Good Behavior w/o Police

[John Edward Mercier]

You mentioned DROs.  To my knowledge such an organization has almost never been in existence.  Similar things have, though.  For example... in Iraq, and Palestine, the militias are the largest providers of charity.  To those who doubt the effectiveness of private militias, pay attention to the general effectiveness of the militias in Iraq as they frustrate the united states army.  While it is true that in the 'democratic' setup that is in place in both regions has resulted in the militia leaders being involved in gov't, if they were not propped up by outside aid the gov't would fall very quickly.  this has happened for 14 years in Somalia, where the clans would never let another rule over it.  The united nations has spent over 2 billion dollars trying to establish a gov't there. 

Where did the charitable donations come from?
Guerrila warfare will always frustrate a standing army.

[John Edward Mercier]

Can I make a bold inference?
If there were less laws, and thus less crime,... wouldn't that equate to less policing?

[David]

To clarify, the largest charity in Iraq is Shia, it is run by the largest militia in Iraq, the Mahdi Army.  I assume most of those are donations.  I have some trouble believing that even most of the money they have, is the product of extortion.  I believe this also of Hamas as well.  One of the reasons they were popular in the last election is that they were believed to be the less corrupt.  The basis of my belief that the militias are relatively non coercive, is because there would be some resistance to the coercion if they weren't.  Having said that, these are violent areas of the world to begin with, and it is difficult for any to change their way of life.  But I believe few humans enjoy living for the sake of others, and would violently resist attempts in many cases to force them too. 
As imperfect as they are, the militias are a partial answer to a problem.  That is the problem of a horribly repressive gov't or police state. 
Btw, the runaway, and sometimes impossible to control violence is THE reason I do not in general support the gun cleaners in their threats against the gov't.  In our own history, the militias led to a federal gov't. 

[J’raxis 270145]

To clarify, the largest charity in Iraq is Shia, it is run by the largest militia in Iraq, the Mahdi Army.  I assume most of those are donations.  I have some trouble believing that even most of the money they have, is the product of extortion.  I believe this also of Hamas as well.  One of the reasons they were popular in the last election is that they were believed to be the less corrupt.  The basis of my belief that the militias are relatively non coercive, is because there would be some resistance to the coercion if they weren't.  Having said that, these are violent areas of the world to begin with, and it is difficult for any to change their way of life.  But I believe few humans enjoy living for the sake of others, and would violently resist attempts in many cases to force them too. 
As imperfect as they are, the militias are a partial answer to a problem.  That is the problem of a horribly repressive gov't or police state. 
Btw, the runaway, and sometimes impossible to control violence is THE reason I do not in general support the gun cleaners in their threats against the gov't.  In our own history, the militias led to a federal gov't. 

Did I say or imply these charities were collecting through coercive means? I was talking about what private entities will eventually become in the midst of a power vacuum, which is not the current situation in any of these places.

[Kat Kanning]

Can I make a bold inference?
If there were less laws, and thus less crime,... wouldn't that equate to less policing?

Nice and simple

[reteo]

Much like the private defense companies some propose to replace police, this sounds like yet another scheme that would simply result in the replacement of one State with a another—one that eventually evolved out of these insurance companies.

If there is going to be a state, it would be best handled by the market.

Many of those onerous safety regulations businesses have to follow nowadays are a result of legislation. . . . Ridiculously paranoid policies about "sexual harassment" and other "inappropriate" workplace behavior—because in the event of a lawsuit, it's the insurer who shells out for it.

Okay, we at least agree on this.

Right now, the parts of our lives that are not controlled by the State are very often controlled by insurance companies.   . . .  many of them [onerous safety regulations] are a result of their liability insurance carrier's rules. No smoking on the premises—because the fire insurance would've cost more. No customer restrooms—because the restrooms are in the back and the liability insurance doesn't cover that part of the building.

So what?  The business is owned by the business owner, and if the owner wants to save money on insurance, then they can do this.  If they want the increased revenue from people who protest such policies, then they can spend more on insurance.

How about car insurance? Violate a traffic law, and not only does the State fine us, but now the insurance company will raise our rates. Not only is the state trying to force us to follow their rules, but so are the insurance companies!

There's that ugly "L" word again.

Health insurance? No smoking—or our premiums will go up. No eating unhealthy foods—or our premiums will go up. No risky lifestyle—or our premiums will go up. Our doctors' recommendations on diet and exercise become orders—or our premiums will go up.

So... if you practice more risky behavior, you run the risk of spending more on healthcare.  This applies even if you are paying in cash.  I don't see the problem.

It's their money, so it's only reasonable they get to make rules for us to follow, right? And of course, it's voluntary—we weren't forced to buy insurance. Oh, but... "you have to have it." Just in case. Because the potential costs for not having it when we need it are so high.* And so on.

As opposed to a government where you have to have it because you are forced to pay, whether or not you use it.  Seems reasonable to me.

In addition, the interest of insurance providers are to provide the best services without losing money.  They have their profits to consider, as well as the competition.  More expensive policies send customers to competition.  Poorer-quality healthcare send customers to competition.  Consumer advocate groups can and will form to track the performance of such providers.

And don't think the insurance companies aren't gleefully gaming the system in order to ensure those costs are so high.

They're gleefully gaming the system now.  It's called lobbying.  And the difference is that lobbying can prevent competition from forming to take their business away.

In your scenario, these "reputation insurance" providers (RIPs?), through the usual tricks of marketing and propaganda most corporations employ, would quickly engineer the beliefs of the people among whom they exist such that they are under the impression that one must buy reputation insurance; anyone who doesn't would have "no reputation"—and thus ought to be automatically considered untrustworthy. The RIPs would create a "reputation rating" system, rate each of their customers accordingly, and convince us all to believe that a person with "no reputation" is as untrustworthy as a person with a bad "reputation score."

So, of course, we would all sign up with an RIP, simply in order to get one of their damned numbers so people will trust us. And as a customer, there'd be all sorts of rules we'd have to follow: Perhaps they'd tell us we can't do business with no-rep or bad-rep people, period, preventing us from using our own judgment. Perhaps they'd prohibit us all from drinking alcohol, because we're more likely to engage in reckless or criminal behavior while drunk. Perhaps they'd even tell us what we can't say, or can't write about, in order to limit their risk of paying out for a defamation lawsuit.

And if we don't follow these rules, our RIPs will rip us a new one either by raising our rates or lowering our rep score.

R.I.P., our freedom.

In your scenario, this government, through the usual tricks of propaganda and police most governments employ, would quickly engineer the beliefs of the people among whom they exist such that they are under the impression that one obey the law; anyone who doesn't would be imprisoned or killed. The government would create a legal system, rate each of their citizens accordingly, and convince us all to believe that a person wiho is illegal must be turned into the police.

Of course, we are signed up with a government at birth, since we have no choice. And as a citizen, there'd be all sorts of rules we'd have to follow: Perhaps they'd tell us we can't do business with criminals or illegal people, period, preventing us from using our own judgment. They tried to prohibit us all from drinking alcohol, because we're more likely to engage in reckless or criminal behavior while drunk. Theyn even tell us what we can't say, or can't write about, in order to keep the busybodies happy.

And if we don't follow these rules, our government will either imprison or kill us.

R.I.P. Freedom.

In addition, who said anything about a score?  I actually oppose the use of an external score; the system I'm designing would not include any way of sending internal scoring information to third parties, this would be a privacy issue, and would quickly encourage clients to move to other providers.  The insurance agency would pay damages, and adjust the premiums accordingly.

Once the State is gone, any private entity that tries to engineer dependence, or place itself in a position where people believe that they "have to have it" needs to be resisted. Dependency is evil. Insurance is evil. Relying on someone else to provide us with defense, or "cover our ass" when we need it, is short-sighted, foolish, and a recipe for our own enslavement. Now, purveyors of such product certainly have a right to exist in a free market, but they ought be treated with the same suspicion and contempt that a loan shark or drug dealer receives. They should not be encouraged.

Emphasis mine.

This is one idea.  This is not the only one.  I am providing an alternative to government, which, by the way, is the very name of this forum.  This is not the only one, and I'm sure others can come up with better ones.

Because, once everyone is dependent on them... it's only a very short journey until they become the new State and us their new subjects.

And the odds of everyone becoming dependent on one of a possible number of different systems?

The rent-seeking behavior of many insurance companies—getting states to pass laws mandating certain forms of insurance under certain circumstances (drivers required to have car insurance, college students and Massachusetts subjects required to have health insurance, businesses required to have liability insurance, &c.)—certainly plays a major part of the clout insurance companies have over people, but it's not necessary. Even when insurance is 100% voluntary they still engage in these controlling behaviors.

The laws are what allows insurance companies to have that kind of stranglehold.  As I am fond of saying: competition is the natural enemy of greed.  Laws tend to hinder the competition.

[David]

I am a fan of looking at how things were handled in the past, and today, because it gives me an example of what people might be comfortable with today. 
People in the near past seem to like ebays customer ratings system.  Business today hire private security, (a booming growth industry in fact) but they usually are only to insure safety of its property, and to prevent lawsuits and gov't shutdowns, (as such they do enforce drug laws etc).  Homeowners buy guns, dogs, burgler bars, security monitoring etc. to provide security.  In a utopia with no police, the security monitoring would have no choice but to contract with someone to do a security type job to respond to alarms. 
The desire to protect ones self is fundamental. 

[John Edward Mercier]

Economics is fundamental.
If the cost of services related to your new system exceeds the current cost of services... then your system is inefficient and will seek efficiencies. This is what corporations currently do, and the major complaint of those people that have anti-corporate tendencies.

[reteo]

Indeed, and since the government is there to "reduce inefficiencies," coprorations lobby to do just that.  Whether it is to raise the bar against startups, or to strangle the small businesses, it is the use of government force that achieves just about every single evil that corporations are known for.

[John Edward Mercier]

I need a clarification on 'government is there to reduce inefficiencies'.

[reteo]

I need a clarification on 'government is there to reduce inefficiencies'.

That was actually meant as sarcasm; by "Reduce inefficiencies," I refer to methods of reducing competition, such as patents, copyright, regulation, licensing, monopoly privelege, subsidies, and securing exceptions to all of the above.

[John Edward Mercier]

Patent and copyright is a type of property protection.
Regulation is weird in the fact that many times it works against itself.

[reteo]

Patent and copyright is a type of property protection.

This is, of course, VERY highly debatable.

Regulation is weird in the fact that many times it works against itself.

...And against the customer.

[J’raxis 270145]

Patent and copyright is a type of property protection.

Except it's not property to begin with.

[John Edward Mercier]

Patent and copyright is a type of property protection.

Except it's not property to begin with.

Maybe not real property, but it is property.