All Episodes
Previous Next
June 22, 2006 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
34:23
293 Social Contracts - International Reciprocity Without Governments

Sooo, there's no government, and you want to do business in Singapore with a guy you've never met...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody. Hope you're doing well.
It's Steph. 829 in the morning.
Hope you're doing well.
So, interesting question on the board yesterday.
I've skirted around this topic.
Because I've just never really felt it was important.
But on reflection, it is obviously an important question around DROs.
And now that we're on show 293...
It seems to me that it might be worth dealing with some of the core issues around dispute resolution organizations, which, for those who have not heard the term before, we are slowly inventing our own language.
Soon I will be switching to African clicking sounds and hieroglyphics, which should be very exciting from a podcasting standpoint.
So as we slowly begin to develop our own language to keep outsiders out and make sure that the insiders have all the secret handshakes, one of the ones that we're adding is DRO, Dispute Resolution Organization, and these are possible potential ways in which the functions of the state can be replaced without a state.
So the basic idea is that everybody wants security of property and everybody wants security of persons and enforcement of contract and all that kind of stuff.
And vice exists in the world, right?
If vice didn't exist in the world, maybe we could have a government, right?
Because then only good people would be in charge of it, but of course we wouldn't need one.
So the idea behind dispute resolution organizations is that It's that you're going to have these insurance companies, so to speak, insurance companies, or these organizations that you're going to go to when you want to sign a contract with someone.
So if I want to sign a contract with you, I'm going to pay you a hundred bucks, you're going to send me a truck of oranges, then we go to a third party that we both agree on, and we sign a contract which contains particular sanctions.
If either I don't pay my $100, but you deliver me the oranges anyway, or I pay you the $100, but you don't deliver me the oranges, that's how we deal with it.
People say, of course, well, how would there be enforcement and this and that and the other?
And that's a perfectly valid question because we're so used to dealing with the state that...
And the state makes everyone antagonistic, right?
Because the state grabs a larger and larger slice of the pie and leaves everyone else scrambling and fighting.
And so we're just not used to what human beings look like in a state of cooperation, at least in the realm of law enforcement.
But it's a valid question.
Of course, the second largest, I think, single employer in the world, if you use the word employer in a slightly looser sense, is eBay.
300,000 people make their living off eBay, and eBay really doesn't have any access to government courts, and people don't get arrested.
You just lose your reputation, right?
I mean, so that's sort of one way of doing it.
So you have a contract rating in the same way that at the moment you have a credit rating, right?
So, I mean, if you don't pay your debts, and they're small debts, well, nobody goes to sort of drag you off to jail if you don't pay a $50 visa bill because it's really not worth it.
But what happens is your credit rating gets negatively affected.
And so that makes it more difficult for you in the future to get credit and so on.
So you can do this with a contract rating and DROs will only, you know, they'll start off, I'm guessing, right?
I'm just sort of, if I were a DRO, I would start off by saying, okay, well, you're 16, you're 15, you're getting your first job.
Here's what I'm going to contract rate you, indemnify you for.
I'm going to indemnify you for $250.
So you can sign a contract up to $250 if that's what you're getting paid a week, blah, blah, blah.
And if I were really a DRO that wanted to gain customers, I would say that if you go and work for some guy moving office furniture and he's going to pay you in cash, we will guarantee you up to $250.
To the guy who's going to employ you, we'll say that we'll guarantee you $250 worth of labor.
So they'll start off small.
I mean, just as it is with, you know, when you get your first credit card these days, you only have a $15,000 signing limit, it seems, but hey.
So what's going to happen is if you are scheduled to show up for work on a weekend, you're going to make you 250 bones, and you don't show up, then the DRO pays 250 bucks to the guy who was going to pay you so that he can hire someone on the spot or they'll send someone over.
I mean, just possibilities, right?
And then you get a negative rating, which is going to be really, really, really bad.
The very first time you sign up for something, like if you go and max out your card and never pay anything the very first time you get a credit card, you're going to have a really tough time establishing any kind of credit because who's going to take a risk on you next time, right?
So any sort of sane and responsible human being is going to show up for work and is going to do a good job and so on.
And DROs may also interview as to the quality of the work and so on.
I mean, there's a possibility if there's a market requirement for that.
I think that there is, and I've sort of got a business idea cooking around this, but basically a DRO could do something like that where they indemnify you.
Now, if you go and do the work for the guy and then he just takes off in his pickup truck and laughs and scorns you all the way and you don't get your money, then the DRO will pay you.
And the DRO will pay you, and they will lower the contract rating of the guy who was supposed to pay you.
Right? So the next time that he wants to hire someone, he's not going to get any insurance.
Now, if you are a smart guy, and, you know, most people are smart men and women when they're starting out, you can, of course, choose to go and work for a guy with no DRO representation.
That's perfectly valid. And you will get paid slightly more.
Of course, right? Because if he doesn't have DRO representation, then he's saving money, right?
He's saving the cost of the DRO covering the transaction, probably a percent or two.
I'm guessing. It could be lower than that, but on smaller ones, it probably would be something like that, because they would be relatively small payouts and charges relative to the amount of work involved.
But still useful for establishing contract rating early on.
But at the beginning, you can choose to go with somebody who doesn't have a DRO card or a DRO number or whatever, DRO tattooed on their forehead.
You expect to get paid more, because if the guy is not paying a lot and he has no DRO representation, well, you can still take the job, but you're going to be kind of hosed if he doesn't pay you.
So, I mean, there's always the option.
You can always work off the grid, right?
Nobody forces anyone to take a DRO representation, but if you don't, then you are absolutely not going to be getting the same kind of trust relationship with that person.
Like, you can go to somebody who says he's a doctor, and they don't have any degrees on the wall, and so on, and they'll charge you less.
Because if they charge you the same amount, obviously all other things being equal, you'll go with the doctor who's been certified.
But you can go to some guy who's half-priced and who...
It has hand-crayon-written certifications on his wall.
It's just an increased risk that you're taking.
And so what's comfortable for you in terms of risks and reward is up to you.
Of course, once you have dealt with someone for six months, they always pay their bills, they always do a good job, they're always responsible, they always show up for work, or they always pay you, sort of on either side of the employee-employer relationship.
Then you guys are probably not going to insure your next transaction.
I mean, you only insure where there's risk.
Yes, the guy who you have a trust relationship with, who you're not going to insure the transaction through the DRO, he might have a heart attack between now and payday, but that's not something really worth a couple of percent of your pay, because the odds are very, very low.
Interactions between a DRO and the employer and the employee or whoever is entering into a contract are purely optional.
And of course, if somebody has an enormously high contract rating, that has been...
And it may not even need to be somebody that you've ever dealt with before, right?
So if you go and you want to go and work with Bobby Joby, and Bobby himself has a perfect contract rating, and he's been in business 20 years, and he's going to be in business for another 30 years or whatever, however long.
So he's not just about to retire and maybe he's going to go out in a blaze of bad contracting.
Who knows, right? But he's painstakingly built up his contract rating to be perfect over 20 years, not one single complaint.
Then it seems to me that I would be very interested in entering into a contract arrangement with Bobby without involving a DRO at all.
Because obviously he's very concerned with his contract reputation.
Obviously he doesn't get involved with disreputable people.
Once you build your reputation...
As I've said before, credibility is efficiency.
That's what resumes and references are all about.
Once you have a great reputation, then you are going to do very well economically because the transaction costs of doing business with you go down considerably.
They're really only for risky situations.
If you're dealing with some guy you don't know anything about over in Singapore, you're probably going to want to insure.
Of course, the DRO is going to charge you Possibly per transaction.
It really depends on how efficient they can make the software algorithms.
But the DRO is going to charge you relative to the risk of the transaction.
And you may just buy a blanket transaction.
Everything I do in Singapore for the next five years is X percent.
So you're going to buy volume. The further out it goes, the more risky it's going to be for the DRO. But what it's going to be, if I were running the DRO contract, is I would say, if you want a blanket thing for five years in Singapore, then the first transaction is going to be 5%,
and then the second year it's going to be 4%, and the third year 3%, and so on, because as long as your contract rating remains high, just so that you have a maximum incentive to deal with other people on a contractual basis in a positive manner.
So, DROs only make money when contracts don't get violated.
And this is true for all DROs, right?
Now, the question then becomes, well, what if...
And the question was more specific to abortion, which we'll get to later.
But the question, of course, is, okay, so I have something over there.
I'm going to go and do business in Singapore, and my DRO insures me for X, Y, and Z. And the other DRO does not, right?
Because the guy, let's say the guy you're doing business with in Singapore doesn't deal with your DRO. So your DRO is ABC DRO. His DRO, let's just get a few more acronyms if we can ASAP. His DRO is XYZ. So your guy's ABC will...
Insure you up to, you know what, I'm not even going to try and do this one while I'm driving, but let's just say there's some disparity between the rules and regulations that your DRO will insure you for and what the other person's DRO will insure them for.
So maybe there's, okay, let's just take extradition.
So your DRO says, if somebody skips the country, we pursue them.
And their DRO says, if you skip the country, we don't care.
What's going to happen? Well, your DRO wants to insure you because they're going to make money, but they're also only going to make money if the guy doesn't skip the country.
Because if he skips the country, let's just say they can't work out anything reciprocal with that DRO. We'll just make something up, right?
I mean, I doubt this would happen, but let's just say, right?
What's going to happen is your DRO is going to look at your application for insuring your Singapore contracts and is going to say, well, I've got to tell you, there's kind of a risk here for us because we will pursue somebody who skips the country.
And, of course, I know there won't be countries with DROs, but let's just, you know, the best I can do at the moment.
So your DRO is going to look at that contract and say, you know, we'll pursue someone if they skip the country.
This guy's DRO won't pursue them if they skip the country.
So our risk is going to go up.
So we're going to have to charge you an extra couple of points because there's additional risk.
Now, that's going to add to your transaction costs, but it's immaterial.
And it's immaterial, of course, because this guy, I mean, this is sort of an important thing to understand about economics, right?
Maybe you, I'm sure you already do, maybe you do, maybe you don't, but it doesn't matter if your guy raises costs.
Because if the deal is for a million dollars, and your DRO is going to charge you 5% because of this additional, like they'd charge you 2% or 20 grand to insure your contract if this guy's DRO dealt with extradition, and they're going to charge you 50 grand because they don't deal with extradition.
Well, that's no problem, really, because your other guy is going to have fewer costs because his DRO does not deal with extradition.
So because his DRO doesn't deal with extradition out in Singapore, and he can skip the country and he won't be pursued, then his DRO costs go down, because we assume that it's cheaper not to deal with extradition than it is to deal with extradition, right?
So your costs are higher, and his costs are lower.
Which means absolutely nothing when it comes to the deal, right?
Because when it comes to negotiating your profits, all that happen is that you tack on $20,000 of profit.
Sorry, you tack on $30,000 because your costs are going from 2% to 5% to insure the deal.
So you're just going to say, well, I have to charge you 30 grand more, and here's my DRO thing, and this is what it's going to cost me, and so on.
No problem. So then you get covered, and if he skips the country, you get paid a million bucks, and you're just charging him 30 grand more.
Now, what's his problem with that?
Well, nothing. Because he's saving 30 grand.
By not having a DRO that covers extradition, right?
So his DRO's costs are lower, to some degree, whatever it is going to be at some degree lower.
Let's just say it's equal. So the whole thing is a net economic wash.
All that's happening is that you're getting paid 30 grand more, he's being charged 30 grand less, so the amount of profit that you both make is exactly the same.
Because if he switches to a DRO, which covers extradition, and now he's getting charged 5% and you're getting charged 2%, or you're both getting charged 2%, all that happens is your cost to each other goes down and the transaction in terms of profit remains exactly the same.
Because all you're doing in the original scenario is you're taking $30,000 from him and handing it over to your DRO. Your level of profit remains exactly the same.
Now, since the level of profit remains the same no matter what the DROs charge, then no DRO is going to be able to get ahead of another DRO by cutting services or adding services.
This is a very, very important thing to understand.
If you're a DRO that drops, you say, okay, you know what, half of our costs are going for extradition issues.
Well, no problem. You say, well, we're going to cut half our costs.
Well, it doesn't benefit your customers at all, assuming that you're in an economically efficient situation.
It doesn't benefit your customers at all to cut costs and to cut services because their price goes down, but everyone then charges them more because they're dealing with their DRO that doesn't...
We provide extradition services, so there's no possibility that cutting services...
So basically what I'm saying is that all DROs have an economic incentive to arrive at the same standard of services, the same standard of services, And to compete on innovation and efficiency.
So, it's exactly the same as the cell phone companies.
Some cell phone company doesn't come up with its own standard, right?
I'm going to use infrared!
How are they going to sell?
They can't sell. Now, maybe infrared is better at sound quality, and maybe you can download free-domain radio directly to your phone and have it playing at all times, which seems about the best conversation that you can have in the world, I imagine.
But... The problem is, are you going to be the first guy to buy it, right?
There's a very funny Dilbert about...
Dilbert buys the first video phone, and he's like, hey, this is the best thing ever, and he turns it on.
Of course, there's nothing but static.
And then Dogbert says, well, I guess all we have to do is wait for somebody else to buy another video phone, and we're in business, right?
And Dilbert says, hey, I think I saw something, while he's staring at the screen.
And this is, of course, funny, as most of Dilbert is, and economically intelligent, right?
So... Nobody's going to buy the first couple of infrared phones.
I guess maybe Christina and I would.
So we get slightly better sound reception and whatnot.
We can maybe video interaction with each other on the cell phone.
But the problem is that we, as the first people to buy it, are getting slightly improved service, perhaps.
But we can't call anybody else.
And also, we are paying the very highest amount, right?
Because we're bleeding edge, right? So it's really expensive to buy the first...
DVD players for like $1,500 and now you can get them thrown in when you switch checking accounts.
So they're like $30.
I've seen them for $30.
So the first people who buy something that's new have to pay all of the costs of development and they really have to amortize as quickly as possible.
So in the course of reciprocity agreements, you're getting less value because you're the first early adopter.
You're paying a lot more cost and it's not compatible with anything.
So, that issue is something that is really going to affect cell phones, of course, and it's really going to affect DROs.
So if I start up a DRO, and I say, well, I'm not going to deal with reciprocity, and I'm only going to insure up to 500 bucks, and I'm only going to do this, and it's just like starting an insurance company and saying, well, I'm not going to cover lung cancer, I'm not going to cover cancers of any kind, I'm not going to cover leukemia, I'm not going to cover heart attacks, I'm not going to cover angina, I am going to cover getting hit by a meteorite and having your car spontaneously explode.
And the premiums are 50 cents a year, right?
because it doesn't really happen, right?
Well, that's fine, but still, you're not going to make a lot of money because the fewer services you offer, the lower cost you can give, but the fewer people care.
I mean, there's some company in the States, I think, that offers insurance against being abducted by UFOs, and it literally is like 50 cents a month, which is basically just send me a check for 50 cents, right?
I mean, because, of course, I'd love to have that because I charge people a lot more.
I would charge a lot less than that, even.
I'd make it free, because what they'd have to do is they'd have to prove that they were abducted by UFOs with some sort of evidence, which I could then take to the tabloids and make a fortune.
But that's maybe just me.
So, DROs do have, but since there's no economic advantage to providing different levels of service, the level of profit in business, absent the state intervention, the level of profit in business is constant, at sort of 3% to 6%, depending on market variations, depending on demographics, depending on short-term efficiency gains that you make.
You install some fabulous system that makes everything more efficient.
Then you can lower your costs for a little bit while ordering the same services.
But then it's all leapfrog.
You leapfrog each other, right? You can't keep putting in new systems.
So you put a new system in and your competitor sees that and goes, holy crap, I need a new system.
And then they get a new system.
But because a year or two has gone by, their new system is better.
So then they lower their costs and they get money.
It's like a little one of those...
Swinging things with the oily water inside, like it goes back and forth a couple of percent or two every couple of years to different companies.
But basically, absence date intervention, 3% to 6% is the best you can do because that's really all you get, right?
So if you open a store in Yorkville, Toronto, which is a really hoity-toity neighborhood, your rent is very high and your prices are very high.
But your clientele is more exclusive.
If you open up a dollar store in some strip mall in the suburbs, your rent is very low and your clientele is much broader, but they have less money and they're more interested in bargains.
So it's all a wash.
What do you feel like doing?
As long as somebody wants it, economically it's a wash.
So given that there's no advantage to a DRO to provide fewer services or more services or whatever...
There is going to be a relentless trend towards homogenization.
Because the one thing that is going to hurt you as a DRO is a lack of reciprocity agreements.
It's going to be a lot more work.
If you have to match different services with different services and figure out the risk, that's really difficult.
Like, it's really difficult.
Let's just say you have a reciprocity agreement with the DRO in Singapore, and you guys all offer the same risks and benefits and services.
Well, that's pretty easy, right?
And you're a different company. And maybe you offer some stuff that's local that's different, which is no problem.
But overall, in general, in aggregate...
Internationally, you offer the same services and you offer the same benefits.
Costs may be slightly different based on efficiency principles.
And maybe there's some local stuff that you deal with.
Like in Singapore, maybe there's lots of bats.
And so you offer a bat rabies insurance thing, which isn't so relevant to Kansas, say.
Who knows, right?
But in terms of international stuff, there is going to be a relentless drive towards a homogenization of services and of insurance capacities and so on.
And when I say insurance, I also mean things like theft and murder and so on.
So if there's no advantage, economic advantage, if you don't offer reciprocity agreements, because as I said before, the cost to your clients goes down, but the risk to other clients goes up, overseas clients, so they just charge more.
So anyone who's interested in doing business with people overseas is going to want to have extradition treaties.
If someone comes to you and says, well, I'm in Singapore, I want to do business with someone in the States, you have to offer reciprocity agreements, because if you don't, then what's added to the overhead of the cross-DRO transaction is is the cost of researching what risk there is in terms of having different standards internationally.
Which doesn't benefit anyone, right?
Because it doesn't benefit anyone economically, as we've talked about before.
The level of profit remains the same.
It's just that more money goes to the DRO. It's not a zero-sum, and I was just sort of doing that earlier for purposes of example, but it's not any kind of net gain to anyone except the DRO who has to charge more for doing the research to figure out what risk is involved in different rules internationally.
I'm talking about the basics, right?
And so the DRO doesn't particularly want that money.
The DROs don't want to do any labor for their money.
What they want to do is they've established the risks.
They want that labor to be reproducible as much as possible.
It's like software. Yeah, you can make money customizing your software for each product, each client.
But you're going to make the most money if you can send out a CD or have a download that your codebase gets, without any additional money, without any additional investment of labor, gets reproduced everywhere.
That's where you're going to make your magic multiples.
In the software business, the same thing is true for DROs.
They're going to make the most money by having intelligently established the risk, do all the research, and then sell the lowest rates, in a sense, to all of their potential and current clients based on that research, which is then reproduced across a wide base of people paying them every month.
So if I figure out it's a 1% risk to do X, Y, and Z, and that's applicable to all my clients, then I can give them a great rate and get paid every month for that research.
But if I have to do research for a specific client, like I want to go do business in Singapore with this guy, what's your cost?
Then, of course, it's like customizing your software for each.
You can do it, and there will be DROs that will do it, but it's going to be expensive.
Very expensive, right? Customized software is always like multiple times expensive.
More expensive to create, document, train, maintain, upgrade.
I mean, it's orders of multiples higher, so...
You could do it, but it's going to be relatively inefficient.
Relative to everybody having the same international standards, that's where the real money is going to be made by the DROs.
And of course, that's also where the real money is going to be made by the people who are doing international transactions because they won't have to pay for the DRO overhead of doing research on specific discrepancies in rules to figure out the risk and the cost and all that kind of stuff.
It'll happen, right? There'll be new stuff that comes up, but it will be less likely.
So this having been said, there is going to be a general trend, which we don't have and have never had in any government in the history of mankind.
The whole value of the DRO system, other than its sort of ethical standpoint, is that for the first time in human history, you're actually going to have, and it's going to be shocking, You're actually going to have a system, both domestically, internationally or worldwide,
that is going to make its money based on coming up with a minimum and most effective set of rules that are going to work across any kind of borders or geographical disparate locations, with local variances depending on whatever is going on locally.
So, you're also going to have a trend towards shifting the costs of those who are unreliable to those people, and you're also going to have a trend towards building best business practices all over the world.
So, if you have some sect that believes that stealing is great, well, they can do business with people, like they could just live like Mennonites on their own if they want, but if they want to do business with people, and even that's going to be tough, right?
Someone's got to deliver, you know, medical services or whatever.
But if they want to do business with anyone, and they believe that stealing is good, well, their costs, the costs of doing business with them is going to be very high.
So if you've got one group of people who believe stealing is good, and you've got another group of people who believes that stealing is bad and have a perfect DRO rating, then...
You're going to want to deal with the people who, you know, are good.
And you're not going to want to deal with the people who believe that stealing is good.
Now, there will be people who will constantly try and push the envelope, go out and train these people, go out and have words with them.
Because, you know, like people who deal with bankruptcy issues, there are always people who want to go around the edges of economic failure and try and make money because there will be more profit in that area based on the increased risk and the increased labor.
And so on. So it's not like these people will be lost forever to the economic world, but there will be significant challenges.
So this is sort of an important thing to understand.
Cooperation among DROs is by far the most economically advantageous.
They're not nice. They are definitely in competition.
But you just think about it in terms of cell phones or whatever, or think about it in terms of the scientific method, right?
I mean, the scientific method, all scientists are doing different work and very much in competition with each other, but they all agree on the same rules, right?
I mean, I don't sort of say, go to a scientific conference and say, ah, I had a vision, and say that this is what I saw, and have no experimental evidence or reproducible proof or anything like that.
I have to go taking my own creativity and innovation and using the scientific method to attempt to convince my comrades and so on.
I don't sell a helmet, like a little helmet that says it builds a computer in your brain that there's no evidence for it.
I have to compete with Intel and AMD and just like everybody else.
We all have to deal with reality.
The common rules with impressive innovation within that rule set is something that is absolutely the best situation economically.
The minimum number of rules is also another situation that is imperative from a standard of economics.
The minimum number of rules.
The more rules, the more cost of the DRO, the more risk.
And so you absolutely want the bare minimum of rules among different DROs.
And of course, you know, theft, murder, rape, breaking of contracts, fraud.
I mean, those kinds of things are going to be reciprocal between DROs where you require DRO cooperation.
And of course, the more cooperation you have with other DROs, the more Value you're going to have to certain types of people, right?
So there's going to be I'm a grocer in this town, and 99% of my business is with people in this town.
Well, of course, you may not bother with a DRO contract at all, right?
Because there's really not much point.
You know everybody, everybody's trustworthy, and social sanctions are going to be a lot more effective than legal sanctions in this situation, right?
Ostracism and so on for people who don't pay their bills, a website with people who don't pay their bills, whoever, who knows, right?
But basically, there's no need for a DRO in that kind of situation.
If you're only doing business in the tri-state area, then you only need locally representative DROs.
And if you then do business nationwide, you're going to need additional premiums because the level of DRO complexity becomes that much higher.
And this is exactly how it works in cell phones.
I'm not coming up with anything too innovative here.
In cell phones, of course, if you use two other people's network to call home, your costs go up considerably because everybody needs a piece of the pie.
So if you have to use more DRO reciprocity relationships, then your costs are going to go up.
This is also, of course, going to encourage people to do business with those who have the same DRO that they do, right?
And the costs are going to be lower. So, of course, when you call using your own cell phone's network, it's much cheaper than if you have to use somebody roaming and have to use somebody else's network.
So, again, this is all pretty standard stuff in economics.
And this, of course, is going to be economically valuable to keep your costs down.
But, of course, if you're limiting your business to just those people that have your DRO, then you're also limiting your customer base, you're limiting your employee base.
So, in certain situations where it's very localized, that's going to be economically advantageous.
But in other situations, it's not going to be.
Now, of course... Just so you understand one of the issues around corruption in the state, when you have people who do business internationally, well, the guy with the grocery store in the small town is, through his taxes, paying the cost of everybody's enforcement at an international level.
So this is sort of important to understand, that the people who are doing business in a wider context Are the people who want a government because they can then shift the costs of enforcement, which are much higher, based on the fact that they have international requirements for reciprocity and so on, and for extradition and so on.
They want to shift all those costs to the taxpayer, for sure, for sure, for sure.
So that's sort of an important thing to understand, that the current system is a direct transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, right?
Because the rich have more complicated transactions, but everybody pays for taxation, and I bet you it's not proportional to the amount of taxes that the very rich pay.
So that's how I see DROs shaping out from an economic standpoint.
It could be totally different. Maybe there's something else out there that nobody's ever thought of that's going to be even more efficient than DROs.
Of course, one of the things that has made DROs possible is the computer revolution and the Internet and email and so on.
So you can get instantaneous information.
About people who've agreed to release that information for the case for the sake of keeping their costs down, right?
I mean, you don't have to give out your information to DROs that you want to do business with.
It's just that you'll then have to pay for your privacy, right?
Because once you give out information on your contract history, you can be more readily assessed in terms of risk, which means that you will get a lower risk cost than if you don't, right?
So if you don't give out your driving history, people charge you a lot.
If you give out a perfect driving history for 20 years, you're going to get charged a little in terms of insurance.
So it's not like people are going to all have access to your information and so on.
It's completely up to you. If you want to pay to protect your privacy, that's totally fine.
You just, you know, there are costs to it.
Knowledge is reduction of risk.
So that's how it could work.
I think that there's economic incentives that are pretty heavily built into both minimize and standardize the number of rules.
That are enforced in a DRO environment.
There's a constant optimization.
If somebody can find a way to prevent, right?
This is sort of the other big thing, right?
Prevention of crime is always better than curing crime.
The government has almost no incentive to prevent crime, except against itself, right?
Except against its own members. But it has almost no desire to reduce crime because it only makes profit, really, off of cure rather than prevention and so on.
But DROs will only make money from prevention.
It's a very different situation with a DRO environment than it would be in the States.
You're constantly optimizing to prevent rather than to cure crime, and that's something which we could do a whole lot better in society and think of all the people who then don't get killed, don't get raped, don't get stolen from, and so on.
That, to me, is worth quite a bit.
So thank you so much for listening.
I look forward to your donations.
Freedomainradio.com. Just click on the Donate button.
Sign up for the FeedBurner email notifications of when the shows get posted.
And if you could take the survey five minutes of your time, I would really, really appreciate it.
So thanks so much for listening, and I will talk to you soon.
We'll do abortion and DROs this afternoon.
▲
Export Selection