Outline for a Freedom Insurance business

[Dave Ridley]

For the last month, since Tracy posted his message about the "Freedom Insurance" idea:

http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=4326.0

?I've been thinking about it a lot.  Intially I thought it was something I would support, as opposed to something I would start myself.   Now I'm not so sure I want to wait around!   So I've been working on a plan to turn it into reality without complex preparations. 

For those of you not familiar with the concept, basically an FI company is just what it says:  a business that ensures your liberty.  If you come under certain types of government persecution, and you are a policyholder, the company undertakes a wide variety of actions in your defense. 

I'm chomping at the bit to articulate what all the benefits would be for customers...but let's save the best for last.

Forming a "freedom insurance" company could be the fastest, most bottom-up way for us to reclaim our liberties...a market-based point defense against the enforcement of bad laws.  Already, many of these go unenforced or unevenly enforced because people won't tolerate their strict application, because officials feel silly enforcing them or because they don't want to go to the trouble. Maybe we can build on that.  Maybe we can create a wall of deterrence between freedom-killing officials and their victims.

Having mulled over what you guys had to say about the idea, as well as what Warren Tilsen originally had in mind...here's *roughly* what *I* have in mind, and consider *potentially* within my ability to deliver during the coming year.

Small start:  No seed money, no office, no center
No employees.  Just me and whoever I hire out freelance?might include a ?backup me? to take the helm if I drive into a moose.
Limited, achievable objectives, limited complexity, limited overhead.
Simple, flat policy premium:  A dollar a day.  Policy lasts six months then you ditch or renew.
High risk folks rejected (reluctantly) from coverage at this stage; people I don't know also rejected at first
If endeavor were to reach certain size and complexity I'd probably hire a lieutenant with accounting/business/insurance experience to complement my activist skills.

Claims could be made if you face jail time or government-inflicted property seizures totaling over $1000, with key caveats listed in the "not covered" section below

Things covered could include:
  - Tax resistance
  - Running an unlicensed business
  - Harmless zoning violations
  - Eminent domain cases
  - Harmless violations of gun law
  - Soft drug use
  - Driving without ID
And most other harmless illegal activates

Not covered:
- Crimes that hurt or endanger others without their consent 
- Charges of such crimes
- Charges involving minors, animal abuse or hard drugs
- Certain types of civil disobedience
- Persecution which occurs outside NH

But the company would reserve the right to defend claimants from time to time whose situation is technically not covered.

The insurance premium would presumably create a fund, and motivation, big enough to enable more effective defenses than those we've already mounted.  These could include the types of things we've already has success with, as well as some fun new activities:

Social support
Ads   
Fully Informed Jury activity
PR stunts
"Raids" on perpetrators' offices
Demonstrations
Polite calls to perps
Moral persuasion
LTEs
Civil disobedience
Support for political rivals of perps
Legislation to repeal the law that triggered the claim

The company would be contractually obligated to complete certain such actions within a given timeframe.

Policyholder defense would *not* involve:

Attorneys (not yet anyway)
Harassment/Rudeness/Intimidation
Backing the perps into a corner
Violence
Reimbursement for fines (That would be like indirectly paying off the authorities)

The idea would be to make a polite, moral case to the perps first, then - if necessary - to their bosses and the public shortly thereafter. The goal would be one of two outcomes:

- Get authorities to drop charges, return property and end threats to the same or
- Arrive at an agreement acceptable to the claimant

The more likely outcome would be closer to a stalemate, but unlike the Barbara Burbank type stalemate, our customers wouldn't be saddled with big legal bills -  at least not from us.

Despite the free market potential of the idea, and the ability to hire out some work, this project would only really rock if NHfree.com volunteers get as excited about claims as they do about current abuses.  We wouldn't be able to hire a bunch of demonstrators, for instance, nor would that necessarily be wise.  Hopefully various folks would see their own dreams for freedom safeguarded by coming to the aid of claimants and would attend FI events.

BENEFITS

Starting with the big picture and working our way up to the most important part (the policyholder):

A viable freedom insurance company, extending its umbrella over liberty lovers in New Hampshire, would be the only institution of its kind anywhere.  It could, to a limited extent, provide a vital service here and deliver a product that is in heavy demand but currently unavailable: Freedom!

It could have a delayed but electric effect on libertarian immigration, as people around the country start to realize there's only one place they can live if they want their freedoms insured.   It should generate media coverage before a claim is even processed - it's the very definition of a "new" thing.  It would, as Tilsen points out, provide focus.  If it did suffer lots of claims, the process of meeting them should generate more publicity and business.  If it came under attack by authorities, that should generate the same.

The process of meeting claims would also give courage to people who currently think their harmless violations of law are something to be ashamed of.  They would see others standing tall on their peaceful acts of defiance rather than submitting.  It would make "harmless disobedience" more mainstream and common.  It could help funnel authorities toward more legitimate prosecutions and arrests, for which the company would voice support.

Now:  As for policyholders, they should see key benefits, even if they never have a claim.  First among these would be an increased ability to defy nanny laws.  Folks otherwise deterred from starting businesses or building things, might now feel the freedom to go for it (hello economic growth)!  Depending on how things shake out there might be a deterrent effect in owning the policy. Perhaps there is also a potential "peace of mind" benefit, and a feeling that your premium money is going toward a vital pro-liberty cause rather than to lawyers or fines.

You would know that, even if you are persecuted, you won't be alone and *will* get public attention if you want it.  If you were a business owner with a claim, the publicity surrounding it could generate new customers.  And, a small but important thing, you'd get various deterrence-oriented paraphernalia, perhaps a bumper sticker that says:

My Freedom is Insured
www.FreedomInsurance.com

Now:  What do you think of this outline?  Where does it need improvement?  What other ideas do you have to add?  And if I took it to the next stage, would you buy a policy?

"A dollar a day
Keeps the government away"

[FTL_Ian]

What a brilliant idea, and well fleshed out.  I look forward to seeing it grow.  I'm definitely in for a policy, and am interested in investing in the future of the organization.

[Kat Kanning]

Would people like Russell be "high risk"?

[FTL_Ian]

Will MDMA (Ecstasy) and LSD be considered "soft drugs"?

[Russell Kanning]

At the beginning the $/day wouldn't really cover much, but it is the idea that is important. In some ways we do this amoungst friends informally and not much more formally in the tuath idea. The tuath is all voluntary and only as strong as our connections.
The Save-a-Patriot guys do something similar to this. When one person gets money stolen from them by the government, the group asks you to donate to them directly in the amount of $7-30 each month. I like that this one would be based on not paying fines and such.

[FTL_Ian]

Save-a-Patriot is sketchy to me, because they won't talk about how many members they have.

[Dave Ridley]

some side notes:  I e-mailed Warren Tilsen to see if he had any further thoughts or news regarding this concept but I didn't hear back from him.  The email address may be defunct.

Also I had this idea that the company could require disclosure of criminal records involving violence or fraud.  It could then accept or reject wannabe policyholders after considering their history.   But it wouldn't necessarily have to do background checks on policyholders.

If the policyholder had a claim but had an undisclosed criminal history of this type, I'm betting that would come out during the claim fulfillment process.  It could be grounds for abandonment of the claim - which would presumably be rather public and unceremonious. Perhaps this would deter real criminals from seeking policies.

I have the next two steps roughly gamed out but my scheming on those will be affected by what you guys have to say about Step One (the outline).

[Dave Ridley]

Yes I think if anyone I know could be called hi risk it's russell LOL

However the more hi risk someone is the more eager I would be to hire them for stuff heh heh

[Dave Ridley]

Will MDMA (Ecstasy) and LSD be considered "soft drugs"?

I dont' know, Ian.  I don't even know if I would stick with the non-coverage of hard drugs, and I don't know if I would stick with the *coverage* of soft drugs.  This is still a cross between a brainstorm and a plan, and it will change somewhat based on peoples' feedback.    And it will go away if they do not seem sufficiently interested. 

[FTL_Ian]

I'd be shocked if this doesn't take off in popularity.

[Kat Kanning]

With big electrodes?

[Dave Ridley]

With big electrodes?

?

[Dave Ridley]

dada am drawing up Step Two now.

[Dave Ridley]

Ian with regard to the drug harm graph...would it be fair to say that the relatively high alleged damage done by cannabis, and the relatively low alleged damage done by ecstacy is a result of more people using cannabis than ex?  Or is the higher cannabis usage factored into the factored into the graph?  maybe what I'm asking is...  does ex do less damage because fewer people use it or because it is less dangerous in its effects?

BTW stop and think about this for a minute... how empowering is this...  after years of hypothetical discussion as to whether a drug should be legal (knowing our opinion will probably never affect its legality)  now perhaps we are in a position to make a decision ourselves, as to whether its use will be protected...   That is a real shocker even after three weeks of thinking about it.

[Dave Ridley]

Here's an advantage I thought of related to not covering certain controversial things....

In the future, we could expand our coverage to include those things, and when we do, it will probably make the news.

the other advantage is that we keep those controversial things off our back at first.