Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Unregistered
aliases
- Xaq Fixx
- Xaq Fixx
- Xaq Fixx
- Xombie Xaq Fixx
- Xaq Fixx
- Xaq Fixx
- Xaq Fixx
- Xaq Fixx
Xaq Fixx
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 months ago
in Jesse Walker’s Broken Somalian Window on FR33 AGENTS
Great article Greg, your best work on here yet.
1 reply
Greg N.
Thanks!
2 months ago
in Julian Sanchez on the “Tea Parties.” on FR33 AGENTS
Greg,
I also really recommend Thomas Knapp's article over at the Center for a Stateless Society on the Tea Parties:
http://c4ss.org/content/369
It shows that Anarchists and Minarchists can work together and offers a rare message of hope instead of cynicism about these protest from a liberty activist.
I also really recommend Thomas Knapp's article over at the Center for a Stateless Society on the Tea Parties:
http://c4ss.org/content/369
It shows that Anarchists and Minarchists can work together and offers a rare message of hope instead of cynicism about these protest from a liberty activist.
1 reply
Greg
Good read, and largely correct. Thanks for the link.
3 months ago
in Can competing protection agencies prevent rape? on FR33 AGENTS
Greg,
Yes, I think it may come down to lawyers in some cases. Society I imagine would be no more litigious than it currently is, but, there will be a more simple common law based system. This would be less a lawyers dream than where we currently live with near countless volumes or codified law that only a lawyer can understand.
Yes, I think it may come down to lawyers in some cases. Society I imagine would be no more litigious than it currently is, but, there will be a more simple common law based system. This would be less a lawyers dream than where we currently live with near countless volumes or codified law that only a lawyer can understand.
1 reply
Greg
I'll leave the discussion where it stands, but as an aside I've never understood the claim that the common law is somehow simple and easy to understand, or useful for reducing litigation. All rules have to be interpreted, and judge-made law is no different. Hundreds of cases - some controlling, others not - each a bit different from the others and some degree of logical distinction away from the instant case, that's not an easy task for the layperson either. I do understand all the reasons for preferring common law to statute (Bruno Leoni, Hayek and all that), but I've never found the claim that statute = confusing, common law simple very compelling.
3 months ago
in Can competing protection agencies prevent rape? on FR33 AGENTS
Greg,
I did not assume that everyone would be covered, as I said in my initial response "...or if they do not have an agency, bills the victim directly." To answer the question "what right would a protection agency have to bill a victim directly," you can consider the historic use of pay per use fire departments, or even modern ambulance services, that pick you up, if you are unable to consent and still have a right to bill you. I believe it is called "presumed consent" - A person, if able to consent, could be reasonably expected to give consent. (please forgive me for not remembering the terminology off hand)
In the state system you cannot opt out, you cannot chose to live outside a protected neighborhood. In a stateless society you could, for example, live in a more rural area without a professional protection agency. If you choose a protection agency that will cover you in rural areas, it may cost more, as the population o find it is less dense, but this is still a choice.
You could also live in a neighborhood with a armed neighborhood watch group, instead of a professional force, This has been done in the past in large US city ghettos where the police didn't tread.
You may even choose to opt out entirely of a defense force, and only choose something like insurance and arbitration. There is no coercion involved, and there are much more options.
I did not assume that everyone would be covered, as I said in my initial response "...or if they do not have an agency, bills the victim directly." To answer the question "what right would a protection agency have to bill a victim directly," you can consider the historic use of pay per use fire departments, or even modern ambulance services, that pick you up, if you are unable to consent and still have a right to bill you. I believe it is called "presumed consent" - A person, if able to consent, could be reasonably expected to give consent. (please forgive me for not remembering the terminology off hand)
In the state system you cannot opt out, you cannot chose to live outside a protected neighborhood. In a stateless society you could, for example, live in a more rural area without a professional protection agency. If you choose a protection agency that will cover you in rural areas, it may cost more, as the population o find it is less dense, but this is still a choice.
You could also live in a neighborhood with a armed neighborhood watch group, instead of a professional force, This has been done in the past in large US city ghettos where the police didn't tread.
You may even choose to opt out entirely of a defense force, and only choose something like insurance and arbitration. There is no coercion involved, and there are much more options.
2 replies
Greg
I think you're talking about implied consent, but that is generally restricted to times when a victim is unable to offer consent and it's reasonable under the circumstances to assume the person would have given consent. However, in the case of an ongoing crime, a victim isn't necessarily incapable of consent. Some victims may actively reject the help of a particular protection agency (out of personal animus toward the owner, say, or because the victim believes such help is emasculating). What then? Do the private cops just shrug their shoulders and walk away? If not, and they catch the criminal, then bill the victim, aren't we back in court trying to figure out if a reasonable person would have consented, or if the rejection was valid, etc.? Anarchy sounds like a lawyer's dream.
Xaq Fixx
There were other post that cover some of the options I made here that I didn't read until after posting, I do apologize.
3 months ago
in Can competing protection agencies prevent rape? on FR33 AGENTS
I imagine that the several agencies would be able to work together, through reciprocity agreements. Every agency would have an incentive to increase safety not only ON their clients property, but around it too, in order to reduce the likelihood of a more major, and therefore more expensive event. Working with other local agencies would help reduce this cost to any one agency. A 911-style system could even be operated by a third party, they aren't owned by a protection agency but are funded through all of hem, somewhat like the credit reporting agencies are today. The credit reporting agency isn't owned by Mastercard/Visa/Mortgage company but all pay for their services. The 911 provider would coordinate who is responding based on distance and how they are equipped, based on info provided from the agencies and GPS & Radio data. (think air traffic controller)
I think it would work like this:
1. Someone calls 911.
2. 911 dispatcher/event coordinator contacts nearest protection agents.
3. Protection agency shows up as quickly as possible to resolve the situation.
4. Responding agency then bills victim's protection agency, or if they do not have an agency, bills the victim directly.
I agree with Clay that .45 is faster than the cop going 45. Some people don't want to carry a gun, I think their premiums may be higher because of this.
I think it would work like this:
1. Someone calls 911.
2. 911 dispatcher/event coordinator contacts nearest protection agents.
3. Protection agency shows up as quickly as possible to resolve the situation.
4. Responding agency then bills victim's protection agency, or if they do not have an agency, bills the victim directly.
I agree with Clay that .45 is faster than the cop going 45. Some people don't want to carry a gun, I think their premiums may be higher because of this.
- 2 points
- Jump to »
Greg N.
I think the scenario you outlined is probably about right, but what right would the protection agency have to bill the victim directly? Further, might we see the same kind of reticence to pay a competing protection agency that current insurance providers show when asked to pay a claim? Would we be bogged down in litigation about whether one protection agency's claims are valid (if so, who gets the final say on that question?)?
As far as the incentive of each agency to protect the area around their client's property, isn't the opposite problem just as likely? That is, might we rather see protection agencies shirking their obligations in the hopes that other, nearby agencies will do their work for them? Seems like the classic free-rider problem.
As far as the incentive of each agency to protect the area around their client's property, isn't the opposite problem just as likely? That is, might we rather see protection agencies shirking their obligations in the hopes that other, nearby agencies will do their work for them? Seems like the classic free-rider problem.
cobbhc
I think that would be a reasonable business model that could improve public safety a great deal. I think this system in general would help people realize that now matter how high-tech or streamlined the process would ever get that it's no substitute for being personal responsibility for one's safety.
4 months ago
in Create your own government, or don’t on FR33 AGENTS
In a bit of shameless self promotion I wanted to share a link with you all, I interviewed Patri last year for the Podcrash, Bureaucrash's official podcast, you can listen to the interview here: http://bureaucrash.com/2008/11/14/podcrash-013-...
1 reply
Jason
Is this the same interview that Tom linked to in the post? :-)
It's a really god interview, Xaq, Keep up the good work with the podcrash.
It's a really god interview, Xaq, Keep up the good work with the podcrash.
9 months ago
in No Gas in North Carolina Thanks to Anti-Gouging Laws on OpenMarket.org
Another wierd part of the story...
I work in Charlotte, live in SC just across the border (you can see NC from my back porch) and the price difference is amazing. By my wife's office in Charlotte it is $6 a gallon, across the street from our neighborhood, in SC, it's only $3.99 a gallon. There is no talk of shortages on our side of the border.
I work in Charlotte, live in SC just across the border (you can see NC from my back porch) and the price difference is amazing. By my wife's office in Charlotte it is $6 a gallon, across the street from our neighborhood, in SC, it's only $3.99 a gallon. There is no talk of shortages on our side of the border.
1 reply
Nancyf
Sounds like they were gouging people anyway....hope they get caught!
