. And after all, she told you why she didn't want to get treated yet. You are making yes-buts.

(c) Ginger is withholding or giving false information about whether or not she has said STD.

She wants to make $10,000 quick. She refuses testing. Is she going to make a quick $10,000 telling people "I think I have a serious STD" or "Somebody thinks I have a serious STD but I refuse to find out"?

But say you merely announce to everybody who might be interested in her, by linking to her Facebook page and everything else you can think of, that Ginger is a prostitute who has a dangerous untreated STD. Then you are not committing any physical force at all against her and there is no question whether you might be wronging her, you definitely are not.

What if it is not true?  There is nothing to indicate that Ginger is a prostitute in the information given,

?? There isn't?

nor is there any evidence that she has an STD beyond one person's "strong reason" to believe so.  There is also no evidence that if the first two items are true that prophylactic practices to minimize infection are not in place.

These are yes-buts. You don't like the dilemma so you assume it away.

For most things we can depend on voluntary cooperation. if it's only 95% effective, so what? Government coercion is seldom more than 90% effective, and we get by adequately, so if people only cooperated a little bit better we'd get by just fine. I doubt that approach will work for epidemic disease. 95% cooperation can give you an epidemic.

With the current system, the public health people provide free testing. Or you can get private testing. In either case, if you test positive for a known epidemic STD, your MD is legally obligated to report it. You will be asked to list all your recent sexual partners, and you are legally required to answer. (Though I've never heard of somebody getting prosecuted for leaving some out.) They will contact your partners and test them. If you pay for your own testing, your MD may break the law for you. He can give you treatment and not report it and not ask about your sexual partners, and who will know?

The uS system is not generally thought to be corrupt, though there have been cases in latin american countries where the wives of opposition leaders were arrested and forced to take STD tests and then were publicly announced to test positive, when testing by supporters of the opposition showed they tested negative.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5754a1.htm
As a result of our system, reported cases of gonorrhea in the USA in 2008 were only 0.11% of the US population. (About 1% in US blacks for a variety of reasons.) Syphilis rates were very low but rising -- particularly rising among gay men.

It is not ideal but we can get by this way. I'm reasonably sure an AnCap society can find methods that will work well enough to get by.

Taking the stand that people have the right to spread epidemic disease and other people do not even have the right to call for arbitration about it, is probably not workable.

I would assume men frequenting prostitutes know the potential dangers, or if they don't they should.  Informing them again while possibly hurting an innocent women is unnecessary.

I would assume men frequenting prostitutes know the potential dangers, or if they don't they should.  Informing them again while possibly hurting an innocent women is unnecessary.

That's one position one can take.

Another is that while the dangers exist in the abstract, as a very, very low risk in any individual encounter, if a woman knowingly works as a prostitute while she is infected with an STD, that increases the risk enough in specific cases that her activity is, rightly, to be viewed as an initiation of force on her part.

And this initiation of force should be responded to just like any other initiation of force.

It all depends on whether you view "men frequenting prostitutes" as a 100% legitimate business transaction, like "men buying a quart of milk at the store", so that if the milk isn't pasteurized, it will be labelled as such, and precautions will be taken so as to minimize the chance of it spreading disease... or if, instead, it's like "men buying crack cocaine", in which case anyone foolish enough to do this does so at his own risk.

While an AnCap society doesn't have piles of bureaucratic regulation, it is expected that the ZAP is to, as it were, take the place of the bureaucratic regulations of the FDA - and since in an AnCap society, prostitution and cocaine are not illegal... if AnCap is so wonderful, clearly milk and meat and vitamins will not be less safe, if anything, they'll be more safe, than they are in our present society - and prostitution and cocaine will be equally safe, since they're now equally legal. (Except, of course, for whatever cocaine in itself does to people that is bad.)

Now that you see the perhaps false assumptions I'm working from, you can point out the flaw in my reasoning.

I say men are allowed to engage in dangerous activities.  Sky diving, bungee jumping flying small planes, getting married, all of these activities are life threatening but adults are allowed to do them despite the danger.  I am no going to destroy a crane designed for bungee jumping just because I am afraid people using it might be hurt even if I am really afraid. 

The weakness in my argument is if I find out there is some flaw in the crane. 

I would assume men frequenting prostitutes know the potential dangers, or if they don't they should.  Informing them again while possibly hurting an innocent women is unnecessary.

More, in an AnCap social milieu - where government prohibitions of "victimless crime" do not impair voluntary human action - any person (man, woman, or child) seeking to earn valuta as a "sex worker" would strive to ensure that his/her services were not only pleasurable but safe as a matter of customer satisfaction. 

In places where prostitution has "legitimate business" status and competition is unimpaired, the providers have strong interest in the maintenance of quality standards for the sake of repeat custom and good reputation.  Concern with hygiene (all aspects) invariably tends to be strong.  It's a selling point, right?

Especially in the presence of the Tanglenet (functioning as explained by the authors of this graphic novel), anyone providing less than honest goods is going to lose market value.

The incentives of enlightened self-interest have always operated, but in a setting with high-access information flow making one's good name a real premium, they should function with particular reliability.