J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 07:25:02 am
All existing forms of states have failed to eliminate real criminals - people who rape, murder, and steal. Even Singapore, which has quite extensive lists of crimes and punishments thereof, has a problem with real criminals.

Why then all the bitching and moaning about the possibility that real criminals might be able to survive in a society which takes ZAP seriously? If we apply the same standard to both, then we should conclude that both statism and ZAP are failures.

Or rather, statism has failed in practice, while ZAP fails according to some people's theories.

However, state supporters tend to be pretty good at finding reasons why it isn't the state's fault. Like, they can believe that people of a particular race tend to be criminals and what can the state do about that except jail them? Or people whose parents didn't teach them right. People who have some forms of mental illness. And when the state arrests somebody, people can assume that the criminal has been found and that justice will prevail.

If a ZAP society is not as good at hiding the criminals who get away, it will look worse. How hypocritically can a ZAP society pretend it has solved all problems? Is that contest even worth competing in?

quadibloc on April 30, 2011, 08:23:07 am
Why then all the bitching and moaning about the possibility that real criminals might be able to survive in a society which takes ZAP seriously? If we apply the same standard to both, then we should conclude that both statism and ZAP are failures.
Oh, that's quite true.

We're familiar, though, with the efforts that statism makes to try to combat crime.

It's clear that AnCap will deal with crime by giving citizens more latitude in self-defense. This may help.

But we would like to know what else AnCap has planned. It's hard for some of us to see how an arbitration system that isn't a monopoly could possibly work, and it seems that advocates of AnCap haven't yet settled on one scheme of arbitration - which makes it harder to find a satisfying answer to the question.

SandySandfort on April 30, 2011, 10:42:53 am
It is being assumed that shunning is inadequate for dealing with "real criminals"...

No, it is not. Shunning is one method--and a very effective one. However, there is a wide range of "self-help" that could be brought to bear against a criminal.

This could well be a "theoretical" problem - especially if citizens of an expanse where AnCap is practiced can vote with their feet (no mutual extradition treaties that override the judgment of the arbiters in the next village over, for example - so you can run from the imposition of a local whim, but not from the penalty for a serious aggression, because all the villages will agree about those). People with statist habits of thought may imagine appellate arbiters and Supreme Planetary Arbiters, but if a putative AnCap society doesn't have things like that, then it makes it more plausible that it isn't a state in disguise after all.

This is sort of what happened in the era of westward expansion in the US. A lot of criminal types, went west to avoid punishment for crimes they committed in the East. Also a lot of them ended up the guests at necktie parties, when they resumed their wayward practices in the West. In some senses you can run, but you cannot hide--from your own nature.

I suspect that finding bad guys would be a big market opportunity in the Belt. True bounty hunters (not just bail enforcement agents) would be respected profession in the Belt.


SandySandfort on April 30, 2011, 10:57:47 am
... dandruff...

... This might seem like a badly debased ZAP arbitration. But I think that if you find yourself doing something in public that most people disapprove of, they will find a way to go after you.

Special pleading, J Thomas. Your example is totally of whole cloth. It falls into the "Yeah, but what if invisible aliens attack?" category. Come up with a plausible example if you want to challenge the ZAP. Arbitration has to be agreed to by the plaintiff, the defendant and the arbiter. What do you think are the chances that the plaintiff would be willing to post a bond, the defendant would take the claim seriously and an arbiter would be interested in such a silly pissant case? You can do better than this.

SandySandfort on April 30, 2011, 11:22:27 am
It's clear that AnCap will deal with crime by giving citizens more latitude in self-defense. This may help.

You think?  ::)

When virtually every man, woman and child is armed and willing to use their weapons in self-defense, it seems axiomatic that the threat posed by criminals be vastly reduced. So I think your "this may help" dramatically underestimates the salutary effect of armed "citizens" on social order.

But we would like to know what else AnCap has planned.

Sort of an unfair request of an anarchy, don't you think? AnCap isn't a government or any other entity. It is more of a process or description of a way of interacting. However, that doesn't mean AnCap people won't have plans for their own protection. It does not mean that arbiters are oblivious to the threat represented by criminals.

It's hard for some of us to see how an arbitration system that isn't a monopoly could possibly work, and it seems that advocates of AnCap haven't yet settled on one scheme of arbitration...

Bingo! Riddle me this, why should there be only one scheme of arbitration? If the disputants are happy with the arbitration they sign up for, why should that be anyone's concern but their own? Imagine a hippie and a New Age person who have a dispute. If they agree to have an arbiter throw the I Ching and resolve their dispute based on his interpretation of the throw, so what? Ditto for Judaic law, Sharia or flipping a coin.

Just as long as the social expectation is the ZAP, the method of resolving disputes is pretty much irrelevant. My guess is that the almost universal default setting will be standard arbitration methods similar to those currently offered by the American Arbitration Association, but who knows? (And who cares?)

sam on April 30, 2011, 11:27:43 am
So this bald woman tells the bald arbitrator that when she saw your hair it made her sick to her stomach and she started to get an asthma attack. Because of you.

And the arbitrator agrees that your dust-mop is an assault on the senses for everybody who sees it, and open aggression on the air filters.

And whatever he rules, you ignore it.  She did not really get sick her stomach.   No one person is aggrieved enough to use force, or if he is, is only one person.

J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 12:31:10 pm

This is sort of what happened in the era of westward expansion in the US. A lot of criminal types, went west to avoid punishment for crimes they committed in the East. Also a lot of them ended up the guests at necktie parties, when they resumed their wayward practices in the West. In some senses you can run, but you cannot hide--from your own nature.

People have been claiming here that the "wild, wild west" just didn't have much crime. Now you claim that there were a lot of lynchings.

How would we find out who's right? I can imagine that you are right but that the people who hanged suspected criminals didn't keep many records, and so the histories would show very little crime.

J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 01:18:26 pm
... dandruff...

... This might seem like a badly debased ZAP arbitration. But I think that if you find yourself doing something in public that most people disapprove of, they will find a way to go after you.

Special pleading, J Thomas. Your example is totally of whole cloth. It falls into the "Yeah, but what if invisible aliens attack?" category. Come up with a plausible example if you want to challenge the ZAP.

This example actually does seem plausible to me. But I don't think it in any way challenges the ZAP. It might challenge some people's limited appreciation of ZAP.

Quote
Arbitration has to be agreed to by the plaintiff, the defendant and the arbiter. What do you think are the chances that the plaintiff would be willing to post a bond, the defendant would take the claim seriously and an arbiter would be interested in such a silly pissant case? You can do better than this.

If the defendant refuses, then he has refused arbitration. He may find things getting interesting afterward. He may find that a dozen thugs arrive to shave his head in public, and if he resists them he'll face serious arbitration. Because everybody except him agrees that this is the sort of thing he should not resist, and he refused arbitration before.

It's quite likely that an arbiter can be found who will accept the case. Nobody wants a disgusting mophead running around in public. And depending on public opinion, which the arbiter is likely to agree with being part of the public, the plaintiff's bond may be safe.

This is not an attack on ZAP. This is ZAP in action. If people on a space station etc feel that dandruff is aggression, then it isn't unreasonable that they will respond. There is nothing wrong here.

If I give an example that you think is plausible, you will agree with me that ZAP is operating correctly in that example. It's only because you don't think of dandruff as aggression that you balk at my example.

J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 01:33:39 pm
Why then all the bitching and moaning about the possibility that real criminals might be able to survive in a society which takes ZAP seriously? If we apply the same standard to both, then we should conclude that both statism and ZAP are failures.

Oh, that's quite true.

We're familiar, though, with the efforts that statism makes to try to combat crime.

It's clear that AnCap will deal with crime by giving citizens more latitude in self-defense. This may help.

But we would like to know what else AnCap has planned. It's hard for some of us to see how an arbitration system that isn't a monopoly could possibly work, and it seems that advocates of AnCap haven't yet settled on one scheme of arbitration - which makes it harder to find a satisfying answer to the question.

Here's one possible argument. If you agree that current approaches to crime prevention are not worth doing, would we be worse off if we stopped doing them?

Whatever we evolved to replace them might be better. ZAP and arbitration might easily be a better base to start from, and we won't find out how it would change to better fit reality until we try it.

So the fundamental question is whether what we have is good enough to keep.

sam on April 30, 2011, 01:46:45 pm
People have been claiming here that the "wild, wild west" just didn't have much crime. Now you claim that there were a lot of lynchings.

If they needed killing, not a crime.

In the west, the penalty for stealing a horse or "insulting" a woman, was generally death.  Seems right to me.

sam on April 30, 2011, 01:51:47 pm
If the defendant refuses, then he has refused arbitration. He may find things getting interesting afterward. He may find that a dozen thugs arrive to shave his head in public,

Not one of these dozen thugs has an incentive, whereas a particular homeowner does have an incentive to do something about a particular burglar.

If you refuse arbitration over burglary, the offended home owner might use violence, quite possibly deadly violence, and the next homeowner certainly will.  Dandruff, not likely, because no one person has an incentive to himself do much about it.



J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 02:06:00 pm
People have been claiming here that the "wild, wild west" just didn't have much crime. Now you claim that there were a lot of lynchings.

If they needed killing, not a crime.

If they needed killing, they committed a crime?

J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 02:13:08 pm
If the defendant refuses, then he has refused arbitration. He may find things getting interesting afterward. He may find that a dozen thugs arrive to shave his head in public,

Not one of these dozen thugs has an incentive, whereas a particular homeowner does have an incentive to do something about a particular burglar.

If you refuse arbitration over burglary, the offended home owner might use violence, quite possibly deadly violence, and the next homeowner certainly will.  Dandruff, not likely, because no one person has an incentive to himself do much about it.

This is your claim about people in general. Like, you would argue that in the old days, people made lynch mobs only when they personally had each been harmed.

You are ignoring the possibility that men sometimes joined lynch mobs so they would look violent and some ways antisocial and therefore be more attractive to women.

And other possibilities.

But if a space station does have a dozen guys who are ready to enforce common courtesy, and nobody objects except the perp they enforce it on, why would you say it wouldn't happen?

What if it was a dozen women instead? Is he going to commit violence on them to stop them?

sam on April 30, 2011, 09:43:18 pm
If you refuse arbitration over burglary, the offended home owner might use violence, quite possibly deadly violence, and the next homeowner certainly will.  Dandruff, not likely, because no one person has an incentive to himself do much about it.

This is your claim about people in general. Like, you would argue that in the old days, people made lynch mobs only when they personally had each been harmed.

The core of a "lynch mob" was always some important, influential and wealthy person, who had himself usually been harmed, or one of his employees or family or close associates had been harmed.

Thus, for example, when someone robbed a bank, was usually found and killed by bankers leading bank security guards, not by random concerned citizens.  Analogously for cattle rustlers, horse thieves, and those who "insulted" women.


SandySandfort on April 30, 2011, 10:22:53 pm

This is sort of what happened in the era of westward expansion in the US. A lot of criminal types, went west to avoid punishment for crimes they committed in the East. Also a lot of them ended up the guests at necktie parties, when they resumed their wayward practices in the West. In some senses you can run, but you cannot hide--from your own nature.

People have been claiming here that the "wild, wild west" just didn't have much crime. Now you claim that there were a lot of lynchings.

Time for that remedial reading class. I did not claim there were a lot of hangings. I claimed that a lot of the criminals who committed crimes were hanged. Not the same thing at all.

If 1000 criminals went west and 100 "resumed their wayward practices," (i.e., committed new crimes) and of those 100, 80 ended up dead for their troubles that 80 compared to the 900 criminals who did not resume a life crime, or the hundreds of thousands of other people in the West, is not a lot. 80 out of 100 is a lot, however. Get it?

How would we find out who's right? I can imagine that you are right but that the people who hanged suspected criminals didn't keep many records, and so the histories would show very little crime.

Irrelevant to my point, but first, a lot of the criminals were hanged by the law. Second, do you really believe that a conspiracy that hanged someone would not be noticed? In small communities, people blab and the law and the newspaper take note of it. But again, no relevant to my point.