Reputation, Ostracism, and Insurance

[Wesker1982]

This is a conversation I had (am having) on Reddit. I am posting it here since some people have asked about it. And also because I want to have this convo in one spot because I get disorganized on Reddit. I will put the other person in quotes and reply without them. The whole thread is here http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Cap...ho_pays_to_incarcerate_criminals_in_an_ancap/


Someone made the claim:

Remember, in a private world there would be no public land, so no one would want to vouch for having a violent person on their land...there would literally be no place to stand (unless of course you ventured out into unclaimed territory; ocean, desert, forrest, etc).

Then it was disputed, which is where I jumped in.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless that person were willing to pay a premium. Where you see exclusion, the entrepreneur sees opportunity!

That's why I also think the whole ostracision thing is a no-go-- the demand for services for the ostracised, especially if they collected in specific areas, would create its own supply as soon as someone realized they could turn a profit.

It might initially look like the very prisons you're describing, but quickly the best and most accommodating prisons would get the most money, until (as all markets do) price spirals in towards cost and there's really not much difference between the 'prisons' or any other living space.

Assuming criminals are a very small minority of the population, I think the market for exchanging with criminals would be pretty small. And even those willing to exchange with them could end up alienating their non-criminal customers.

Why would people be alienated by willful, voluntary exchange?

Most people abhor real criminals. If you were to make a living specializing in serving rapists and murderers, you would alienate a lot of honest people.

Lots of people make a living initiating force on large swaths of the population, in this day and age. Those people are fabulous business people with a lot of business partners. If you will lose money not dealing with someone because you don't like who they are or what they do, the market will select you out. That's sort of the point behind the whole "racism can't survive a free market" thing isn't it?

Can you give me examples of people who make a living by initiating force on large swaths of the population that do not rely on the State for protection or special privileges?

"If you will lose money not dealing with someone because you don't like who they are or what they do, the market will select you out."

This depends entirely on who it is your are discriminating against. There is a big difference between discriminating by race vs discriminating against violent criminals. If you have a business that discriminates against violent criminals, non-violent people (which the majority of society consists of) by large are not going to have a problem with it. They would even likely commend you for it.

The amount of customers you give up by refusing to serve violent criminals would be small. It would probably only consist of the violent criminals themselves.

I assume I don't have to explain why racism generally would not succeed in the overall market.

Can you give me examples of people who make a living by initiating force on large swaths of the population that do not rely on the State for protection or special privileges?

No, but that was my point.

If you have a business that discriminates against violent criminals, non-violent people (which the majority of society consists of) by large are not going to have a problem with it.

Try discriminating against armed forces and see how well your business does. That may be a loaded example, but by and large most people are OK buying products from a supplier that commits human rights violations as long as it's cheap. That happens all the time.

Can you give me examples?

Also, I think in the absence of the State, people will put more significance on other methods to deal with criminals. Right now, people don't pay as much attention since the State has "taken care" of dealing with criminals. More responsibility and importance would be put on things like ostracism in a free society.

I still don't see how a business specializing in serving rapists and murderers would not itself be ostracized.

Again that was my point. The very richest people in the world use the government to initiate force on other people, and it doesn't cost them basically a single consumer. Do you think it's just because of the government. Even people vehemently against corporations and government being used as the right arm of the rich still buy consumer goods, by the dozens even. Ever been to an OWS rally?

Your faith that people won't buy cheap, good products because of the immoral acts of those that make them isn't based in anything I've ever seen.

I think in the absence of the State, people will put more significance on other methods to deal with criminals.

We can both agree, hopefully, that this is speculation right?

The very richest people in the world use the government to initiate force on other people, and it doesn't cost them basically a single consumer.

But we are talking about a society without a government.

Your faith that people won't buy cheap, good products because of the immoral acts of those that make them isn't based in anything I've ever seen.

Are you referring to things like sweatshops and child labor? I don't think it is a relevant comparison because for one, a lot of people realize the propaganda involved, so these companies don't really get the label of "criminals". Secondly, the sweatshops are better than the alternatives (child prostitution, starvation). The evil sweatshops are actually not evil at all.

So I don't think it is relevant to compare them with rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals which are almost universally agreed upon to be evil.

If you are not referring to things like sweatshops, then I really can't think of these mass violent businesses you are talking about.

Again, I think it is important to emphasize that we are talking about violent criminals, and not some vague human rights violators. The evil in Walmart and Nike shops are at least debatable. The evil in murder and rape really isn't. So I don't think it is really relevant to compare the two.

Are you referring to things like sweatshops and child labor?

I am talking about companies that use the government to initiate force on people. These companies get bought from all the time.

Secondly, the sweatshops are better than the alternatives (child prostitution, starvation). The evil sweatshops are actually not evil at all.

Giving up your wallet is better than getting shot and dying in the street; does that make a mugger "actually not evil at all"?

we are talking about violent criminals, and not some vague human rights violators.

Go tell people in diamond mines in Africa, being shot over condensed carbon, that they're actually just the "victims" of "vague human rights violators". Tell a bunch of girls with workplace-caused disfigurement that the employers who lied to them weren't violent criminals, and that because they would've starved to death rather than work there, that makes it OK.

I am talking about companies that use the government to initiate force on people.

Why are you talking about this? The subject was about ostracism in a society absent of government.

Giving up your wallet is better than getting shot and dying in the street; does that make a mugger "actually not evil at all"?

The mugger is aggressing. The sweatshop owner is providing an opportunity. I am not talking about EVERY sweatshop owner or whatever, just pointing out that people work there because the alternatives are worse. If it weren't for the factory owners, these people would likely be starving or resorting to prostitution.

Go tell people in diamond mines in Africa, being shot over condensed carbon, that they're actually just the "victims" of "vague human rights violators".

Yeah that is why I am trying to get you to specify who it is you are actually talking about. All you have said is "companies using the government to initiate force". Ok, which companies?

Why are you talking about this? The subject was about ostracism in a society absent of government.

I don't see how using the government to initiate force against people is irrelevant in a discussion about who would voluntarily do business with someone who was responsible for the initiation of force.

The mugger is aggressing. The sweatshop owner is providing an opportunity.

I'm sure the mugger thinks he's providing an opportunity as well. This... isn't a very good argument.

If it weren't for the fact that factories usually displace subsistence farmers and other people already providing infrastructure and value to their community, thus putting them in the precise situation where they have no alternatives, I might agree with you. If it weren't for the fact that these companies hire paramilitary mercs to kill union leaders who try to collectively bargain to increase the living standard, I might be on board with the idea of sweatshops.

***NOTE*** I didn't want to go too far off topic so I didn't reply to the last part about farmers. He seems to be ignoring the fact that those farmers could still be subsistence farmers if they wanted to. But I wanted to keep it about ostracism etc. (if you want to debate me on this, please start another thread)

I don't see how using the government to initiate force against people is irrelevant in a discussion about who would voluntarily do business with someone who was responsible for the initiation of force.

We were talking about violent people, though. You switched the subject to some vague (yes vague because you have not specified) companies that supposedly are violent on massive scales. If people really thought these companies were so violent, then they would actually be boycotted. The problem is that, whether true or not, people have not been sold on that idea.

You switched the subject to some vague (yes vague because you have not specified) companies that supposedly are violent on massive scales.

Xe is a private paramilitary security force that literally makes their money killing people. The people who run that company are not ostracized from society, they are fabulously wealthy even though it is well known what they do. According to most an-caps, any corporation also initiates force because they rely on the government to secure their debt and risk under penalty of violent force for those who don't comply with their liability laws. Are corporations ostracized? Lockeed Martin and other military contractors literally do nothing but develop better ways to kill people in wider swaths and with even less discrimination.

Do you think having LM or Blackwater on your resume will affect your ability to seek gainful employment in the private sector, or do business with people, even though it is widely known for a fact what these companies do?

Not right now. In a society that relies on heavily reputation, then yes.

People would rely more on individual reputation. Insurance agencies would likely make it a point to identify known violent criminals and make it public. If someone in company X goes on a rampage and murders people, they won't have government to rely on. For the bulk of the population now I believe thinks "if it was really that bad, the government would stop them". I am also not sure if I would consider the crimes of Blackwater widely known. Around discussion boards about politics, sure. But I would say that most Americans don't know much about Blackwater at all, including their crimes.

I would still say comparing Blackwater as a whole to known violent individuals is not a good comparison. If an individual from a company like Blackwater could be individually identified as a known violent criminal, in a free society I think he would be ostracized.

We can take the most blatant example of organizations like the U.S. military that are responsible for large amounts of deaths. Even being aware of the atrocities committed by them, when I see an individual soldier, I have absolutely no idea if he is a raging violent sociopath who has murdered people, or a cook on some base in South Korea. I would need an individual analysis to make a good judgement. With the combination of military worship and lack of a reputation system, there is no way to make this judgement right now. But in a free society, there would be no worship of the military, and there would be a heavily relied upon reputation and insurance system.

Again, I don't think it is useful to compare:

Groups (like Blackwater) that are composed of a mix between violent and non-violent people in a Statist society that relies exclusively on the government to declare who is a criminal and who is not

to

Known violent individual criminals in a society reliant heavily on insurance and reputation

Why? How do you incentivize this without begging the question? If I am looking for a product to fulfill my demand, like a toaster, what does it matter to me what the producer did to other individuals in the past if they provide me with the cheapest best toaster? A company that engages in force might alienate the people they engaged in force against, but that group is very rarely their consumers. Their consumers very rarely care, and I don't know how to get them to care, especially since that "care" will likely cost them money (companies engage in such aggression usually to cut costs and compete better).

when I see an individual soldier, I have absolutely no idea if he is a raging violent sociopath who has murdered people, or a cook on some base in South Korea.

I am beginning to wonder if you're only talking about ostracism of extremely violent individuals, rather than those who occasionally engage in intimidation or threats of force to secure what they want. All of your examples use that extreme. If that's the case, then even if you're right we've failed to discourage pernicious acts of aggression, only the most blatant examples.

Why?

Because people will still seek ways to organize society. If there is no State to rely on for organization, people will rely on other methods. I think ostracism would be one of them.

what does it matter to me what the producer did to other individuals in the past if they provide me with the cheapest best toaster?

Sure, it won't matter to everyone, but I think it would matter enough to make it more profitable to not specialize in dealing with violent criminals.

I am beginning to wonder if you're only talking about ostracism of extremely violent individuals

Yes. Your first reply on this was to "no one would want to vouch for having a violent person on their land".

We are talking about known violent individuals. The post you were replying to specified this. We are not talking about groups composed of unidentifiable individuals who cannot be confirmed to be violent criminals or not.

Because people will still seek ways to organize society.

Yes, that doesn't mean they pick what you want them to. In all likeliness ,they're going to pick the easiest thing to do for them as individual actors, which is to pick the product that maximizes their utility and not give a care about what the business does otherwise.

Sure, it won't matter to everyone,

Seriously, you have not told me what specifically would change in human beings in an ancap society to make them care more about it than they do now. Will getting rid of government make people care more about others than themselves? How does literally throwing the conception of an institution for "a common good" out the window make people see beyond themselves more rather than less?

"no one would want to vouch for having a violent person on their land".

Then what you're saying is that ostracism will only discourage incredibly violent crimes? Not the whole gamut of initiations of force, like fraud etc. that currently the government discourages?

In all likeliness ,they're going to pick the easiest thing to do for them as individual actors, which is to pick the product that maximizes their utility and not give a care about what the business does otherwise.

A lot of people get utility by not associating with violent criminals. A lot of people would get utility from a reputation system itself. As in, people benefit from knowing who is and who isn't a criminal, and then altering their actions based upon that information.

Seriously, you have not told me what specifically would change in human beings in an ancap society to make them care more about it than they do now.

Nothing would have to change about humans. They already generally do not like associating with violent criminals. Right now they rely on the State to achieve this. Nothing about human beings not wanting to associate with criminals would have to change. The only thing that would change is the means to which they obtain that goal.

Once reliance on the State is gone, people will find alternative ways to organize. I think insurance combined with reputation would fill the void. Bad reputation = high insurance costs. If your reputation is bad enough, insurance companies won't want their customers dealing with them (leads ultimately to ostracism). So even if some people get a thrill from dealing with violent criminals, it could still be discouraged by the insurance agency.

Why would insurance agencies want to discourage associating with violent criminals? I will let you figure that out. I think the social aspect is enough, but the social stigma combined with insurance incentives would make it unlikely that violent criminals would be associated with on any meaningful scale.

Then what you're saying is that ostracism will only discourage incredibly violent crimes?

No. The subject we are talking about is violent criminals. So that is why I am talking about it. But I kind of answered that above anyways.

 

[Wesker1982]

The empirical evidence is against you here.

Not at all. If more people got utility from associating with violent criminals than those who didn't, then society would consist mostly of criminals. The evidence is in the fact that being a violent criminal is very unpopular. Of course you can point to groups who benefit from criminals, but that group is the minority. The vast majority of people do not gain utility from violent criminals.

Which is why Coca-Cola and Halliburton are bankrupt... oh wait.

Not a relevant comparison. You repeat this assertion, but ignore any response to it.

You are comparing groups that consist of a mix of both violent criminals and non-criminals to known individual violent criminals.

You are expecting people to treat these two the same:

X = A State protected company that has 5,000 employees. The amount of violent criminals is unknown. Most the people who work here are not violent criminals. The violent criminals that do work here do not have their crimes investigated by 3rd parties because people rely on the State to take care of it. And since it is a State protected company, it is also illegal for anyone outside of the State to seriously investigate it.

vs

Y = A known violent individual criminal.

People will treat individual Y far differently than the whole group X. People would remove known individual rapists and murderers from their property.

 

[Cabal]

That's the same guy who is arguing against self-ownership lol

 

[TheTexan]

I favor deportation over imprisonment. Maybe give the criminal the option.

 

[Wesker1982]

That's the same guy who is arguing against self-ownership lol

I think I am starting to see why he picked that screename lol.

If more people got utility from associating with violent criminals than those who didn't, then society would consist mostly of criminals.

Does not follow. What follows from your "if" is a "it's likely that society would consist mostly of people who voluntarily associated with violent criminals" which is sort of actually true anyway. But I didn't say people derived utility from associating with criminals. I simply said they didn't derive utility from not. The two are not the same. I hope that's obvious.

Not a relevant comparison.

Coca-Cola and Halliburton are, respectively, an organization that condoned the use of violence to assassinate a union leader for doing nothing wrong, and an organization that willfully associates with a violent criminal, and one who is widely regarded as a violent criminal. It was a top-level decision that everyone knows about. There are no auspices. And yet, people still happily associate with them.

company that has 5,000 employees. The amount of violent criminals is unknown.

The elephant in the room is that you think this situation for this company would somehow be different in an ancap society. Do you think companies stop becoming ambiguous masses of people with no clear moral signals when we get rid of government? Because unless they do, all of your arguments directly apply to why ostracism won't work to discourage companies from behaving badly.

You said people will pick products that maximize their utility.

In all likeliness ,they're going to pick the easiest thing to do for them as individual actors, which is to pick the product that maximizes their utility and not give a care about what the business does otherwise.

Associating with honest and non-violent people is one way to maximize utility. Doing honest business itself will add utility for a lot of people. I think this includes most people. When comparing an identical product, I believe most people's utility will be higher if they buy it from a non-violent person vs a violent person. That is a relevant comparison.

I simply said they didn't derive utility from not.

This isn't what you said. But I disagree with it anyways. I and most people I could imagine do indeed gain satisfaction and pleasure (utility) from not dealing with violent criminals.

Halliburton gets government contracts and receives State privileges. So people have to pay them. They have no choice. They can't just quit associating with Halliburton. The government takes their money and gives it to Halliburton without their consent. So this not an example of people voluntarily trading with criminals.

The Coca-Cola thing helps prove my point. If the leaders are criminals, not many people know about it. The leaders of Coca-Cola are not known criminals. Therefore, people are not going to treat them like known criminals.

You should not expect the same results when comparing how society reacts to known violent criminals vs people who are not known to be violent criminals.

Do you think companies stop becoming ambiguous masses of people with no clear moral signals when we get rid of government?

No, but they won't get away with as much. They use the force of the State for protection, to impose barriers to entry for competitors, and various other special privileges. Their power will be almost non-existent without it.

 

[ProIndividual]

Doesn't all of this presuppose "criminals" are one type of person?

I mean what if two murderers wish to engage in a social contract together voluntarily where they kill each other, but not any unwilling people who do not engage in said social contract with them?

In anarchic legal order, all voluntary law that sucks balls, like the one I just described, will still be allowed. It's not boxing or S&M sex we wish to ban, it's assault and rape. The essential difference is whether the participants are willingly partaking in their detrimental masochistic activities.

Sadism, bad. Masochism, bad but allowed.

So I think many sociopaths will be covered by private law and have places to go...away from the rest of us! The only real criminals left in that world will be those who aggress against unwillng participants. Since they can find other willing people to engage in their Mad Maxian fetishes, there will be far fewer of them to deal with than there are now.

As for the Hoppe-style concept of all land being completely private....that's never going to happen as long as no coercion is allowed. Some people will voluntarily pool their property into communal property and public land will therefore exist. Also, some anarchists will reject property altogether and live non-coercively on such communes. Nothing can stop them from these voluntary associations besides coercion.

Also, there is the problem of conflict of rights. If your already established private road is used as a thoroughfare you cannot use it to aggress against others unalienable (not able to be sold, transfered, and not subject to border) rights or property rights (alienable - able to be sold, transfered, and subject to border) in particular. For example:

If town A and town C are separated by the only road in existence possible between them (suppose on the side of mountain or some such situation) in town B like...

A - B - C

...then town B cannot shutdown it's road to all left handed people going from A to C, or all women going from C to A, in an attempt to bankrupt one town or the other, or both. Why?

Because the alienable right to property is not only subject to it's inability to be used aggressively against others right to property, but more importantly, it cannot be used aggressively against the unalienable right to movement. When unalienable rights conflict with alienable rights, unalienable rights always win. As long as you pay the toll and have not agressed against B's property, then he may NEVER govern you via his property right. No compulsory governance of another is allowed...ever. The only way to exclude people from a publicly used thoroughfare is to 1) make it no longer available to the public at all, or 2) stopping people who do not pay from using it. Any coercive criteria beyond those things would be using property to coerce and compulsorily govern another person...which would be a pseudo state.

Movement being an unalienable right can only be stopped via fair criteria, like fees for usage, or land not available to anyone for public usage (albeit private fee oriented ownership). It's the difference between a home/private club and a business open to the public. But even that has limits. You cannot block someone from being rushed to hospital if they lack the fee at that moment...you must bill them, sue them for property to renumerate you, etc. Their unalienable right to life overrules your alienable right to property.

This can be hard to comprehend for absolutists on property, but lets look at another example to shed light on the principle.

Again, the principle is: no alienable right can overrule an unalienable right.

A is a 6 year old child lost and trying to find their mother...B is the only way for A to get to C, their mother....A nor C have the fee necessary at the moment to get to each other using B's road....

...so B cannot refuse the unalienable right to movement for A or C to reach each other. B must bill A for her use of his road and sue her for her property, labor, etc., if she won't pay.

Furthermore, B cannot shoot and kill 6 year old A if she trespasses illegally. He must assume her innocent mistake. Why? Her unalienable right to life overrules his alienable right to property. The burden is on B to show a reasonable expectation of harm coming to his person, properties, or valued persons or properties (like family and and their properties, for example)...and walking on your lawn doesn't qualify.

The thing to notice is that utilitarian and NAP concepts converge on two things; what decreases human pain in net for the parties involved, and what is the "path of least coercion". At all times, what is least coercive in a situation where no non-coercive choice exists is the ethical answer in anarchy. Where no perfect answer for all parties exists, deference is given to the least coercive answer (regardless of what party benefits most or least from this outcome).

Disputes would be settled via each person's contractual law service via panarchism (basically private legal insurance and enforcement companies). Often this would include renumeration for inconvenience to those coerced in the "path of least coercion". The person who failed to yield to the least coerive outcome for all would be the one held liable...as they are the one governing others who have not aggressed first.

More on this ethical concept of "path of least coercion" here: The Non-Aggression Axiom, Utilitarianism, and Natural Law: Differentiating Morality, Practicality, and Legality


More on panarchism and anarchist legal order at the bottom of this page.

 

[ProIndividual]

I favor deportation over imprisonment. Maybe give the criminal the option.

I agree...previous to states, anthropologists show that exile and banishment was the prevelant punishment for murder and rape...mostly because the populations were sparse and they didn't endanger other communities by doing this, and because surviving alone was nearly impossible in hunter-gatherer society.

I often joke that as an anarchist I'd prefer a prisonless society...of course given flight and the inability to keep helicopters off desert islands, we'll require space penal colonies to achieve this prisonless planet.