Argue with me all you like about the ethics of this. I’ll probably just ignore it. Fact is, the company that provides public transport is a state-protected monopoly, and riding black is one of the ways I employ to recover the money stolen from me via VAT and other taxes.

Covert photography

When you ride black, you have to keep your eyes open for the ticket inspectors. They’re almost always out there, but there aren’t too many of them. I can usually spot them based on their demeanor and behavior, even if I don’t know how the specific person looks.

When I’m feeling lazy or tired or stressed or when I have a phone call going when I get on the bus or tram, though, I punch a ticket. If I’m not fully on the alert, I’m liable to miss spotting the inspectors.

Here are a couple I met the other day. Both very grumpy looking men. Funny thing, they even forgot to check my ticket, which I did have punched and in hand, since I knew I wasn’t on the alert that time. Good thing, too.

Overt photography

I snapped the dude in the close-up several times. When he finally looked at me, I snapped him again square on. I’m not quite sure what restrained him, but it was rather obvious from his facial expressions, words and body language that he would have liked to break my neck. “What are you doing?” he asked, and I just smiled, waving goodbye as the bus left him and his colleague behind at a stop. I heard him ask his colleague something to the effect of, “Is this asshole allowed to take pictures of me?” and the response came back as a shrug.

Additional fun can be had with public transport ticket inspectors in cities with a “punch pre-purchased ticket on board vehicle” payment system like Bratislava’s. If the inspectors start a check, and you have your trip ticket paid for and punched, just start yelling: “Kontrola! Revízor! Kontrola! Revízor!” and make a panicked dash for an exit. Of course, you’ll immediately draw the attention of the entire vehicle’s occupants, plus both inspectors. In addition to causing a bit of merry, harmless chaos, this may open a window for other načierno comrades to slip away undetected.

First, last week an anonymous donor sent US$250. Thank you *very* much!

Second, I’d like to ask the rest of my readers for some support.

Why?

• Maybe you just like what I’m doing here, and want to encourage more of it.
• Maybe you find my podcasting voice so sexy that it makes you feel dirty not paying for the privilege of hearing it.
• Maybe you’re sympathetic to the fact that earnings in my translation business are down by more than 70% since December with the recession, and that I’m really having trouble making ends meet.
• Maybe you’re thrilled by the fact that I’ve been devoting my now copious free time to being the technical coordinator, chief implementer and blog administrator for the Free Agents Network, and that I’m in the process of taking on similar duties for the Motorhome Diaries as well.
• Or maybe giving just makes you feel good.

Anything you can send would be most welcome. If you click “Support nostate.com” above, you’ll find a variety of methods by which to make a contribution.

Thanks for your patience with my blegging!

Peace,

Mike

Thank you!

Should you be so inclined, supporting nostate.com is easy, just click “Support nostate.com” above and choose your favorite method. If you don’t find one you like, suggest a new one!

From Free Keene:

Adam Mueller – Disorderly Conduct and Disobeying an Officer
Pete Eyre – Possession of a Beer in a Dry County
Jason Talley – Disorderly Conduct, Disobeying, and Resisting Arrest

From elsewhere:

Pete Eyre – also charged with a Federal firearms offense

From Dan Patrick in the comments there:

May 14, 2009 @ 5:19 pm

Just spoke with “Stacy” at the jail.

Bail has been set as follows:

$1000 each– Pete possession of beer in dry county, Adam disorderly conduct, disobeying

$1500 – Jason Possession firearm, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest

Additionally they will have to pay a towing fee to get MARV out of lockup. She did not have information on where MARV was towed, but said that you’d have to call general dispatch to get that info.

From Allison Gibbs aka Allison Zayne, just landed in Mississippi and trying to get bail together for them and provide other coordination on-scene, via Twitter:

Here is an update: $1000 pete, $1500 jason. Adam is on hold with ATF. we have to have cash. Western union is the only way. I need a car!

Western union option #1 food tiger, 615 hill st ellisville ms 29437emai

Option 1 closes at 8pm. Email me if u do it. We have to havew cash

Option 2: piggly wiggly 321 n 16th ave laurel ms 39440. Close 7.

From Jim Davidson, via Twitter:

Send Western Union to Allison GIBBS (not Zayne!) at food tiger, 615 hill st ellisville ms 29437. E-mail her with MTCN.

UPDATE 6:04pm local time from Allison:

Need cash within 30 minutes…let’s at least gete pete out….

Countdown for the night. Wothout a car this is all I can do for the night. Stopping by western union, then the jail… email me with con …

UPDATE 6:05pm local time from Jim Davidson, via Facebook:

Thanks Mike.  See my recent status update for sending bail money by Western Union.

Western union to Allison Gibbs Food Tiger, 615 hill st ellisville ms 39437. Closes at 8 p.m. tonite so if you are sending Western Union, let me know. I’ll get MTCN to Allison, or you can.

UPDATE 6:09pm local time from Allison:

30 min to send to tiger mart in ellisville!! I have $400 on me… let’s get 1 out at least

UPDATE: 6:17pm local time from Allison Gibbs:

$300 more bucks and 1 gets out! Western union to allison gibbs: food tiger in ellisville ms, 29437! Confirm it allisonzayne@gmail.com

UPDATE: 6:30pm local time:

Old new thread at Free Keene: http://freekeene.com/2009/05/14/update-on-the-mhd-crews-imprisonment/

Best you read there instead of here. Also, search for “planetaryjim OR allisonzayne OR mhd” at twitter.com to keep up that way.

Going to sleep. Godspeed, you guys…

Belatedly: US$25 – Kevin of cryptogon.com and farmlet.co.nz – Love what you’re doing, thank you!

US$200 – LS – An absolute stunner! Thank you so much!!!

Or would you choose not to eat there at all?

For the benefit of which privileged classes would you like to bully strangers today?

Cute, isn’t it, the way propaganda works?

A lot of well-meaning, gentle folks will look at a poster like this and think they’re being presented with a choice among competing priorities: education, agriculture, or technology?

Precious few will look and see the robbery that is taxation. Perhaps fewer still will see the false choice in being able to select from a limited menu of privileged classes: parents of school-aged children, textbook publishers, teachers and others involved in the “education” industry; farmers, agribusiness, pesticide producers and the giant industrial manufacturers of agricultural machinery; or technophiles, those wealthy enough to enjoy the benefits of modern telecommunications and the corporate interests behind the telecoms wallowing already in a century of robbery-subsidized privilege? Maybe only a handful will recognize that government monies are never “invested”, but rather are stolen from taxpayers and bestowed upon politically-connected, privileged classes. Perhaps almost none at all will notice the false choice, the presumption and attempted transference of moral corruption involved in the use of “we” and “our” (the linguistic situation is even worse in the Slovak version, which asks, “Na čo by sa mali použiť naše peniaze?“, placing the question into the passive voice: “For what should our money be used?”).

Few, indeed, will startle, perceiving that freedom is not on the menu.

I call bullshit, horseshit, and dogshit.

I thought it was important enough to repost here (with minor edits), for those who aren’t diligently following the nostate.com comment feed.

[W]ith a kill ratio of something upwards of 75:1, members of the U.S. [military] are doing the lion’s share of the killing [in Iraq]. It would not surprise if these criminals are also engaging in their share of rape, kidnapping and theft.  And torture  (Abu Ghraib?)

Many members of the military “are simply doing it to make money” (or college money) as they are too weak-willed and/or stupid to make an honest buck.

Instead they choose to get paid to serve an organization whose primary purpose is to threaten and, “if necessary”, carry out acts of aggressive violence against mostly hapless people caught in the crossfire between the US government and the “enemy” du jour.

Governments are always trying to redefine their crimes out of existence by taking a common criminal act and attaching a new label to it. Thus, armed robbery becomes “taxation” and kidnapping becomes “arrest”, etc.

Thinking people see through these lies. If there are people in the military that are responsible for 4 or more deaths is a single event, those people are in fact mass murderers.

Whether or not their crimes are sanctioned by the same government they are killing for is wholly immaterial. Governments themselves are the largest criminal organizations, so to expect any type of moral behavior out of these organizations is foolish at best.

What if Christmas didn’t come this year?
And no one paid for Christmas cheer?
Who would cry the biggest tear,
The child or the store?

Why do brides wear virgin white?
Most do not deserve that right.
But to choose a color of their delight
Would surely bring on the frowns.

To defy the laws of tradition
Is a crusade only of the brave.

Suppose the taxman, he comes to town,
And you don’t lay your money down.
Yet Mr. Jones he killed Mr. Brown the other day.
Well I wonder… who’s gonna go to hell?

To defy the laws of tradition
Is a crusade only of the brave.

To defy the laws of tradition
Is a crusade only of the brave.

To defy the laws of tradition
Is a crusade only of the brave.

That doesn’t mean that “most people are stupid,” a proposition to which 95% of citizens surveyed will agree.

But when I see dozens commentators on talk shows discussing bailouts, tax increases (and, properly, taxes at all), inflation, the hot/cold/muddled trade wars between east and west, war, torture and any number of other subjects, well, gosh… there’s a whole lot of stupid out there.

Add Guy Fawkes mask for more powerful effect

When there is talk of, oh, another trillion dollars being shoveled out to first-to-the-trough interests owned and controlled by the global elite, well, the talk isn’t about where the money comes from. The talk isn’t about how inflation of that sort is exactly equivalent to grand larceny. The discussion doesn’t center around any sort of moral consideration, or recognize the fact that lending out a trillion of these “dollars” into existence has the net effect of devaluing the holdings of all dollar holders, or that these compelling accounting fictions created by the elder warlocks of Wall Street and Washington will be as yokes upon the necks of generations. The questions come to revolve instead around such subsidiary matters as whether or not enough tribute is being extracted from the proletariat via inflation to benefit the komitet, or whether or not the right factions of the ruling class will receive the newly-stolen booty first — certainly not around such other (equally subsidiary) matters as whether or not the robbers should be executed by firing squad or by being bound to a tree naked in the jungle, smeared with honey, and left for the ants.

This in and of itself isn’t stupid. The people here are focusing attention in directions which benefit them. They flirt with the jungle, honey and ants every day by speaking their “minds” to the masses. They get paid very well for doing it. The stupid, here, is that people watch and listen to and read this drivel, they absorb it, they internalize it, they believe it, and they will cast out as devils those who would challenge the dominant tribal paradigm.

One day, the masses are going to wake up, en masse, as it were. Paradigms will shift, as it were. The future will, perhaps, shock again.

Meanwhile, the stupid is man-in-the-street reactions filmed on the east coast of the US by Iran’s PressTV along the lines of “Gee, I don’t know much of anything about anything, but I got faith in Obama,” or “Change gonna win, baby!” or “Well, I guess if that’s what they figured out is necessary…”

Me? I’m investing in honey.

That conversation was face-to-face, so there’s no record. Here, though, is the record of our instant messaging conversation earlier this evening, in its entirety but minus some personal irrelevancies and with typos and whatnot fixed up a bit. This may all be old hat to most of my readers, but who knows?

[6:44] Jana: Oh, you know what?
[6:44] Mike: tell me
[6:44] Jana: I thought about the stateless world some more.
[6:45] Jana: And I’d like to know if you assume that by getting rid of government everyone will miraculously become all peaceful and, you know, good.
[6:45] Mike: certainly not
[6:46] Mike: there is an interesting way of thinking about this issue
[6:46] Jana: Because if there are no laws and no prisons…
[6:46] Mike: chaos, rampant crime, etc
[6:46] Jana: What’s gonna stop the baddies from robbing or killing me?
[6:46] Mike: well, stand by now
[6:47] Mike: there are a couple of questions to answer
[6:47] Jana: Okay.
[6:47] Mike: the first, and which I tried to dig into the most yesterday, is “Is the state morally justifiable?”, and along the way point out a number of reasons why it is not.
[6:47] Mike: the other question is, “Is the state necessary, and if not, what alternatives are there?”
[6:48] Jana: Okay, so the answer to question 1 is no.
[6:48] Mike: another way to look at the first question is “Is there any way to have a state which doesn’t fail at its primary mission of protecting people and property? Is there a way to constitute a state so that it simply can’t be evil?”
[6:49] Mike: that leads to this:
[6:49] Mike: there are many ppl in the world
[6:49] Jana: Yes.
[6:49] Mike: are they good or are they evil?
[6:49] Mike: well, there are some options
[6:49] Jana: Both.
[6:49] Mike: 1: all ppl are good
[6:49] Mike: 2: all ppl are evil
[6:49] Mike: 3: more ppl are good than are evil
[6:49] Mike: 4: more ppl are evil than are good
[6:50] Mike: now, in case 1, everyone’s a saint… why should a state even be necessary in such case?
[6:50] Jana: Wait!
[6:50] Mike: and, since we know that 1 isn’t true, we can discount it anyway
[6:50] Jana: There’s 5: about the same number of people are good as there are bad
[6:50] Mike: fine, can be, but 3 and 4 turn out to be equivalent propositions anyway
[6:51] Mike: and the statistical probability of that is miniscule, assuming a mix of “good” and “evil” human natures, against present world population
[6:51] Mike: so case 1 is out, because if everyone were saints, there would be no need of a state for crime prevention/investigation/punishment — there would be no crime
[6:51] Jana: Exactly.
[6:52] Mike: now for case 2. if all of us are evil, then will not the MOST evil people try to obtain control of the state, so that they can use its power to aggrandize themselves?
[6:52] Jana: Probably!
[6:53] Mike: seems a bit like giving a blank check to those who’d screw us, even though we might do the same in their position, being as we’re evil and all
[6:53] Mike: remember now that being PART OF the state means that you can do things which are disallowed to ordinary citizens
[6:54] Mike: like: if a police car has a hundred kilos of cocaine in the trunk, the presumption is that it’s evidence, and that’s okay.
[6:54] Jana: Right.
[6:54] Mike: but if you had a hundred kilos of blow in your trunk, you’re a criminal, because you don’t have a fancy uniform, etc.
[6:54] Jana: Right again.
[6:54] Mike: so, even a society comprised entirely of evil people ought to recognize that having a state is too dangerous
[6:55] Mike: now, unless we’re going to include ourselves in “everyone is evil”, #2 doesn’t really operate anyway
[6:55] Mike: I don’t feel particularly evil
[6:55] Mike: and I doubt you are either
[6:55] Jana: Me either.
[6:55] Mike: so we are left with the two mixes
[6:56] Jana: Okay, now what?
[6:56] Mike: in case number 4, more people are evil than are good
[6:57] Mike: well, unless we want evil to triumph here by sheer force of numbers, certainly the GOOD people in that world don’t want the state, because it’s bound to be comprised of a majority of evil people with uniforms and official documents — even forgetting that evil people will TEND to try to become part of the state, so that they can commit crimes with official permission
[6:57] Jana: No, we don’t want evil to triumph.
[6:58] Mike: we have a preference for the good, and tend to reject philosophies which promote evil
[6:58] Mike: so what about case number three, where most people are good, but some are evil?
[6:59] Jana: That’s where we’d probably want the state.
[6:59] Jana: And hope not too many evil people would become part of it.
[6:59] Mike: need I remind you at this point that Adolph Hitler was democratically elected?
[6:59] Mike: that George W Bush was democratically elected?
[6:59] Mike: etc?
[7:00] Mike: and sorry, it’s not good enough to say “they cheated”
[7:00] Mike: the evil people will ALWAYS cheat to obtain the levers of unaccountable power
[7:00] Jana: I’m just saying that in this case we might be interested in having a state.
[7:00] Jana: Because we want the protection.
[7:00] Mike: we might be, if we could find that it was both necessary and morally defensible
[7:01] Jana: I think something is necessary.
[7:01] Jana: What are the alternatives then?
[7:01] Jana: I asked you yesterday but we didn’t get to that part at all.
[7:01] Mike: we made the observation earlier that having a state results in the division of people into two classes: those who can commit crimes with impunity, and those who may not.
[7:02] Mike: even if most people are good, if we have a state, we create a vehicle for the evil people to commit their crimes without facing any consequences.
[7:02] Mike: seems like a rather risky proposition, especially in light of the historical record of what states’ agents have actually done
[7:03] Jana: But some did end up in prison.
[7:03] Jana: Or executed.
[7:03] Jana: Or something.
[7:03] Mike: yes, that’s true. but how did that help their victims, both living and dead?
[7:04] Jana: Those who were victims already probably not much, but at least there were no more victims.
[7:09] Mike: so, we probably both agree to the proposition that crime is not desirable, and should be eliminated or at least minimized.
[7:10] Jana: Yes, please.
[7:10] Jana: And how do we go about that?
[7:10] Mike: so let’s think about crime for a sec
[7:10] Jana: (think)
[7:11] Mike: if you believe, as I do, that taxation is theft, and therefore no more honorable than a robbery in the street, and that the killings done by soldiers and police in uniforms are generally murders, then you realize there’s a whole shitload of crime out there that is legally defined otherwise.
[7:11] Jana: Okay, yes.
[7:12] Mike: so by simply getting rid of the state and the privilege that attaches to states’ agents, a huge amount of evil acts are prohibited straight off
[7:12] Mike: in addition to this, there are HUGE numbers of peaceful acts which are defined by states to be crimes, even though they really aren’t
[7:12] Mike: the cocaine in the car, for example
[7:12] Mike: no victim, no crime
[7:13] Mike: failing to pay taxes leads to being classed as a criminal
[7:13] Mike: operating a business without a license
[7:13] Mike: immigrating without state permission
[7:13] Mike: and on and on
[7:13] Jana: Right.
[7:14] Mike: real crimes, the ones that all of us rightly fear and wish to eliminate, are those which violate the life, liberty or property of one or more other persons
[7:14] Mike: one cannot commit a crime against oneself, by definition (despite this, suicide is illegal in many places)
[7:14] Jana: Illegal?
[7:15] Mike: so, once again by getting rid of the state, we see that a huge part of the “crime problem” simply evaporates
[7:15] Jana: So if you kill yourself, you can be charged, too?
[7:15] Jana: Yes, a huge part, but the part we really care about doesn’t.
[7:15] Mike: well, some people who have attempted suicide have been charged, yes… doesn’t happen often, but the laws are on the books in places
[7:16] Jana: The real crimes that violate the life, liberty and property.
[7:16] Jana: Crazy, man.
[7:16] Mike: right: murder, theft, arson, extortion, rape, kidnapping, enslavement, etc.
[7:16] Mike: and fraud
[7:18] Mike: now let’s think a bit about what’s usually called “justice”
[7:18] Mike: if someone comes and robs you of your money, or burns down your flat, or kills your dog, what benefit is it to YOU if that person is caged in a concrete and steel box for a period of years as a punishment?
[7:19] Jana: I don’t know. I’d rather get my money or my flat back. Or kill him back for killing my dog.
[7:20] Mike: now you’re onto something
[7:20] Mike: you’d like to have your situation restored to be at least as good as it was prior to the crime
[7:20] Jana: Exactly.
[7:20] Mike: you’d also probably like to be compensated to some degree for the bother and hassle of having to go through that
[7:20] Jana: And maybe get some cash as compensation for my trouble.
[7:20] Jana: Yes.
[7:20] Mike: punitive damages or something, right
[7:21] Mike: now, in the law, when we get to acts like these, we find there is a big difference in how those cases go to the courts, versus the cases like, say, your tree fell on my house and I want you to pay damages
[7:21] Mike: those are “civil” cases, where it’s “Mr. White vs. Mr. Green” in the court documents.
[7:21] Jana: Right.
[7:22] Mike: alleged victim and alleged perpetrator come to court, and in theory the process should determine if a harm (a “tort”, in the legal language) occurred, and if so, how the victim of that tort can be made whole again
[7:23] Mike: if, instead of Mr. Green’s tree falling on Mr. White’s house, Mr. Green goes and burns Mr. White’s house to the ground, the court documents are not going to be able “White v. Green”
[7:23] Mike: they will be “THE STATE v. Green”
[7:24] Jana: Because Mr. White burned to death?
[7:24] Mike: Mr. White was away on holiday in this case
[7:24] Jana: Oh, good.
[7:24] Mike: or escaped, whatever
[7:24] Mike: yes, lucky for Mr. White, eh?
[7:24] Jana:
[7:25] Mike: so what happens is that the state takes Mr. Green into court and charges him with the crime of arson
[7:25] Mike: and some prosecuting lawyers get on the case and work to prove that Mr. Green is guilty of the crime of arson, and if so, how long he should spend in prison for that.
[7:25] Mike: the interests of the real victim, here, Mr. White, are largely pushed to the side.
[7:26] Jana: Oh!
[7:26] Mike: the fact that Mr. White was threatened or inconvenienced by Green’s action is not really under consideration. What must be proven is that Mr. Green *broke the law*
[7:26] Jana: Well, great.
[7:26] Mike: all kinds of problems, here
[7:28] Mike: among other things, it means that the victim’s interests are not really being represented in the search for “justice”
[7:28] Mike: in terms of penalties, what the state seeks is punishment of the criminal (in order to deter others from committing crimes), rather than recompense for the victim(s)
[7:29] Jana: Well, this side effect of the punishment is actually quite welcome.
[7:29] Mike: deterrence is necessary, sure
[7:29] Mike: what Mr. White really wants here is a new house and some money to compensate his inconvenience and stress
[7:30] Mike: that money ought to come from Mr. Green, or, perhaps, from some sort of insurance that Mr. White purchased against such an eventuality.
[7:30] Mike: what we get into next is a topic that has been done at book-length by several authors
[7:30] Jana: What’s that?
[7:31] Mike: assumption: there’s no state, but there’s still some crime
[7:31] Mike: what are you gonna do about it?
[7:31] Mike: Well, as I said yesterday, you can go buy a bunch of guns, and defend yourself, or try to extract compensation from people who commit crimes against you by force.
[7:32] Mike: that works, to some degree… if a robber sees you walking alone in the woods today, his estimation of the likelihood you’re carrying a pistol is probably close to zero, because the state makes it very difficult for you to do that
[7:33] Jana: And I don’t really want to carry a gun anyway.
[7:33] Mike: well, if there were no state and no alternative, I think you might rapidly change your mind about that
[7:33] Jana: Probably.
[7:33] Mike: fair enough
[7:34] Jana: But that’s why I still think having a state is more convenient than having none.
[7:34] Mike: first of all, in the absence of states, a lot more people would take matters of personal self-defense into their own hands, as is their right. I myself would almost certainly carry a pistol nearly everywhere I went.
[7:35] Jana: As would a lot of psychos.
[7:35] Mike: well, that is precisely WHY we want to be well armed
[7:35] Mike: we don’t need to worry about normal people with weapons
[7:36] Mike: so there’s one idea. if the would-be rapist or robber had to contend with the fact that his intended victim very likely has the ability to quickly put a bullet in his brain, well, that’s a massive crime deterrent
[7:36] Jana: True.
[7:36] Jana: But what about gangs?
[7:37] Mike: purty young thangs like you might choose to carry a pistol on each hip, and maybe a fully-automatic rifle just to be sure
[7:37] Jana:
[7:37] Mike: gangs are just groups of criminals — like states
[7:37] Mike: okay, but this is not a complete answer yet
[7:37] Jana: Yes, but a lil’ ole me with one or two guns wouldn’t stop a gang from gangraping me.
[7:38] Mike: and it’s not a basis for a peaceful society, either — it’s not desirable that everyone should walk around armed, and it’s not desirable that many conflicts gets resolved through gunfire
[7:38] Mike: no, that’s true.
[7:38] Jana: So how do we get to have a peaceful society?
[7:39] Mike: what has been envisioned by those book-length writers can be described as Private Defense Associations or Dispute Resolution Organizations
[7:39] Mike: PDAs or DROs
[7:39] Mike: same thing, different wording
[7:39] Jana: How would they work?
[7:39] Mike: today if a crime is committed against you, you can only go to THE state for help
[7:40] Mike: and if you believe that the one-and-only state doesn’t do a good job with prevention, prosecution, or recompense, you have no alternative… you can’t cancel your subscription to the local police department
[7:40] Mike: it has been widely recognized in both economic and moral terms that monopoly providers of services are undesirable
[7:41] Mike: they’re inefficient, lack of competition makes them fat and lazy, and they’re unaccountable because customers have little voice
[7:41] Jana: True.
[7:41] Mike: what might be better is a world in which we have crime prevention, dispute resolution and justice-mediating organizations in free market competition with one another
[7:42] Mike: i’d like to know that i’m getting good value for my policing-and-investigating dollar
[7:42] Mike: and i’d like to be able to switch to a different provider of those services in the event that someone else can do it better, faster or cheaper
[7:43] Jana: Yeah, that’d be great.
[7:43] Mike: so, we go back to Messrs. Green and White
[7:43] Mike: White comes home one day from Ibiza to find his house has burned down
[7:43] Jana: :O
[7:43] Mike: he rings up his DRO, which is also an insurance company of sorts, and he has 2 questions:
[7:44] Mike: 1: Why didn’t you prevent this?
[7:44] Mike: 2: When do I get my money?
[7:44] Jana: What answers does he get?
[7:44] Mike: well let’s say White’s DRO does some investigation. They determine that arson was involved.
[7:45] Mike: White’s contract with his DRO covers this sort of thing, like a property insurance contract does today. White and the DRO both agree it was arson, the DRO immediately pays White enough to rebuild his house.
[7:46] Mike: if they don’t do this, then White and all of that DRO’s other clients would have switched to a service provider who will provide that level of service
[7:46] Mike: let’s imagine White’s DRO is called ABC Corp.
[7:46] Jana: ok
[7:46] Mike: ABC now has a problem
[7:47] Mike: they just had to buy White a new house, so they’re out the cost of the house
[7:47] Mike: they know a crime was committed, so they begin investigating
[7:47] Mike: after a time, they determine that Green was responsible for the arson.
[7:47] Mike: so they go to Green and ask him for the money
[7:47] Jana: Just like that?
[7:48] Mike: and a bit more, to compensate for their efforts and White’s inconvenience
[7:48] Mike: well, it’s more complicated than that, of course
[7:48] Mike: So, they come to Green’s house with all their evidence, and ask Green to pay up
[7:48] Mike: Green says “fuck you, I ain’t gonna pay”
[7:48] Mike: fine
[7:48] Mike: turns out that Green, too, was a subscriber to ABC Corp’s personal defense and dispute resolution services
[7:49] Mike: well, not anymore he ain’t!
[7:49] Mike: his policy is canceled
[7:49] Jana: Was there a clause about committing crimes?
[7:49] Mike: (assume there was — would YOU subscribe to a DRO that allowed its customers to commit crimes with impunity?) additionally, ABC sends a letter to all the other DROs in the area
[7:50] Mike: “Dear other DROs, Mr. Green did a bad thing, we canceled his policy and we’d advise you not to cover him either, until he pays compensation to Mr. White”
[7:50] Jana: Oh, okay, that would work.
[7:50] Mike: or, Green was a customer of XYZ instead of ABC
[7:51] Mike: ABC already beleives he did the crime
[7:51] Mike: Green says “call my DRO!” and slams the door on the ABC guys
[7:51] Mike: so ABC and XYZ get together and review the evidence.
[7:51] Mike: perhaps they both agree that Green did the crime
[7:51] Mike: in that case, XYZ cancels green’s policy and sends that letter to the other DROs
[7:51] Mike: or, they fail to agree
[7:52] Mike: the two DROs then have two choices: they can go to war over the matter, or they can find a peaceful way of resolving the dispute
[7:52] Mike: and so they take the case, perhaps, to the DRO re-insurance company they both subscribe to, or, perhaps, to an independent arbitration company, which has a great reputation for honesty, fairness and thoroughness
[7:53] Mike: like a court, except without the fancy imperial costumes and bowing before the judge
[7:53] Jana:
[7:53] Mike: ALL of those 3 parties (ABC, XYZ and the third-party arbitrator) are keenly interested in getting the facts right
[7:54] Mike: if the screw up the investigation and smear Mr. Green for a crime he didn’t commit, they lose reputation in the marketplace, leading to loss of customers and eventually loss of their business entirely
[7:54] Mike: if they decide they’re going to favor White at Green’s expense, same thing
[7:54] Mike: and so on
[7:55] Jana: Interesting.
[7:55] Mike: the market forces playing upon them compel them to be honest and to do the best job they can in determining the truth
[7:55] Mike: and keep in mind, White has ALREADY been paid for his burnt-down house, according to his contract
[7:56] Jana: Hm.
[7:56] Jana: Okay.
[7:56] Mike: so, we’re not *quite* finished here
[7:56] Mike: remember that ABC and XYZ both agreed that Green did the crime
[7:56] Mike: they both come to Green and demand payment
[7:56] Mike: maybe they arrive at an installment plan with interest, which Green can repay over time, who knows
[7:57] Mike: If Green actually pays, okay. Justice has been done in that Mr. White’s situation was restored to what it was before, plus a bit extra for his trouble, as you said
[7:57] Mike: What if Green refuses to pay now?
[7:57] Mike: Well, first of all, ABC and XYZ both inform all of their trading partners of what Green’s done, and say they’ve canceled their coverage of him.
[7:58] Mike: Green then tries to go on a holiday, to get away from all this shit he’s created.
[7:58] Mike: phones up the airline to book a flight to Cuba, or something
[7:58] Mike: the airline asks Green which DRO covers him
[7:58] Mike: Green says that he has no cover
[7:58] Jana: Uh-oh.
[7:59] Mike: the airline refuses to do business with Green … it’s too risky to carry an un-covered passenger on an intercontinental flight
[7:59] Mike: or, perhaps the airline has found it beneficial to its market position to refuse service to un-covered people, because that brings it more customers
[7:59] Mike: huh, so Green can’t go on holiday now, because he refuses to compensate
[8:00] Mike: Well, maybe he’ll rent a car and go someplace nearer, instead
[8:00] Mike: nope, no DRO cover, no car rental
[8:00] Mike: hmmm
[8:00] Jana: Wow!
[8:00] Mike: “public” transportation, of course, does not exist
[8:00] Jana: See where a little arson can get you?
[8:00] Mike: wanna get in my taxicab? show me your DRO card
[8:00] Mike: want to ride my bus, my train? whose gonna pay me if you destroy my property? No dro card, no service
[8:01] Mike: maybe it even becomes more severe than that
[8:01] Mike: there’s no “public” property in this world, either.
[8:01] Mike: there is private property, and property that is owned by nobody
[8:02] Jana: Oh yeah, property is something I wanna talk about, too. But in the next episode of this discussion. I kinda need to get ready to go out soon.
[8:02] Mike: ok
[8:02] Mike: anyway, what you get to here, is a comprehensive, networked, profit-driven form of ostracism
[8:03] Mike: in the ultimate extent, Green can’t even LEAVE his house
[8:03] Jana: Yeah, I like that.
[8:03] Mike: he doesn’t own the road in front of his house
[8:03] Jana: Really?
[8:03] Mike: the road operating company doesn’t permit people on the DRO blacklist to use the road
[8:03] Jana: Well, but he CAN walk on it, can’t he?
[8:03] Mike: remember: someone OWNS the road… maybe Mr. Black down the street built it, and he owns it
[8:04] Mike: if Black owns the road, he can refuse service and access to anyone, for any reason
[8:04] Jana: Man, poor Mr. Green – he probably just found some matches and wanted to play with them…
[8:04] Mike: but he’d be a fool to do that except in the most extreme of cases, where this is a risk to his property or business — which Mr. Green, being an arsonist who refuses to pay damages, clearly represents
[8:04] Mike: hehe
[8:05] Mike: So Green becomes a prisoner in his own house until he at least agrees to start working to pay off the debt to White’s DRO, and rejoins society that way.
[8:05] Mike: hell, maybe he can’t even get food delivered…
[8:05] Mike: maybe the three different companies that compete for the water-supply business in his area learn he’s on the “bad” list with the DROs and stop delivering water
[8:06] Jana: We don’t want him dead, though!
[8:06] Mike: no, we’d like him to pay
[8:06] Jana: Yeah!
[8:06] Jana: (flex)
[8:06] Mike: but we certainly have no DUTY to continue providing sustenance or service of any kind to such a criminal, do we?
[8:06] Mike: Green can live and grow vegetables in his garden and collect rainwater
[8:07] Mike: in a cave, effectively, apart from society
[8:07] Jana: You’re cruel! He can make his own mobile phone out of a chunk of wood, too, right?
[8:07] Mike: he can try, but who’s going to allow him to connect to their mobile phone network?
[8:07] Mike: who’d give him credit?
[8:08] Jana: Oooh, he’d have to start his own network, too!
[8:08] Mike: a network requires at least 2 nodes…
[8:08] Mike: anyway, that’s most of the outline
[8:08] Jana: Cool, thanks.
[8:08] Jana: That’s some food for thought.