/ancap/ - Anarcho-Capitalism

A DRO doesn't really solve the problem as the law is still state-made

>>15
I ment as a potential opportunity. If there's a sudden and grave enough economic downturn, a lot of state provided and subsidized services are going to be abandoned. IMO, there's going to be a window for non-state mediation services to spring up in the next 5 or 10 years, between that, and the crappy and corrupt nature of the current justice system. At least that's my theory.

Of course, in that sort of situation there's going to be other opportunities too. I was just using DROs as on example.

You could have a black market DRO that protects peaceful criminals from violent ones. Like a gang of good guys.

>>24
+1 I'd just started doing some of the same, though my research ATM has been limited to aquaponics. Assuming energy could be kept relatively inexpensive, industrialized aquaponics seems like it would be a great way to increase food production, reduce total land use, and reduce transport costs all in one fell swoop.

>>27
Check out Will Allen- Growing Power.


Inexpensive, high yield, ecologically friendly, low cost.

Over a million pounds of food on a few acres.

>>29
During winter in like Wisconsin or some shit.

All the while recycling.

>>29
>>31
That sounds amazing! How easily do you think that method could be adapted to vertical growing for use in an urban environment? I have an intuition that moving food production into population centers is going to become a necessity if we're going to effectively combat hunger, especially if we ever find ourselves in a situation where the steady flow of State subsidized oil stops and the logistical costs of food production start to skyrocket.

Pretty sure this board was started by an ancom anyway.

Just come to /anarchy/.

>>37
I checked it out just now, and it seems to just be the baiting and shitposting that got people pissed off in /anarcho/. Might be a crazy conspiracy theory, but it might be a b8 board to pull away all the people who'd rather fight over who's better than get into a constructive debate.

>>38
Or it can serve as a board for getting actual shit done.
Or do you guys only come to these imageboards to yell at each other?

>>39
I don't, but apparently people like me are the minority here.

>>14
>>17
I've been contemplating this idea for a while, and I think it'd be a fantastic idea to get alternatives to state services up and running now.

>>15
There's no reason you couldn't provide dispute resolution services which do not reference state law. Hell, just adopting the pre-state common law would do just fine. It would modernize itself as it gets applied to new cases.

>>19
This is a fantastic idea. I had a similar thought a while ago, but it needs a lot of fleshing out.
The issue I see is providing your services which gives you plausible deniability, so as to help protect you from state intervention. The state would have a strong interest in securing the names of clients, so you would have to:
Have a strict confidentiality agreement.
Keep records in a fashion that obscures litigants' identities.
Separate the organization from any contraband evidence.

I've seen some promising steps in peer-to-peer online trade networks (OpenBazaar), like transactions with a mediator where two of the parties have to sign off before the payment is delivered. This is very similar to how cases involving the payment of damages used to be done.

>>24
Fantastic! I've been researching air wells and other passive systems for collecting atmospheric moisture. My thinking is that if you can sell the apparatus, you can compete with the state monopoly on the water supply. Do the same with solar panels and the like.
I really like your reasoning, too.

>>29
So going to check this out. Does it take into account a complete nutrition profile? I'm trying to find how small a space I can grow a complete diet in. The thought is that if I can put it in a toolshed-sized greenhouse, I can sell those in the same way the water systems would be sold.

>>39
+1
I'm so glad there's a place where people aren't just waiting to tell me what a dumb-ass monster I am for not thinking of duh childrunz.

I hear a lot of civil cases are settled out-of-court, so there's some potential there. I'd consider a mediation service if I were entering the legal sector. We need less armchair economists, more libertarian lawyers.

>>54
I agree, though I wouldn't hold my breath for that. Right off the bat, lawyers are a vocation deeply invested or entwined with the state.

Secondly, only certain kinds of lawyers are going to be of any practical use. Criminal law will be all but useless, since there'll be no State or statutory laws guaranteed in a certain jurisdiction. The most useful lawyers will be those that specialize in civil suits and contract law.

Further complicating matters will be the fact that a lot of the law is based on precedent. Since we're basically creating a new law standard from scratch, we'll be starting with next to no precedent, with the only case law we can effectively pull from being 'common law' traditions.

That in mind, one of the biggest advantages an ancap legal system would have would be how streamlined it would be. Common law with regards to civil suits, and being able to write, negotiate, and interpret contracts (which, as I understand it, is mostly about using as clear, concise, and unambiguous language as possible).

>>57
Yeah, the thing about common law as opposed to civil law is that the former is determined by how judges settle a conflict initially. Precedent is binding. I think this would be a better fit for Ancapistan because IMO, we probably wouldn't have legislative bodies and "law" would simply be agreements between individuals, with the courts only mediating when mediation is deemed necessary. Xeer would be another legal code to draw inspiration from.

But anyway, another sector to be involved in would be healthcare/health insurance. Lefties like to make a big deal over the fact that no one is guaranteed free medicine in Ancapistan. Setting up some kind of clinic or insurance agency would be a good way to show them that neither the state nor their totally-not-a-government warlord system is necessary to keep people alive.

>>58
Ok, so we have a lot of ideas for startups. Does anyone here have any experience with starting and running businesses? I think the most important thing is to get these things started and correct problems as they arise.
We should also probably have a network for para-state businesses; a directory of service providers so that people can find them more easily.

>>59
Well, in my (admittedly extremely limited) experience in helping family with their startup, a small town retail shop, the number one issue to deal with when getting started is getting the required starting capital. Getting a loan is at least partially dependent on already having -some- capital to begin with, or a steady and reliable source of it (a wage job), and it's helped immensely by both having a history of good credit management and by having a detailed business plan with realistic estimates of expected monthly expenses and revenue over a couple of years. This sort of thing is proving to be more and more important in crowdfunding lately as well, from what I hear, since numerous failed kickstarters and such have made the average person more weary of investing in projects (or acting more like actual investors, if you ask me).

Also, start marketing and networking early. As in before you've even actually started, preferably before you even approach investors or a bank for funds, as you can also use this time to get info for a more detailed business plan, such as estimating demographics and judging community interest.

Also, don't pay for your regular operating expenses, consumables, and retail stock with your credit line if you don't have to. It really shouldn't have to be said, but you might be surprised (or not) how many businesses go under because of misuse and abuse of credit.

>>35
He does it in an urban environment.
He makes money taking the organic waste from the city. He is even developing a "smell free" container for composting close to rural areas.

>>52
It can be very biodiverse.

Permaculture in general is by nature a multifaceted nutrient rich grow op.

>>59
Not personally, but from what I've seen others deal with community involvement needs to be a full commitment if it's started. You don't want to start stepping on city/county/state toes without a diverse pool of people behind you first.

I think grassroots politics is the way to keep steam.

I haven't investigated this page thoroughly yet, but this seems to be relevant to the idea of non-government law. Particularly the link labeled "Lex Cryptographia".
https://wiki.unsystem.net/en/index.php/Bitlaw

>>14
The most practical 'DRO' would be a well integrated and inter-trusting community. I think this force could reasonably solve most disputes, and also any local non-state level threats. A good community is more trustworthy than any foreign organization/corporation could be.

>>105
The point of a DRO is to expand the capacity of a community using technologically-enabled trust systems, rather than memory-based systems. These tech-based systems can scale more or less indefinitely, since they don't rely on people personally remembering each other.
Larger communities are more prosperous because of the increased capacity for specialization and division of labor, leading to increased productivity.

>>136
I agree with your sentiments.
I'm not yet seeing that future as a reality yet though, so I cite community then as something within my 'foreseeable future'.

I'd love to see more links/writing/research on the techno/cyber-trust topic.

>>149
Technology-based trust systems are not necessarily electronic in nature. The written word is a technology, and it is possible to maintain reputation records with even stone-age technology. The point of all the internet stuff is that it expands the capabilities of these systems, particularly in terms of anonymity and logistics.

I think that if the cyber solutions are going to gain any traction, they have to be made user-friendly enough that somebody can employ them without really understanding them. That sounds much more feasible to me than convincing modern people to give up the benefits of large society and live in smaller communities.

Just found this. It's a basic framework upon which other legal systems can be built, and it seems to be consistent with the principles of liberty. Sort of a public affirmation of legal philosophy.

http://www.freenation.org/a/f54v1.html

I'm not too keen on the explicit mention of police and judiciary (though there doesn't seem to be an establishment of same), but this is very nearly an ideal basis and should be considered.

I'm really interested to hear other people's thoughts on this. I want to see discussion of implementation.

>>212

I think you may be a bit off in your comments, as I understand it common law was not what one person got others to believe, but rather what was worked out in a community (often over many years and many cases). Not sure how "formalized" it would have to be either, though case law over time would carry weight if enough smart mediators/parties respected it.

The 1215.org founder is a very interesting guy, you can find some of his lectures on youtube, including actual instances of him getting judges to uphold his fundamental rights as "a people" in the US Constitution, to the horror of government prosecutors.

I think a good DRO could establish some good common law for its members over time (cases decided), and provide a much superior court/mediation system than exists under state law. I for one would be happy to join such a group, assuming government agents would mess with me too much for doing so…

>>276
If you follow the guy's explanation and citation of precedent, he argues that common law is precisely what you claim it to be, and is limited only by what you can get others to agree to.

He gives the example of a personal law that he has, being that all who wear pink shoes in his presence are to be put to death. He can make and argue that law all he wants, but if he can't get others to agree to it, it doesn't make a difference. It's just the individual trying to make a rule and argue that it should be followed.

In light of this, I don't think my comments were inaccurate.

>>333

Regarding a basis for true/moral law, I suggest UPB (Universally Preferable Behavior) as described by Stefan Molyneux. In summary, under this system if something cannot be universally preferable (note that the main crimes, i.e. rape, murder, theft, slander, torture damage of people or property) are all ruled out as ethical acts under this system.

If you want a bit of a primer and real-life example of someone living under genuine Law (in Canada) and avoiding statues and such, see this excellent lecture by freeman-on-the-land Robert: Menard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohiyO-IcqG8

Highly relevant to the topic of progressing towards a free society, note his strong emphasis on self-knowledge, integrity, and self-control.