Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Jan. 5, 2013 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:13:37

2292 Angel Bullets: Violence In a Free Society

Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio - and recent winner of the 2012 Liberty Inspiration Award - discusses how violent crime can be dealt with in a stateless society.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everybody, Stefan Rolene from Freedom Aid Radio.
	Hope you're doing well.
	So, verily, my brethren and sistren, a challenge was put forward on the tube of yous.
	And the challenge was, you skanky-tailed anarcho-capitalists, you people, talk all you want about a free society.
	But what happens is, you simply refuse to talk about How violent crime will be dealt with in a free society?
	How will violent crime be dealt with in a free society?
	Now, I'm going to explicate all of the ways in which I think it could be dealt with.
	Needless to say, he said, then about to say it, This is not a final answer.
	This is not a definitive answer because no human being can replace the combined machinations of hundreds of millions of people or billions of people all working to maximize productivity, opportunity, and resource consumption in the free market.
	So please don't say, well, it can't work that way.
	If it can't work this way, fantastic.
	Then you can come up with a better way.
	So, the first thing to recognize, as always, is that people say, well, how will violent crime be dealt with in a free society?
	It's not being dealt with now.
	The majority of violent crimes go completely unsolved, and the police spend an enormous amount of resources dealing with non-violent crimes—drugs, prostitution, gambling, and so on.
	And, of course, the government is funded through violence itself.
	The government itself is a violent crime.
	It only sustains itself through violence and criminality, through taxation and debt and some counterfeiting and so on.
	So, I just wanted to point out that in no conceivable way, shape or form is violent crime being dealt with at the moment.
	There is a natural self-interest on the part of the police to not respond to crimes, but to define and initiate crimes.
	So, one of the things that changed with things like the war on drugs, the welfare state, and so on, is that you no longer had a complainant Going to the police and saying a crime had been committed, right?
	You no longer had an injured or a grieved party in the mix.
	This is hugely significant.
	This is such a foundational change in Policing or law enforcement, and I'm going to use that to mean in a free society too.
	It's such a fundamental change.
	So, if I go and buy a dime bag from a hippie, and I get my money's worth, and he gets his money's worth, and we both part happy with the transaction, then clearly there's no injured party.
	And it's really impossible to grow the state without creating crimes where there's no injured party, nobody who wants to complain about it, nobody who has a problem with it.
	There's no way to grow the state without that.
	Because if there's no injured party, then there can't be a crime, if that's the reality, which kind of is, at least.
	It's necessary but not sufficient for there to be a crime that somebody has to have been injured and complain about it and want to do something about it and expend resources in solving it and so on.
	But you really can't grow the state unless you can invent crimes.
	Because otherwise you're just kind of reactive.
	And otherwise the state has a pretty tough time justifying its existence when crime, as it tends to over time, goes down.
	So you have to invent crimes.
	In the same way you have to invent enemies, you have to invent money, you have to invent debt.
	All of this has to occur so the state can grow.
	If the state is reactionary, the state can't grow.
	If the state is like that Maytag repairman, you know, in the old commercials, with Gordon Jump, ah, I know that from WKRP. I'm not saying I'm proud to know it, I'm just saying I do know it.
	If the state is like that old Maytag commercial where the Maytag repairman is sitting around doing nothing because nobody's calling him, then you're going to run out of people who want to be Maytag repairmen and the whole point of it.
	If nothing's broken and nobody's calling, then you run out of reasons to grow the state.
	But if you can invent wars on drugs, wars on poverty, wars on...
	Illiteracy, wars on foreigners, you name it, right?
	Then the police get to invent crimes, which is like a business getting to invent clients.
	Well, you don't have to work that hard to sell if you can just invent.
	And so the capacity to invent crimes where there aren't crimes, to define and invent crimes is foundational to state growth.
	Now, the police love inventing crimes as well.
	They get to be proactive.
	When they get to be proactive, it means they get to get bribed.
	This is also fundamental to the corruption of the police force.
	So, if you can just imagine, you live in a town where, you know, once a year, there's a crime of passion.
	Well, who's going to bribe you?
	Well, no one.
	Because you're reactionary.
	You're waiting for things to happen.
	So, the bribery is impossible.
	If, on the other hand, you can go and harass people and plant drugs and invent crimes and so on, then lots of people are going to pay you to not harass them because you have a kind of infinite capacity to harass them because you're not reactionary or proactive.
	So, you get to get bribed, you get to have lots of petty power, all the things that People attracted to that line of work often tend to be kind of into.
	The other thing too, of course, is that it's kind of a lot safer to bust people selling drugs than it is to go after hardened criminals, right?
	So your risk factor goes way down, right?
	So like a friend of mine who's a doctor who had a Porsche, right?
	And the Porsche got stolen and it had GPS on it and he knew exactly where it was.
	It was taken to a chop shop and he called the cops and he said, you have to go now.
	Well, the cops don't really want to go into some chop shop where there may be guns and people might...
	I mean, they're just, you know, we'll let insurance take care of it.
	We're not going to really bother with it.
	And they never did anything about it.
	Never got his car back and all.
	You know, it's a lot easier to set up sting operations and bust...
	Low-level drug users than it is to actually try to go in and confront hardened criminals.
	Now, I'm not saying the cops don't do that, and sometimes the cops are very brave about that, but in general, you get infinitely greater capacity to justify your own existence by inventing crimes.
	You get the capacity to proactively harass people, which means you get power, and also you get, if you're that way inclined, you can bribe people much more.
	And last but not least, by inventing crimes, you shift The people you are prosecuting, from hardened criminals to people who are not hardened criminals, but who are just trying to, you know, deal drugs or gamble or whatever, and they're much safer, right?
	So, it's a huge win for the police as a whole and, of course, a general loss, right?
	Specific gains and general losses are all about what the state's all about.
	So, crime is not being dealt with.
	It's being invented.
	The stuff that people really care about is being avoided.
	And all of this is pretty wretched all around.
	So, that's...
	The reality of where policing is at the moment.
	I mean, you get it, right?
	Once you're throwing innocent peaceful people in jail by the hundreds of thousands or millions around the world, once you are ripping off the unborn, you know you ain't dealing with crime.
	Obviously, right?
	So, and once you're starting wars that kill a million-plus Iraqis and nobody faces any negative consequences, clearly you're not effectively dealing with the problem of violence.
	So, I just want to make sure that that is up front, that it's not like a free society has to be as wonderfully proactive and effective at dealing with crime as the government is.
	So...
	Okay, so let's return to how principles and voluntary crime reduction, crime dealing with, might occur in a free society.
	So there are a couple of principles to take into account.
	The first is that people will be far less likely and fundamentally be kind of impossible to pay for the proactive invention of crimes.
	So people who have a bug in their bonnet about drug users will vote for a drug war because they don't pay that much.
	Their bill is split up among a couple of hundred million other Americans.
	So they don't pay that much.
	To prosecute a war on drugs.
	If, however, if you said, well, if I want to prosecute the war on drugs, I will be sent a bill, and if I don't want to prosecute the war on drugs, I won't be sent a bill, then people won't do that anymore.
	Most people wouldn't take that deal, right?
	They'd say, ooh, I don't know how many other people are going to fund this war on drugs, which costs like tens of millions of dollars.
	Tens of billions of dollars a year, sorry.
	So I don't know how many other people are going to fund this, so I think I will not.
	Do it, because, you know, if half the people want the war on drugs, then half the people don't have to pay, then half the people are going to get a big-ass bill for the war on drugs, and then they're going to suddenly find that the war on drugs is not worth a couple of thousand dollars a year to them, so they're going to back out, and so the bill's going to accumulate, and the last guy's going to get stuck in the shorts with tens of trillions of dollars of bills for the war on drugs, and then suddenly, I bet you he's going to magically find some tolerance for drug users and so on.
	So, you can only invent crimes and enemies when there's a state, because you then get to indulge your moral self-righteousness and pomposity and all that by offloading the cost to everyone in general.
	And so, that's the general that only costs you...
	A couple of hundred, no, $200 a year because everyone has to pay for it, then you're probably going to want to do it.
	If it's going to cost you a couple of thousand and going up every year, then you're probably not going to want to do it.
	So, you can only invent crimes when there's a state.
	Now, that's to the general benefit of the morally self-righteous and intolerant sociopaths who don't seem to care about the victims of child abuse who end up as drug addicts for the most part.
	But, of course, there's a much more specialized growing group of those who get to prosecute.
	The war on drugs results in, like the war on terror, results in a massive expansion in the police state and everyone on the payroll and everyone who sells to those on the payroll, all the, quote, private companies, those fascistic enabling bastards who end up selling to all of the weaponry produced by the remnant engineering geniuses of the free market, turned to evil.
	The ones who deliver the ring to Sauron, well, they, of course, love it too, and so on, right?
	And it serves people's general psychological needs, right?
	So some bad thing happens, everyone has a need for security, so you go through these weird rituals.
	Like if the volcano erupts when a guy was picking his nose, then you'll say, well, let's not pick our nose, that angers the volcano god, and then you stop picking your nose, and then the next time a volcano erupts when someone's scratching his ass, you say, oh, scratching his ass offends the volcano god, and so you end up increasingly restricted because what you're banning has nothing to do with the cause, Of the disasters that are occurring, so you end up in this increasingly rigid, fascistic nightmare totalitarian existence.
	Your cause and effect is ridiculous, and therefore you have ever encroaching, claustrophobic regulations of pointless and unrelated activities.
	So, the invention of crimes would not occur in a free society.
	It just won't occur.
	So, what will occur in a free society is if you have a problem, you will call someone to help.
	So, let's start with some of the easier ones, right?
	So, theft, right?
	So, let's say that there are people around who want to steal your stuff.
	Well, Theft would be strongly associated with child abuse, with the insecurity, the sociopathy, of course, the lack of empathy, the entitlement and so on that results in you wanting to be a thief rather than produce things of your own.
	Let's say someone just comes and steals your stuff.
	Well, you'd have insurance.
	Now, the insurance company, unlike the police, makes money from prevention.
	This is a hugely important thing.
	The government makes money out of pretending to cure rather than actually preventing it.
	Do the police have big PSAs about don't spank your children?
	Of course not.
	Because that would actually be to prevent crime, and relatively quickly too.
	So if parents stopped aggressing against their children, crime would go down quickly, like within a decade, because there's lots of eight and ten-year-olds who are, not a huge amount, but there's some who are dangerous and criminals and bullying and so on, because this stuff spreads, right?
	The heavily abused child bullies at school.
	Even the children who aren't abused end up being abused by the bully at school.
	So it has a ripple effect.
	And so if children weren't abused, then drug consumption would pretty much collapse.
	Like 90-95% of drug consumption, illicit drug consumption, would simply cease.
	Because people wouldn't need to self-medicate the agony of the changed brain chemistry, the results from an abused childhood.
	And bullying would almost cease to exist, and it's like imagining my daughter going and punching some kid for his lunch money.
	I mean, it's just incomprehensible, too.
	It's just never going to happen, right?
	Because she's raised in a peaceful environment, and the theories are all valid and true.
	So, you would have insurance against theft, and so the insurance company would replace your stuff.
	Now, the insurance company would not want people to be thieves, right?
	So, it would give you reduced rates if you engaged in safer behavior.
	So, if you had an alarm system, if you had voice-activated electronics, if you had stuff bolted down, I don't know, whatever it is.
	Maybe even in really bad neighborhoods, bars on the window, who knows, right?
	But if you had all of these crime prevention techniques and mechanisms, then obviously it would be cheaper to insure you, and that cheaper cost would reflect the reality of reduction in potential crime.
	Now, it would also be to the profit, perhaps, to embed tiny GPS chips in your television, and then if your television was removed beyond a certain amount, it would self-destruct or fuse its box or whatever.
	It would destroy itself or simply fundamentally not work.
	So, that's one thing.
	One way in which, right, you could also have voice-activated televisions, thumbprint-activated electronics, whatever it is, right, so that other people can't use them.
	And if you engaged in all of these things, right, so you'd buy a tablet and the tablet would say, and I save you $100 on your insurance every year because whatever, I have a thumbprint or a retina scan or whatever it is, it's going to make it less likely for other people to be able to use it.
	So the whole economic process is Would be focused on rational and cost-effective ways to reduce crime.
	So I think that's important.
	Of course, there would be, I mean, theft and the internet have, I mean, in a way, kind of fundamental enemies, right?
	So, you could also, if you were a merchant and you were found in possession of stolen goods, like a store, you were found in possession of stolen goods, that would be very bad for you, right?
	Because people would not want to do business with you, people would no longer want to insure you, and all that kind of stuff, right?
	And so, you would get cheaper insurance for your business if you were willing to have an anonymous ping to some central server to find out if what you were buying and selling was actually stolen or not.
	Easy peasy, right?
	Wouldn't need to be any identifying characteristics sent other than, you know, this is the serial number of what I'm selling.
	Is it stolen?
	Yes or no.
	Pretty easy.
	I mean, you're probably going to have to go ping Visa anyway to pay for the purchase or something like that, so you could ping to find out if it was stolen or not, and of course, that would be a red flag and all that kind of stuff.
	So, with that kind of system in place, it would be pretty hard to steal that kind of stuff.
	And...
	Of course, insurance companies would have...
	They have multi-generational focuses, right?
	I think it's Samsung who has a 100-year...
	No, 500-year business plan, right?
	I mean, honestly, businesses sign 99-year leases.
	And the company that is best able to reduce crime in the long run is the company that's going to be most effective and profitable.
	And, you know, if...
	Right, so a lot of crime occurs 16 to 24 years.
	So, if you...
	Start really dealing with child abuse as an insurance company, it pays off in a decade and a half, and it pays off in 10 years.
	It can even pay off in 7 or 8 years.
	If you partner with schools and say, we're going to all team together to reduce child abuse, which means that it'll be much cheaper to run the schools, cheaper to insure the schools, cheaper to insure the parents, right?
	The positive economic benefits of reduced child abuse pay off in just a few years.
	And businesses make investments like that all the time.
	So, guaranteed, it's going to, right?
	Like, at the moment, it's really uncomfortable to, you know, if you've ever tried it, and I hope that you have, it's really difficult and uncomfortable to proactively confront with and deal with people who are hitting or abusing their children.
	Like, it's uncomfortable to fire people, which is, you know, why people who can fire people are more valuable as managers, because some people need to be fired, right?
	So this is why in the public sector nobody really tries to fire anyone.
	It's kind of uncomfortable and causes upset and possible emotional retaliation from other people and so on.
	But people do it because it's financially valuable and a positive thing to do economically when it's necessary.
	In the same way, people will confront child abusers if it's economically profitable to do so.
	And obviously, because of that, a valuable service to society.
	So, you know, prevention is sort of very, very, very important.
	Now, the other thing that is important as well is that a criminality is kind of like a virus, kind of like a form of illness to other people.
	And it's literally a virus that can attack your face in the form of a fist, right?
	So criminality is something that is highly contagious and obviously dangerous and damaging to other people.
	And what we do is, if we suspect somebody of having an illness in society, we test them and we quarantine them, clearly.
	Or we treat them, let's say.
	We test them and we treat them.
	And in the same way, if a child is exhibiting destructive behavior or whatever, you know, what's the unholy trinity, bedwetting, arson, and cruelty to animals, right, in terms of budding sociopath or psychopath.
	So if the child is exhibiting destructive behaviors, then the first thing you would do, of course, is you would have a brain scan of that child.
	And you would do the sociopathy test, right?
	So you would do the test, which find out, does the child have any emotional reactions to emotionally charged words?
	Do they have empathy?
	So you'd simply test this.
	This would be a combination of brain scans and interviews and, you know, I guess Robert Harris' sociopathy or psychopathy checklist and so on.
	And all of these things could be done.
	I mean, they're painless.
	They are obviously non-intrusive and so on.
	All of these things can be done in a doctor's office or in a hospital, and you would simply do that.
	And then, if it were found out to be the case, then obviously you would charge the parents with willful destruction of the child's mind, assuming that there's no biological cause, which I think is still fairly not true, but what do I know?
	But...
	So, if there was a biological cause, then you'd provide resources to the parents to make sure that the child did not turn into a criminal, because they were certainly likely to be heading that way.
	And if there is no biological cause or was not a biological cause, then you would charge the parents with, you know, fell in child abuse with basically the destruction of the child's soul, for want of a better phrase, and then, you know, would sort of deal with things accordingly.
	But you would test for these things.
	Now, Why don't these tests occur at the moment?
	Because nobody profits from putting these tests, and it's a highly uncomfortable thing to say to parents, we need to test your child for sociopathy.
	Well, we kind of do, right?
	Because, you know, with autism and so on, we understand early intervention can make the world a difference.
	The same thing would be true of criminality, but it's to nobody's interest to do it.
	Now, of course, in a free society, it certainly would be to people's interest to do it.
	And, you know, people can overcome a lot of social inhibitions, lo and behold, miraculously, if financial interest is at stake.
	But if financial interest is not at stake, then we go with that which is, generally, we go with that which is emotionally easiest in the moment, and that's to the detriment of all, and, of course, particularly the children who have the least voice in society, when, of course, they should have the most.
	So, that's an important...
	Now, of course, people are saying, I can hear them in my head, saying, well, what do you do with people who just refuse to bring their children in, right?
	Refuse to bring their children in?
	Well, that's an interesting question.
	So, at the moment, of course, I don't know, what do you just bring soldiers over and, you know, maybe have a shootout...
	Sorry, bring cops over or whatever, maybe have a shootout or something if the parents are really crazy.
	Not good at all.
	But...
	The one thing that is really not understood well Is that ostracism is incredibly powerful.
	Like, if you ostracize people, it actually activates the same pain centers as physical torture.
	Like, we're kind of tribal animals, right?
	You know, isolate a dog, a pack animal, they're going to go kind of crazy.
	It's painful, it's destructive, it's something that our body really, really kicks against.
	So, ostracism is incredibly painful.
	Now, say, well, what about...
	Maybe the parents are sociopaths and they don't care about social ostracism or whatever.
	Well, of course, sociopaths, the criminal kind, are parasites.
	And a parasite doesn't do well without the host, right?
	So, let's say you bring your kid to a doctor and the doctor says, oh, you know, your kid's destructive.
	Or the teacher calls the doctor and says, you need to see this kid.
	He's setting fire to other children or whatever.
	And so they call the parents and say, bring your kid in.
	The parents don't bring the kid in.
	Well, then things start to really happen.
	Things really start to move.
	So, again, first thing I would do is I would inform the landlord of the apartment that there's an arsonist, like an arsonist child or a potential arsonist child, and say, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to triple your insurance because you have, right?
	And the guy's going to say, well, that's not worth it to me, so I have to kick these people out.
	And so I say, okay, well, so the consequence is you have no place to live if you don't bring your child in.
	And then I would simply put it out in general and say to the electric company, I would put it to the car company, to the bus, to the road company, to the grocery company, to whatever it was, right?
	Saying this person is harming their child and is not bringing their child in for testing.
	So the person's boss, right?
	So you're working for someone, then they're pinged by an insurance company and saying, you know, Joe Blow, your employee, has a sociopathic kid or potentially sociopathic kids, not bringing them in for testing.
	So we just wanted to...
	To let you know that these are the kinds of decisions that your employee is making, and so I'm afraid we can no longer ensure any actions that your employee is taking on behalf of your company, because he clearly is making really bad decisions, he lacks empathy, he's potentially harming society enormously, so we can't ensure this employee of yours anymore.
	We can't insure him when he drives.
	We can't insure him in the workforce.
	We can't insure him any of the contracts he creates or signs or any client he deals with.
	We can't insure him against stealing from you.
	We can't insure him against fraud.
	We simply can't.
	He is now rogue and he's no longer insurable.
	Well, what's the boss going to say?
	Holy crap.
	That's not good, right?
	And so these are tons and tons of ways in which compliance can be ensured, right?
	And the other, so that's the stick.
	The carrot could be, hey, bring your kid in for testing and we will treat him for free and that will make your family life a whole lot better.
	So that's also something to, right, there's a, or maybe we'll pay you, you know, oh, we'll pay you $5,000 to bring your kid in for testing.
	See, it's all worth it because the kid's going to be a criminal, right?
	Or could be a criminal, has a heightened chance of it.
	So these are all ways in which you can gain compliance from people where they face huge negative consequences.
	Huge negative consequences.
	They lose their home.
	They lose their job.
	The bank may say, if you are accused of harming your child by a reputable dispute resolution agency or an accredited school, and you don't bring your child in for testing, we are closing your account.
	We are freezing your account.
	So maybe you have no money.
	Whatever.
	So you may have no health care.
	All of these things can be denied to people.
	You're not allowed to go to a mall, you're not allowed to walk on a street, you know, whatever it is.
	I mean, I'm just making things up.
	There's tons of things that could be done this way.
	But basically, you are no longer allowed to participate in economic society until you make right, until you do the right thing.
	Now, not participating in economic society is, I mean, hugely...
	You have to go back to basically the Stone Age at that point.
	You're going to go, what, live in the woods and make your own hut?
	And what if you get a toothache, right?
	I mean...
	I say, well, there'll be some parents who will do that.
	Well, look, if they're going to do that, they're going to do that.
	The statism doesn't solve that either.
	Go live in the woods.
	I mean, who the hell knows where you are?
	They just don't bother, right?
	So most people, when the negative consequences are fully explained to them of not getting their child in to take care, to be reviewed and treated, once it is made clear to them, then they're going to They're going to submit.
	Of course they are.
	Oh, what if they don't?
	Well, it's like saying, well, in a state of society, I really want to oppose child abuse.
	Well, what if that just makes the parents kill the children?
	Well, then it makes the parents kill the children.
	Sorry.
	This is a fantastic way of getting disputes resolved with no bloodshed, simply through the withdrawal of economic participation.
	It is economically inefficient to raise A criminal.
	And there are lots of people whose profit solely depends on there not being criminals around.
	And so it is going to be worth it for people.
	The costs of criminality do not accrue to the parents at the moment.
	I mean, they don't pay for the incarceration of their children.
	I mean, unless there's a civil case, they don't pay for the harm done to the victims and so on.
	So I really, really want you to understand that.
	What if you woke up tomorrow, you're kicked out of your house, You can't cash a check.
	Your visa is shut down.
	Can't access an ATM. You lose your job.
	What would you do to regain all of that?
	Well, if that meant submitting to some tests and some free care for your kids, of course you would.
	Of course you would.
	So that's, to me, an optimal solution.
	No bloodshed.
	No violence.
	No people crashing through your door with guns.
	Nothing like that.
	Just, hey, society ain't gonna deal with you until you do the right thing.
	Which means you got no place to live here.
	You cannot buy groceries.
	You cannot get a drink of water from a restaurant.
	You simply can't participate in society.
	We're not going to sell you food.
	We're not going to power your home.
	You can't drive your car.
	Nobody's going to sell you gas.
	This is a fantastic way to get social compliance without bloodshed.
	Now people, of course, are checks and balances.
	Of course, there are no checks and balances with the state.
	This is all just a fantasy.
	Checks and balances is just a way of pretending that there's some limits, right?
	So this recent fiscal cliff bill with 41 times the number of tax increases as opposed to tax cuts.
	The tax cuts, of course, will never materialize.
	They never have and never will.
	The Senate was given the final bill three minutes before they voted on it, right?
	So you understand, there's no checks and balances.
	As I said on Facebook, Politics is a comedy, but if we think it's a drama, it will always end in tragedy.
	It is comic.
	It is ridiculous.
	It's so unbelievable.
	Okay, so these are ways to deal with theft.
	These are ways to deal with assault.
	These are ways to deal with rape.
	These are ways to deal with murder.
	Nobody is going to allow you to participate in society until and unless you turn yourself in.
	Now, Let's say there's a shooter.
	Let's say some kid escaped all these nets, got horribly abused, or maybe has a brain tumor, I don't know, and they just take out a gun and start shooting people up at them all.
	Well, the issue is not the use of violence in a free society.
	That's a statist way of thinking.
	What are we going to permit?
	That's not important.
	The issue is not Who gets to use force or how is force used or anything like that?
	It doesn't matter at all.
	The only important question to ask is, what are the consequences of using force in a free society?
	That is the most important question, right?
	What are the consequences of using force in a free society?
	So if there's a shooter and someone shoots the shooter, they're going to get a reward.
	Right?
	Of course, of course they are.
	You know, like if a wolf is menacing some schoolchildren and, you know, some guy shoots the wolf, you know, the parents are going to be giving that guy Christmas cakes for the next five generations, right?
	That's, you know, you can say heroic or whatever, saving the kids.
	So if there's a shooter and somebody shoots the shooter, then they will suffer no negative consequences.
	And they will suffer, I mean, they will not suffer, they will experience positive consequences.
	Like, good for you, thank you, may the blessings of Jehovah be upon you.
	And that's important to understand.
	It doesn't matter who uses force.
	It matters who objects to the use of force.
	Remember, if there's no complainant, there's no crime.
	I don't mean sort of existentially, I mean in terms of what society can deal with.
	If there's no complainant, there's no crime.
	And so, if nobody objects to you shooting someone, then de facto, de jure, that is perfectly fine.
	I mean, psychological consequences, you've killed someone, whatever, right?
	But the reality is, if nobody objects to you shooting the person, then that is the legitimate use of force.
	So, if a guy comes bursting through the wall of your house wielding a chainsaw and you shoot the guy...
	Well, how many people are going to object to that?
	Well, no one, really.
	The DRO is not going to have a problem with it.
	Your neighbors are going to say, well, better you than me, but thank you.
	So, if there's no complainant, then there's no crime.
	So, how is force going to be used in a free society?
	Well, it's going to be used in a way that meets the general standard of acceptability, i.e.
	self-defense.
	Now, I mean, there'll probably be investigations and so on, and if you've provoked someone, that may be more complicated and so on.
	Whatever.
	But the reality is, there is no legitimate use of force as a, you know, law or anything in a free society.
	But if you use force in a manner which no reasonable person objects to, then that is de facto de jure It's acceptable in a free society.
	And all of the complicated gradations, you know, well, that guy was walking off with one of my shoes, so I blew his head off, right?
	I mean, these would be an excessive use of force and all that, disproportionate to the injury.
	Well, of course, insurance companies would be keen to not have that happen, right?
	Because all the investigation and complications and problems and so on.
	And if an insurance company or DRO gets a dispute resolution organization, if they get the reputation of defending vigilante killers, then people are not going to want to do business with them and they will find their insurance going up, right?
	So again, this cross-layer of insurance is all designed to optimally keep costs down.
	Which means prevention, which means no invented crimes, and so on.
	So, it is a truly democratic but economically efficient system.
	Democracy without economic efficiency is just mob rule.
	Economic efficiency fundamentally is democracy because it's a reflection of all of the decisions that people are making or want to make about the efficient use of resources, which in the realm of crime and so on is all of the good things that we want around crime prevention and so on.
	So, It's not what use of force will be acceptable in a free society.
	That's a status way of thinking.
	Like, there's some rule that everyone has to conform to.
	What is the most economically efficient, what is the least morally objectionable, or the most morally praised in the case of self-defense, particularly when it saves other people?
	These are all ways in which force is used in a free society.
	So, if you sort of want to say, well, how is force going to be used in a free society?
	You have to look and say, well, An extremity of self-defense very few people are going to have problems with, and prevention being way better than cure.
	It's going to be much cheaper, much more efficient, much less violent.
	And the true roots of human violence, which is child abuse, will all be proactively dealt with because there will be an economic incentive to go through.
	The very challenging emotional task of getting parents to treat their kids better.
	And really, there are no shortcuts.
	There are no other ways of doing it.
	And I hope that this helps.
	I hope this makes sense.
	Of course, there's no perfect answer, no complete answer, but this is how I would certainly want it to work in a free society, which means if you agree with me, then there's two of us who would at least buy the service from that DRL. Thank you so much.
	Freedom Aid Radio.
	Donate if you can, if you please.
	Donation means toys.
	Take care.
	Talk to you soon.
	All right, so as usual, when I finish the show, there are about 100 unanswered questions.
	So this is the use of force in a free society part after the first.
	So, self-defense is fine and deals with a fair number of kind of home invasion, muggings, and so on.
	But, of course, not everybody wants to do their own self-defense, right?
	So what happens for people like that?
	Well, of course, they would outsource it in the same way that you would outsource anything in a free society.
	So, somebody else would be doing your self-defense for you.
	And this is, of course, national defense and so on.
	Now, national defense I've talked a lot about before, so I won't really get into that here, but we're just talking about sort of the criminal actions.
	So, if you live in a high-crime neighborhood, and I've sort of got quotes around all this stuff because it just seems so...
	So silly that there would be a high-crime neighbourhood in a free society, because a free society is only going to occur when children are, in the vast majority of cases, treated well.
	And if children are, in the vast majority of cases, treated well, there will be virtually no crime in a free society.
	People will worry about crime about as much as you worry about bubonic plague.
	People in the past worried a lot about bubonic plague because it was everywhere, but in the present they really don't worry about it any more than you worry about polio when you go swimming in a public pool.
	But of course in the 40s and 50s this was a huge fear for parents.
	Or the reality is you'll worry about crime about as much as an atheist worries about demonic possession.
	So, I put all these quotes in it, and I know that this answer sort of bothers people.
	And it should bother you.
	It should bother you that crime is so easy to solve, and we don't solve it, because we just don't treat children with the super equality, extra slice of personhood with the cherry on top that they rationally require, need, and deserve.
	So I get it.
	You know, some people are simplistic, or they can't quite believe that if we treat children well, there will still be crime.
	But, I mean, you just have to look into the science.
	I mean, watch my Bomb and the Brain series, fdrurl.com forward slash bib.
	The facts about spanking, all the, I mean, kindly childhoods are to criminality As fresh citrus is to scurvy.
	So, scurvy was a disease which basically was caused by vitamin C deficiency, which was catastrophic in the past.
	I mean, catastrophic.
	So, for instance, did you know that the Royal Navy, England was, of course, a massive superpower on the sea, I guess, rivaled by Spain to some degree for hundreds of years.
	And that England, the English Navy, the British Navy lost more sailors to scurvy than it did to war.
	Huge, monstrous problem.
	So entrenched and so embedded as a permanent challenge of the seafaring life that if you said, no, a handful of oranges will solve this.
	No, come on, it might reduce it or, you know, whatever, but it's not going to, right?
	Well, no.
	You don't get scurvy if you have enough vitamin C. So, yes, if you have peaceful childhoods, you will not have crime.
	I mean, come on, we all know this, right?
	So David Friedman was on my show talking about peaceful parenting.
	Do we really think that his son is going to go and become some arch-criminal mastermind or something like that, or, you know, a hit-and-run guy?
	I mean, come on.
	I mean, please, really.
	Great parent.
	Stephen Cancel has been on the show talking about parenting.
	Great parent.
	Do we really think that this death spawn is going to be in any particular danger of running a car theft ring at the expense of society as a whole?
	No, come on, we all know this.
	Anyway, we all know there's the science behind it.
	But it only bothers people because so many of the appalling tragedies in life are so utterly unnecessary.
	And don't require any huge overturning.
	Of people's belief systems.
	So getting rid of slavery required getting rid of the Christian superiority of the white race, the white man's burden to bring the godless black soulless heathen to Jesus and so on, and required the overturning of massive amounts of primitive racism.
	But peaceful parenting requires that parents just shut the hell up and do what they say they're doing, which is treat their kids as number one and do everything for their kids.
	All that we're asking parents to do is to parent the way that they like to see other people parenting on TV and so on, right?
	We're not asking for an overturning of anybody's belief system, but a mere conformity with what people already profess.
	It's a huge step forward.
	I mean, if everyone said, well, women are perfectly equal and should be perfectly equal, and then you have this horribly sexist society, at least you wouldn't have to overcome the hurdle of sexism.
	You only have to overcome the hurdle of integrity.
	Further ahead already.
	All we have to do is do what we're saying.
	Just not do what we're doing.
	Just do what we're saying.
	So, I don't believe that any of these things will fundamentally come to fruition because there's going to be so much economic and social pressure towards positive and peaceful and philosophical parenting that the idea of there being any kind of significant criminality is ridiculous.
	Criminality will be like one of these house episodes where there's some Luger-laced intercontinental interstellar galactic bug that somebody picked up on the mirror space station.
	And it will take forever to solve it.
	Of course, they'll know what causes it and so on.
	But there'll be so much prevention and so much positive parenting going on.
	And so many people...
	See, once you get enough positive parenting going on, then the problem is solved.
	The problem is solved.
	Because with enough positive parenting and peaceful parenting going on, Sorry, I keep using positive, peaceful, philosophical, but basically, property, rights, and the non-aggression principle-based parenting.
	Fundamentally, the non-aggression principle.
	With enough of that parenting going on, people will have much less problem confronting others.
	There was this article on Huffington Post recently about a gay guy who was in line to get some pizza and was laughing and joking with his partner.
	Husband, I don't know.
	And someone turned around and says, you know, take that gay boy stuff somewhere else.
	I can't remember what he says.
	It's a pretty harsh, a nasty thing to say.
	And...
	Everybody in line who was straight castigated the guy for saying such a terrible thing.
	So how comfortable is he going to be doing that in public again, right?
	Well, that's where peaceful parenting needs to get to.
	So I make the case for the nth time, once we have peaceful parenting, once we have, well, I mean, I just want to call it good parenting.
	Then we're not going to have to worry about criminality.
	We're not going to have to worry about hierarchies in society.
	We're not going to have to worry about war.
	And we're not going to be left with the legacy of the Stone Age called the state.
	Anyway.
	But let's say that in a free society, in a society with peaceful parenting, which is really the same thing, That there's a crime-ridden neighborhood and people living in that crime-ridden neighborhood, and they don't, little old ladies who don't want to carry around guns in their purses or whatever and want somebody else to take on the challenging task of fighting crime.
	Well, there is of course a very delicate balance that is needed in fights against crime.
	Like all delicate balances that are necessary in society, The government is the worst system to do that, right?
	Using the government to solve delicate balances is like using a crane to play the piano, a building crane to play the piano.
	It's just ridiculous.
	Or, you know, a bulldozer to do your delicate flowerbed gardening.
	It just doesn't work.
	Now, the delicate balance, of course, is that you want sufficient force to protect people, but you don't want so much force as to endanger people.
	This is a very, very delicate balance and needs to be constantly fine-tuned to the types of criminality, the age of the criminals, the prevalence of criminality, and so on.
	People want just enough force to thwart criminality, but not so much force that they place themselves in danger Or provoke a disproportionate response among the criminal element.
	This is all very delicate stuff.
	Now, fortunately, the free market is fantastic at calibrating these kinds of delicacies in a way that no central algorithm or central planning could conceivably achieve.
	The coordination of complexity is really what individual choices to optimal advantage in the free market achieves.
	It's hard for people to remember this because we're just so used to the idea that everything has to be planned and controlled and centrally managed and so on.
	But whenever you're looking at a delicate balance, then you really are looking at the free market.
	You just simply cannot achieve anything else.
	There's a scene in the movie Tangled where Brett Garrett plays a man who is, you know, he's got a hook for a hand and he wants to be a concert pianist and he drags his hook up the piano and basically destroys it.
	And this is the state.
	I mean, it doesn't have the delicacy.
	All it has is brute force and evil advantage.
	It doesn't have any delicacy.
	And so, if you want a DRO to give you protection or a couple of DROs to give you protection in your neighborhood, what do you want?
	Well, you want people who have force, but not people who abuse force.
	Now, having force to protect your property, assuming that you're not paying someone a million dollars to guard a gumball, Is economically advantageous, right?
	So let's say that without the local DRO police force, you're going to lose $5,000 a year in goods from your house or your business or whatever, on average.
	But it only costs you $500.
	Well, not to have the DRO, then obviously that's economically advantageous.
	If it cuts it down to like, you only lose $250 on average.
	Well, that makes sense, right?
	In fact, paying the $500, even if it only cuts down to $2,500 from $5,000, you're still ahead, because you're 25 plus 5, you're paying $3,000, and you're not losing $5,000 to thieves, right?
	So, this is why, of course...
	Retail companies put in, retail stores put in these magnetic strips and the ink things and all that kind of stuff, right?
	Because it's economically advantageous.
	They pay less in that stuff than they lose in shoplifting.
	Like, even with all that stuff in, do you know that 15% of what you pay in a retail store goes towards the cost of shoplifting?
	It's a horrible tax on people, particularly on the poor.
	So you want just enough force to deter the maximum amount of predation in your neighborhood, but not so much force that either A, you're overpaying for it, or B, you are in danger of it, right?
	So, if there's a pickpocket around, you don't probably want to get together with your neighbors and pay $50,000 to have a tank patrol your neighborhood, you know, armed with a.50 cal warhead or something like that, or a shell.
	You don't want to call in airstrikes on a thief of purses, right?
	I don't understand.
	You don't want somebody who invades your home, right, you don't want the DRO to put explosives in your basement which they can detonate remotely, thus destroying the thief, and you, and your house.
	Well, you, of course, most importantly.
	So, that disproportionate amount of force will end up costing you more than you risk or actually lose in theft.
	So, if you stand to lose $5,000 a year in terms of stuff, but it costs you $50,000 a year for some excessive force thing, then you don't want to do that.
	So, balancing this is very, very tricky.
	Enough force for deterrence.
	But not so much force that it's either A, too expensive or B, too destructive.
	Very, very delicate balance.
	Requires constant revision.
	Requires constant investment in new ideas, in new technology, in new approaches.
	Requires that the force be constantly scaled up and down depending on the threats.
	Requires very, very precise laser-like Strikes on stuff that only hits the criminal and deters the criminal and so on.
	Very complex.
	I don't know what the answer is, right?
	Because there is no answer.
	There's a continual process.
	What's the best technology?
	Well, what's the answer?
	There's no answer.
	There's only a process.
	Central planning is thinking that we can have an answer when there's really only a process.
	And it's immature people who are drawn towards answers rather than processes.
	Right?
	So people want an answer like God did it rather than, what's the meaning of life?
	Well, you know, getting into heaven or whatever, pleasing the deity.
	They want an answer, but life is a process.
	There's no answer.
	The economy and solutions to complex problems, it's a process, not an answer.
	Oh, let's have a welfare state.
	Solved.
	Well, this is people who are too immature to deal with the process that goes on.
	And who also can't stand error.
	People who grew up in highly critical environments really find themselves very anxious around process-driven solutions rather than answer-driven solutions.
	Which are not.
	Answer-driven solutions are not.
	The only thing they answer, the only thing they deal with, the only thing they solve is your anxiety.
	It doesn't actually solve anything in the real world.
	So you will want someone...
	To patrol your neighborhood and to deal with bad guys.
	Now, the important thing to remember is that a DRO that provides local security It's going to need to be insurable.
	It's going to need to be bonded.
	Like, nobody's going to invest in a company that uses force unless it's insured against the misuse of force.
	Right?
	A rogue DRO cop or whatever it is.
	Someone who is corrupt or extorting or whatever, dangerous in X, Y, or Z fashion.
	And so, nobody, nobody, but nobody, but nobody is going to do business with a DRO that does not have insurance for two reasons.
	One, of course, they want to make sure that the DRO has money to pay out any claims made against it if things go awry.
	And B, the great thing about insurance is you get paid for someone else to do their due diligence, right?
	Insured companies can attract a greater customer base, which means it's cheaper for each customer, particularly in something where there's a kind of fixed amount of investment and then you can distribute it fairly widely, like a couple of local cops and a whole neighborhood, right?
	So, you go out to the whole neighborhood.
	Those kinds of things hugely benefit from insurance because you get the benefit of the insurance having done their due diligence, right?
	It's a great thing about insurance.
	So, there are two DRO companies, right?
	And one of them has to pay twice the insurance that the other one does.
	Well, you get that information for free.
	Either implicitly, in that it's in the price, and the price is much higher for the services, or explicitly in that you can contact the insurance company and find out why, or anyone who tells you, well, they have to charge a lot more, and they won't tell you their rating or insurance rating, and then you just don't do business with that kind of person, because they're clearly telling you they've got some skeletons in the closet, perhaps literally.
	So this is what's really important to understand, is that the insurance system in a free society is like a rating system.
	It is a rating system, but it's a rating system you get for free.
	And not the rating system like Moody's and the crap like that that went on, which is so statist, manipulated, and all that kind of stuff.
	Monopoly-supported crap.
	But insurance is a free rating system.
	It's not only free, you actually get paid To use it.
	Because your price goes down for somebody who's got good insurance.
	So, if you want to hire some local security force, they have to be insured, they have to be bonded, they have to whatever, and there has to be a contract for the misuse of force, all this kind of good stuff.
	I mean, this is all fantastic.
	And whoever comes up with the cheapest and most effective solution, On a continuously modified basis, these contracts would come up for renewal every 6 to 12 months and everybody else would be trying to get that contract by saying, we have a better way of protecting you.
	We have a cheaper way of protecting you.
	The cheapest way of protecting people is for the parents to be better parents and not yell at, hit, intimidate, bully, alienate or abandon their kids.
	A couple of parenting courses is way cheaper than criminality.
	Or more than a couple or whatever.
	It's way cheaper.
	But the important thing to remember is that this delicate balance is going to be pursued by the security company.
	The security company is going to want to make sure that it provides the best, most effective, and cheapest possible service.
	And this is not present in the government system, right?
	Police have no duty to protect you.
	You can't sue them.
	And they have no incentive to prevent in the long run and no financial incentive to recalibrate their services depending on existing changing conditions.
	So the DRO security company will need to be insured against the illegitimate use of force.
	And the illegitimate use of force will be something that social consensus, a variety of insurance companies, a variety of security forces will come together and figure out in conjunction and finally with the necessary approval of the people in the community.
	Because if the people in the community do not approve of the definition of a legitimate use of force from a security company, they won't buy those services.
	Now, if some crazy-ass DRO says, my definition of the legitimate use of force is calling in an airstrike on a shoplifter, well, they won't get any insurance, they won't get any investors, I mean, nobody will buy their services, that's just not going to work, right?
	So, the legitimate use of force is not decided by anyone in particular.
	And that is great.
	You want it to be a consensus of value judgments and optimal economics.
	And there will, of course, be a constant experimentation in a variety of ways.
	Neighborhoods, right?
	So, if some DRO can cut crime by 75% through a variety of methods, they'll use that to get into other neighborhoods.
	If some other guys can do it 85%, they'll use that to overturn the existing contracts.
	When they come up for renewal and all of this, that's exactly what you want.
	It's a continual experimentation and optimization in a wide variety of markets and a continual hunger for taking over contracts.
	And so, who decides the legitimate use of force?
	Well, no one and everyone.
	That's the beauty of it.
	So, let's say that some group says the legitimate use of force is to cut off someone's hand if they steal.
	Let's go Old Testament.
	So, cut off someone's hand if they steal.
	So, they go to a DRO and they say, we want this service because we are insane.
	Well, I don't know that the DRO would do that.
	I mean, the insurance for that would be huge.
	If you make a mistake, cut off the wrong...
	I don't know.
	If you make a mistake, then you're just going to get the living crapsuit out of you.
	And if it's just one neighborhood, then would the DRO really be able to have a big enough market Alright, so let's say 500 people want this service.
	Would the DRO be able to train a whole security force and a judgeship, a court, whatever it is that they do to figure out these kinds of things?
	It probably would be too small a market.
	At least I think it would be a too small a market.
	And that would mean that a larger DRO would have to come in.
	Now, a larger DRO is going to want to have some community standards over and above what just 500 local people want.
	So they'll say, well, listen, you know, we can't do that.
	I mean, that would be pretty morally abhorrent to our other customers.
	And we'll lose more business than we gain from that.
	Plus, we'll have to charge you 10 times the amount of our other customers because what you want is kind of excessive and irreversible and all that kind of stuff.
	And we can't get insurance for it.
	So, because of that, we're not going to offer this service.
	However, we will offer, you know, what if the XYZ restitution service that they offer to everyone else, where the person who does the shoplifting, you know, gets a brain scan, gets counseling, and works to pay back.
	Some multiple of the value of the goods that he stole and, you know, whatever it is that has got the highest rates of reducing recidivism and so on.
	You know, whatever.
	I don't know what that is.
	But some tried and true, well-proven, continually improved and tweaked system.
	That's what you want.
	So they'll say, no, sorry, we can't do the cut off your hand, the hand of a thief thing.
	I mean, we can't do that.
	We can't get insured.
	And it...
	And then the ads will be, oh my god, you know, Bob's protection agency is now cutting off people's hands.
	And there's some graphic image of it all over the web and in the newspapers.
	And people are like, oh my god, I don't want to get involved with that.
	That's insane.
	And so they get it.
	Public perception is very important.
	Reputation is hugely important for a business.
	And particularly more so, even more so, in the age of the internet.
	So then if the crazy local group says, well, we're just going to do it ourselves.
	We're just going to catch thieves and hack their hands off.
	Well, it's kind of a problem.
	Because, you know, 500 people in the world are not isolated from everyone else economically.
	Right?
	So if they want to do that, and you understand this is like really crazy extreme examples, right?
	Well, that's just a theory or whatever.
	So if they then say, we're going to grab thieves and cut their hands off.
	Well, the reality is that thieves won't go there, obviously, because there'll be lots of other places where thieves can go.
	And nobody will be able to insure any of those people.
	And there may be such popular revulsion against it That whoever supplies electricity to that town or neighborhood, their competition will say, do you know that Bob's Electricity Company supplies power to people who are hacking hands off people that they can't even prove are thieves?
	Can you believe that they take money, blood money from their blood on their hands?
	All this negative publicity would be pretty horrendous.
	And so, there will be a general protest against that and people will stop doing business with them.
	People will stop selling gas.
	People will stop delivering electricity and food and this and that.
	So, they'll have to stop.
	Say, well, what if they just continue?
	Well, okay, but this can happen in this world as well, right?
	I mean, the statist world has lots of weird cults that who knows what the hell goes on behind closed doors and inside their fortress compounds or whatever.
	So, I mean, that's not solved by statism, right?
	But here we have a continual advantage of all of this.
	Now, of course, but see, I mean, nobody's going to be hacking off hands if they're raised peacefully.
	I mean, they're not going to be doing it.
	I mean, it's just not possible for that to happen.
	So we don't have to worry about that as a whole, as a pattern.
	So the great thing about you hire a company which will, I mean, they'll make a presentation to everyone and say, this is the legitimate use of force that we've developed in conjunction with all of our other customers, in conjunction with the insurance companies that will pay off any unjust use of force against us.
	In conjunction with that which is economically most advantageous to everyone here, this is how we legitimately use force.
	Now, if a DRO has an agreement with the other major DROs and so on about the use of force, and the DRO acts in accordance with that definition, then nobody will prosecute them.
	Because nobody would uphold that judgment against them, because they were operating within the economically, collectively, and socially defined uses of forces within the contractual agreement.
	So, nobody is going to act against them, right?
	This is the important thing in a free society.
	If nobody can act against you, then what you're doing is legitimate.
	It's different in a state of society because you can be acted against at any time.
	I think as Tom Woods has pointed out, we each break probably half a dozen or a dozen laws every single day without even really knowing about it.
	So they say, well, we're allowed to use force under these conditions and under these circumstances.
	And of course, the DRO security people, the cops, whatever you want to call them, they would all, of course, have recording devices all over them.
	All over them.
	It's not going to happen with the cops.
	I mean, I know the cops have some recording devices, but they would be immediately uploaded.
	They would probably be uploaded live so that you could always check out what the police were doing.
	They would be uploaded live on some website so you could always see, and they would be recorded forever so the cops would always know that they were being observed and recorded at all times.
	If you wanted to pay for that, if you didn't want to pay for that, and the community as a whole didn't want to pay for it, then they wouldn't, right?
	So if an officer or a DRO security dude used force and it was recorded and broadcasted and reviewed exhaustively and extensively by some judicial system, by the neighborhood, by whatever, right?
	If this all occurred, then the use of force was legitimate, you know, like he shot a guy in the leg who was, you know, trying to rape a guy, then nobody would have any problems.
	In fact, you'd get a raise and a medal kind of thing, right?
	Whatever a medal would be in a free society, I don't know.
	FDR badge.
	So that would all be handled.
	That's all taken care of.
	If the use of force was illegitimate, then you would obviously get restitution.
	And it wouldn't be like suing, right?
	Suing is, you know, the company can defend itself from here to kingdom come.
	Suing is just a way of making sure that the little people don't gain any justice, right?
	That's what courts are for.
	But it would just be review, violation, automatic payout.
	But that's how it would work.
	You would probably get automatic payout within a week or two, rather than 10 years sometimes it takes in the court system.
	Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, or millions really.
	It's all nonsense.
	So that's how it would work in terms of a use of force that was illegitimate.
	And then, of course, the insurance company would have to crank up the rates of the company who had any kind of illegitimate dealings, illegitimate use of force, and therefore they'd have to raise prices for everyone, which means somebody else would swoop in and undercut them.
	So you understand that the DRO has a massive incentive.
	Its fundamental incentive is to make sure that the illegitimate use of force does not occur.
	Concentrating and making sure you don't get the wrong kinds of people.
	You want total Zen Buddhist people as your security forces.
	You want to make sure you don't have psychos and sociopaths and sadists and all that and drug abusers and addicts of various kinds.
	You just can't have those kinds of people in your security force, obviously.
	So you'd have to work really, really hard to make sure that The use of force was kept to a minimum and was legitimate if used.
	Now, the other thing that you would also have to do was you would have to make sure that people who made false accusations Would be heavily penalized, right?
	So, according to statistics that I'm fairly legitimate, I seem legitimate, you know, 30-40% of rapes are disproven, and I think 20-25% of rapes, the accuser recants, right?
	The woman recants her accusation.
	I mean, my God, I mean, the penalties that would be involved in this would just be horrendous, right?
	Of course, right now, barely ever gets...
	It barely ever gets dealt with because the person is usually just done with the whole system at that point of the victim.
	But I mean, that would be something which would make sure that there would be such massive disincentives.
	Because if you falsely accuse someone, then the amount that your DRO would have to pay out would be enormous.
	And the amount that you'd then have to pay to stay in the DRO system would be...
	So anyway, people would really, really think twice about pulling that kind of hellacious crap on people.
	So I guess the last question that people always have is, well, what about the people who wouldn't pay for a security force, right?
	And again, I'm kind of baffled by this.
	I don't really understand this question.
	Because again, there's this really weird fantasy that somehow this is dealt with in a state of society at the moment.
	I mean, how many people in a ghetto are paying sufficient taxes to cover the costs of police enforcement, right?
	I mean, dear God in heaven, probably 80% of the people in a ghetto aren't paying a dime for police enforcement.
	So the idea that there's some big problem in a free society of people freeloading is ridiculous.
	I mean, if we can get it down to 70% of people freeloading, that's a massive improvement over the existing system.
	What's that, 15% better?
	14% better?
	I mean, it's huge.
	And, I mean, of course, the way that you do it is...
	I mean, you get to know your neighbors and everybody contributes and it's a public thing.
	You hold it in a public square, a public space, a fundraiser so that people can come and publicly you give people bumper stickers, you give people bracelets, you give people, I don't know, henna tattoos on the back of the neck to show that they've contributed and stores will proudly display the decal that says I've contributed and so on, right?
	And then anybody who isn't wearing those things is a recognizable freeloader.
	It's not the initiation of force.
	It's not fraud.
	You're not touching them.
	You're not doing anything.
	You're simply providing a status for people who've contributed.
	And I guarantee you, I mean, it's not going to be more than $100 or $200 a year to get any kind of decent security for any kind of neighborhood.
	Probably less than that.
	And so, I mean, people pay a lot more than that just to go to church.
	Synagogues are like $1,500, $2,000 a year minimum.
	So you can get people to pay for stuff.
	But, you know, social ostracism and the implicit publicizing of those who haven't contributed.
	Not by publishing a list of people who haven't contributed.
	I don't know.
	I'd probably not be in support of that in terms of DROs and privacy.
	But just giving positive recognition to those who've contributed, which then will be glaringly absent for people who haven't contributed.
	And maybe that's going to get the participation up to at least 90-95%.
	I mean, guaranteed.
	Absolutely guaranteed.
	I mean, unless somebody has massive objections.
	In which case, you know, fine.
	Then take the bullet, right?
	I mean, if you're a complete pacifist and you don't want to get involved in it at all, fine.
	You know, live your values and live them publicly.
	I think that's fantastic.
	So, I mean, the lack of participation is one of the easiest things to solve.
	And again, if we can get it in high crime neighborhoods down to below 80%, Non-participation.
	If you get above 20% participation, it's probably even worse.
	Probably at 95 to 5.
	But if we can get it better than that, we're a huge step ahead.
	So many people freeload in a state of society.
	From rich to poor to everyone in between.
	That the idea that you can have a problem with a free rider in a free society is real nonsense.
	The state is the ultimate free rider that can't solve the problem because of that.
	Alright, thanks everybody.
	Have a great night.
	Please donate if you like.

▲