Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[firsty]

I'd be interested if it would cover me for simple possession of a small amount of pot. So far I have a clean criminal record and I would like to keep it that way until I get a "real" job.

yeah, me too.

the more i think about it, the more i think this would be, indeed, simply another way to pay off the authorities. more corruption - how is that good?

[AmerTownCrier]

I'm far more interested in supporting an NH based business run by an FSP member than I am S-A-P.

No, no, no! I'm not saying go thru SAP (they wouldn't do it anyhow). I was just trying to point out that their Defense Fund makes CD a worthwhile activity. 

[Dave Ridley]

With regard to the fears that a Freedom Insurance company would suffer this or that type of persecution...

Most of these concerns appear to be things I've thought of and factored in, but I do still need ideas how to combat the threats.   And more ideas how the threats might play out.

The idea of customers being persecuted is something I've wondered about, and I think eventually we'd need a process by which people could be insured without the *company* even knowing who they are.   I have a pretty good idea how to do this.   

Presumably their affiliation with us would become known if they had a claim, but at least they could stay stealthy until then and avoid persecution-for-being-a-customer.   If such a thing even happens.  It's important to plan for the worst, but I can't see how the government would put much priority on persecuting some experimental institution filled with nice friendly people who at worst are *maybe* a vague eventual threat to their jobs, no threat at all to their safety.   While the organization is hypothetical, or small, their best bet is to leave it alone and exect it to fail like most businesses do.   That's likely going to be what they want to do, because it's less work.

Once it is bigger, it can hold its own and they have been around it enough to know it's not that much of a threat to them anyway.

[Dave Ridley]

Rebel wrote:
<< Cause if someone needs physical protection from the police/Feds, there could be serious prison time for the protection services>>

I don't envision "physical protection from the feds."  That's the type of resistance that gives them more power.   This is more like moral protection and propaganda protection.

Firsty wrote:
<<whats to prevent the govt from simply getting that list and making the rounds thru the neighborhood, arresting everyone?>>

Their natural human aversion to hours upon hours of difficult unpopular work.   The fact that they have bigger fish to fry, (which I would in many cases support their frying of)!

earth wrote:
<< I'd be interested if it would cover me for simple possession of a small amount of pot.>>

I'm leaning toward a "yes" answer on that.  the more I think about it the more I like the idea of covering pot specifically, in all quantities, but not covering any other illegal drug.  I just see this as what's doable based on the current outlook of NH residents.  NH uses more pot per capita than any other state, but almost everyone who has been welcoming to us has a problem with hard drug   I guess I see this as a tip of the hat to them.  And there's a propensity to overidentify libertarians with the drug issue.   But eventually if it seemed the right thing to do, we could expand coverage to include responsible use of other drugs.   

I'm still undecided so keep the feedback rolling in.

[Dave Ridley]

<<the more i think about it, the more i think this would be, indeed, simply another way to pay off the authorities. more corruption - how is that good?>>

That sounds like a criticism of SAP, not freedom insurance.  I was pretty specific in the original outline about my feeling that we should not help anyone pay fines.

[firsty]

ok, two last thoughts - if i picture a cop arresting someone for drug possession and finding out that that person is covered by this insurance, it's not going to take long for the cops to get really pissed off. this results in: pissed off cops. the other thing is that, how do you keep this from becoming another way for the poor to lose out. if you cant afford this insurance, you're now even more likely to get arrested for these small "crimes."

(sorry about that last comment - you're right. i was a victim of skimming.)

on the other side of the coin, i like the idea of a group like this...i think you're considering it from many angles and thats the thing to do - anticipate (obviously)...but what about combining it (expressly) with a sort of advocacy group...giving it perhaps some easier inroads in the lobbyist world (as opposed to a group which, basically, is an opposition group).

it might also help if, as part of the premiums, the holders of the insurance policies were expressly involved with either volunteering at the group (answering phones, etc) or in other community service areas. if this company's clientele was also a strong and positive force in the community (as a rule), that may provide it some valuable image-building (as well as, you know, being a positive force in the community).

just thoughts out loud...

[Dave Ridley]

Here's a thought:  Most cops and prosecutors are used to people begging them to do stuff that requires more work.    They may find it refreshing to deal with folks asking them to do less work LOL

[Dave Ridley]

In answer to the question above "what civil dis would not be covered?"

I'm not sure... I haven't through that through yet.    Maybe we shouldn't cover any of it.   Or maybe we should cover all of it !  But it is a potential sticking point.

If we had a rate hike after every claim a person made (and which we fulfilled), and the hike affected only the person who made the claim, maybe that would work and allow us to cover all civil dis.  I guess that's what traditional insurance companies do.

[Dave Ridley]

Based on this week's feedback on the idea, I am plotting my next move on this; more later.

[tracysaboe]

Dada, you might want to read through/study this. It might give you some ideas.

On the Viability of Subscription Patrol and Restitution Services
http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/guillory2.pdf

It's more for security companies, first responce, and how it can work well with insurence companies. But it would still probably be usefull and give you some ideas.

From Mises blog.
http://blog.mises.org/archives/004821.asp
On the Viability of Subscription Patrol and Restitution Services by Gil Guillory and Brian Drake (Woodlands, TX)

A business model for subscription-based patrol and restitution is presented and defended with empirical and economic arguments. Secondary market research and pilot results of primary market research indicate potential viability.

Tracy

[Dave Ridley]

Good thanks tracy! will read it and absorb.

[Dave Ridley]

Well now that we have discussed this idea for a week or so, I think it's time to move it forward or set it aside for a while.

It seems there is a moderate level of interest, and a fairly low level of discontent with the tentative parameters I've presented for what would be the world's first liberty insurance business.  I think the most appropriate thing for me to do now is present to you an updated outline, which incorporates some of your suggestions and answers some of your questions.  Then I would like to leave the immediate fate of this endeavor in your hands. 

If, between now and October 15, eight or more of you come forward and present certain tentative commitments, I will take this project through the next step.    Essentially what I'm asking for is eight of you to publicly say, yes Dave, if you do this I'm on board and will likely purchase a $180 six month policy within one month of your startup.

It would also be okay if one person were to indicate that they will underwrite policies for two or three others; I am counting only the number of policies spoken for not the number of people paying. 

If we can hit the Lucky Eight mark on time, I will move us through Step Two.  If I can't get eight policies spoken for within such a reasonable deadline, that is no big deal but is an indicator the time has not yet come.  I would tend to back-burner this and concentrate on other things for a while, waiting for a day when there are more liberty lovers in state or other improvements in the "liberty business climate."

Whether this flies now or get put on hold, I'm of the opinion that it will be doable within four years.  Over time, as the numbers here grow, so too will the viability of this hopeful and important concept.

Couple caveats:  This is still a tentative outline subject to many changes before it goes live, if in fact it does go live!  Also "Freedom Insurance" is not going to be the company's real name, I'm just using that as an example.  As before, I'm chomping at the bit to articulate what all the benefits would be for customers...but we'll save the best for last. Changes from the original outline are in bold.


Outline for a Freedom Insurance business, version 9.3.06

?Freedom Insurance? is a proposed business which, if born, would insure people in New Hampshire against certain types of persecution by the government.   These are outlined below, as are the methods by which a policyholder could be defended.

This is how the company would look at first:

- Small start:  No seed money, no office, no center.
- No employees.  Just me and whoever I hire out freelance, perhaps including a ?backup me? to take the helm if I became unavailable. One of the first types of work I'd hire out would probably be ad creation and purchase.  Jim Maynard, you listening? 
- 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.  Currently defining this as anyone who's been arrested more than  once in the two years preceding policy startup, or successfully fined more than $2000 in that time.  Most people I don't know also rejected at this stage, as well as anyone I feel we might have difficulty defending. 
- 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.

-My "salary:"  For now, I'm thinking it should be 12% of company revenue.  This means we would have to have about 275 policyholders before this job would duplicate for me the yearly earnings of a full time burger flipper.

Claims could be made if you were imprisoned, or facing prison time, or government-inflicted property seizures/fines totaling over $1000.  However  there are important caveats listed in the "not covered" section below.

Things covered would include:
  - Running an unlicensed business
  - Harmless zoning violations
  - Eminent domain cases
  - Tax resistance/evasion
  - Harmless violations of gun law
- Use or possession of Marijuana/Cannabis (no quantity limit)
  - Driving without ID
 
...And most other harmless illegal activates.   

Not covered:
 - Crimes or charges of crimes that hurt or endanger others without their consent, with the possible exception of self defense.  SD related claims would be accepted or rejected at company discretion.
 - Charges involving persons under 18, animal abuse and most (but not all) illegal drugs
- Getting arrested on purpose (example:  Outlaw Manicure arrest, Freedom to Travel arrest)
    (removed reference to 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.  Ultimately we?d ask you to have some faith in our ability to be selfish.  It is in our best interest to meet claims whenever we can, within the boundaries of our resources and circumstance.

If there were a mix of charges, some covered, some not, we would still be willing to come to your defense.  For instance, if you were charged with DUI and having an ounce of weed in the trunk, and you had not done anything else to disqualify yourself, you would still have a valid claim.  The DUI would not be covered, but any pot possession charges would.   We would fulfill it if asked to, but doing so would tend to draw attention to your DUI.  Much better for everyone if you stick to "crimes" that do not endanger others!!
 
Your premium would rise 20% if you had a claim and we fulfilled it.

The premiums would presumably create a fund, and motivation, big enough to enable more effective defenses than those we've mounted to date.  These could include the types of things we've already has success with, as well as some fun new activities.  Claimants would be encouraged to aim us toward or away from any of these:

Social support
Ads   
Fully Informed Jury activity
PR stunts
Defensive occupation of threatened property
Peaceful "raids" on perpetrator 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.  For instance, the first "tyranny response" would need to come within 48 hours of claim approval and would probably be in the form of polite phone calls to perps.

Policyholder defense would *not* involve:

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

The idea would be to make a respectful, 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

If the claimant were jailed, the goal would be to get them out and then determine whether they still are facing jail or fines sufficient to justify continuation of their defense.

The most likely outcome of a claim is probably a moderately publicized stalemate, like the one we had at Hampton. But unlike the stalemate in Barbara Burbank's fight with Hampton's building inspector our customers wouldn't be saddled with big legal bills - at least not from us.

  Regarding the balance between paid help and volunteers:     Despite the free market potential of this idea, and the ability to hire out some work, the 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.

Regarding brief imprisonments:  There are likely to be situations where policyholders were arrested for ultra minor "infractions" like refusing to stop demonstrating in a public area.   If the person arrested goes to jail as Lauren did, that would be a valid claim, and we would be in action fulfilling the claim until the person was released from jail.   Once they are out, assuming they do not face further prison time or fines/property seizures over $1000, we would consider the claim fulfilled.  Hopefully this approach, coupled with the rise in premiums whenever you have a claim, sufficiently addresses the issue of civil disobedience.   But I am still tweaking this gray area and need your input.


ANONYMOUS POLICIES
   
I have come up with a protocol for allowing people to purchase policies without me or anyone else knowing who they are.   Your identity would however become known if you had a claim.    More on this if we hit the "8 mark" on time. 

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 in the known universe.  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 play 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:  Having evolved this idea a bit, incorporated some of your ideas and hopefully answered some questions, it's time to turn it over to you guys.  Informal commitments to purchase eight policies will open Stage Two.  Stage Two will involve further refining the outline, setting up a more formal "pledgebank" style statement of intent, naming the company, preparing text for a website and other steps.

In the meantime, I have some questions:

Do you think I should rule myself ineligible for policy?  I might not be high risk under above guidelines, but have concerns it could be perceived as potential conflict of interest for me to hold a policy. 

Do you think the policy should cover illegal possession of prescription drugs such as Oxycontin and Codeine?   That question is not really addressed in the outline above.   Are there any prescription drugs that really qualify as hard drugs or pose a huge threat in and of themselves?

Does my proposed salary seem to high?  Too low?

What are your other thoughts on this outline?  Where does it need improvement?  What other ideas do you have to add?  What is it missing?  What does it have that it shouldn't?


"A dollar a day
Keeps the government at bay"

[Dave Ridley]

Dada, you might want to read through/study this. It might give you some ideas.

On the Viability of Subscription Patrol and Restitution Services
http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/guillory2.pdf

I'm halfway through it now Tracy...thanks again.

[Russell Kanning]

I like the idea. I will try to help this org.

[Caleb]

I will try to help as best I can, Dave, but I'm not sure that you have articulated how this is any better than what we already do now, for free, when someone is in trouble with the thugs.

I like the idea of money given to the family to help keep things going when someone is in jail ... but that need could exceed the number of policies you'd have to sell in order to complete your contractual obligations.  Could this be done better as a "fund" rather than a policy, that way all you are doing is saying, "We will TRY to do such and such" rather than having a contractual obligation that you may not be able to meet, for all the good intentions?

Caleb