Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Sept. 6, 2013 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

30:52

2475 Privately Owned Nuclear Weapons!?!?

Stefan Molyneux answers listener questions about jail without the state, how essential services will be funded, deforestation, ocean pollution, owning weapons, copyright, the ethics of paparazzi and more!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molling from Freedom Main Radio.
	This is Listener Mailbag.
	If you have questions, please email us, mailbag at freedomainradio.com.
	This is going to be Freedom 101.
	Let's start with the first question.
	On what basis can criminals be jailed if there is no state?
	Who will determine if they are guilty and what their punishment will be?
	Well, before we look at improving a system, let's look at the current system.
	Because implicit in these kinds of questions are kind of the premises that, at the moment, criminals are jailed and are guilty.
	This is absolutely not the case.
	And we'll just focus on the American justice system, so to speak.
	Criminal justice to me is a repetition of terms.
	Okay, so, of course, how are criminals dealt with in a state of society?
	Well, in two ways.
	Number one, they are created, and number two, they are praised and rewarded.
	So, for instance, how many people, say, who have a particular piece of vegetation in their pockets who end up in jail would we all call master criminals of evil?
	Of course, the war on drugs is the war against the nonviolent consumption of stuff that some people don't like.
	So they're not criminals, but they're turned into criminals and actually usually kept in the criminal system even after they're released from jail because the war on drugs drives the price so high, keeps them from having free and available and enforceable contracts that they usually end up in a criminal underclass or at least supporting a criminal underclass.
	It's very instructive, of course, in the 19th century in America.
	Things like cocaine and marijuana and heroin and twerking, all of these things, We're legal.
	And there was no organized crime, and there was actually cocaine and Coca-Cola.
	Kids could go to the drugstore and pick up cocaine.
	There was no particular problem with drugs.
	In England, when heroin was legal, there were only a couple of thousand heroin addicts very shortly after.
	And you could get like a shot of heroin for 25 cents in the drugstore.
	After it became—or 25 pence, I guess, at the time—after it became illegal, the cost rose to, you know, 30 pounds for a hit.
	And there were tens, if not hundreds of thousands throughout England of heroin addicts for a variety of reasons.
	So criminals are invented.
	You know, you gamble, you're a criminal.
	You don't pay your taxes, you're a criminal.
	You maybe visit prostitutes, you're a criminal.
	So you're just inventing all these criminals all the time.
	And they're not actually criminals.
	They're just people who may be doing things that are unsavory to others.
	But they are, of course, branded as criminals.
	So...
	That's sort of the first thing.
	The second thing, of course, is that criminals are praised and rewarded.
	So if you go out and stab a guy, you may end up in prison, although the conviction rate for random crimes is very low, and most of the non-random crimes have status incentives like gaining control of a particular drug territory or whatever.
	But if you, say, order an invasion that causes the death of a million Iraqis, you get a pension, a presidential library, a book tour, and a speaking tour.
	And so criminals are both invented in the government society and rewarded.
	Now, how do we know if they're guilty or not?
	Well, nobody has a clue.
	Nobody has a clue.
	The government has so many crimes.
	I mean, there's a book out there that says we commit basically three felonies a day.
	And I just do that with my hamster, but I think for other people it's different.
	But fundamentally, there's so many people going through the justice system that there's no possibility of a trial to determine guilt and innocence for Omar.
	If everybody demanded a trial, the system would collapse immediately.
	I mean, in certain cities in the U.S., you can wait two years for a trial because that's the kind of length.
	Even more, five years for a murder trial recently in Detroit, people had to wait, at which point half the witnesses are already dead because...
	Well, it's Detroit, so there's apparently a lot of...
	The problem is a lot of lead in the air that happens to wander through people's intestines on a regular basis.
	So what happens in about 95-96% of US cases is you are threatened with an ungodly amount of jail time unless you confess, in which case your jail time is reduced.
	And you're also told that if you go to trial, it's going to take you years and stress and lots of money to pay lawyers and And if you are found guilty at a trial, your sentence will be even worse.
	Now, you can't bribe someone with 50 bucks to plead guilty to something, but you can bribe them with, say, 10 or 20 years of their life in order to confess.
	So we have no idea who's innocent or guilty.
	Even by the state's own definition of what is illegal, which is ridiculously expansive, we have no idea who's guilty or innocent in modern Western court systems, because they just threaten you with 20 years unless you plead down to two.
	And so people plead down to two because that's manageable.
	And of course, Skivin is probably going to take them two years to go to trial anyway.
	They'll just take the two years in prison and walk out, as opposed to waiting two years to go to trial, maybe not making bail.
	And then facing 10 to 20.
	And it's all nonsense.
	And this is how they supposedly catch all their drug dealers.
	They just catch someone who they think may be involved in the drug trade at all.
	And then they just threaten them with 20 years in prison unless they give up a whole bunch of other people.
	And then they do the same to those other people.
	And they say, look, we caught a drug cartel.
	But we have no idea whether any of the people are innocent or guilty.
	Certainly, if there's a really dangerous drug guy around, you're not likely to give up his name because there'll be retaliations against your family.
	You're much more likely to give up the name of someone you don't even know or someone in the neighborhood just because they won't retaliate.
	So, first of all, 90% of what who are called criminals in the U.S. system are either not criminals or they're criminals as a result of prior government controls, say, over the drug trade and so on.
	And for the vast majority of people who are found guilty, in other words, they plead guilty under threat of kidnapping and incarceration, we have no idea whether they're guilty or innocent.
	So let's not say, well, how can we do all this great stuff with a free society, the great stuff that's done by a state of society?
	You know, frankly, sometimes with governments, it feels like a giant asteroid strike would be an improvement on the current system.
	So, if the ship's going down, and you say, well, you know, it's true that the Titanic is going down, and, you know, Leonardo DiCaprio has got his chilly hand on my ankle, but, you know, that lifeboat you've got there looks like it might have a slight crack in one of the sides, so...
	So, until you can give me the perfection of the sinking Titanic in which to escape the ICC, I'm not going to go into your life.
	But, well, look, the ship of the state is going down.
	It's all nonsense.
	It's not going to work.
	And it's all criminal and horrendous and evil anyway.
	So, on what basis can criminals be jailed if there is no state?
	I don't know.
	It's the whole point.
	I don't know how things are going to work when we're free.
	That's the whole point of freedom.
	If somebody knew, we could have central planning, but nobody can know how the combined geniuses of freedom Billions of people trying to solve social problems will work.
	I can tell you that prevention is far better than cure, and criminals come out of abused childhoods.
	Not all who are abused as children become criminals, but virtually all criminals were abused as children, so a society is going to have a huge amount of interest in figuring out child abuse and how to prevent it and how to detect it, and it's very easy to do.
	You don't have to rely on the reporting of children or the reporting of parents.
	You can very easily do brain scans to find out.
	Given inflamed hippocampus, shrunken near frontal cortex, all of these are indications of raised cortisol levels, elevated stress levels, hormones.
	It's easy to find children who are abused.
	It's as easy as an x-ray for a broken bone.
	And this will be done within a free society.
	Kids will be scanned for...
	Abuse symptoms, and then parents will go into courses to help improve their parenting.
	And if they don't, then any wrongs that their children do will fall to the parents, right?
	If their children go steal the car, it's the parents who will face the consequences.
	If the kids bully, it's the parents who will face the consequences.
	And yet, if they go to these parenting classes, they will be immune from those consequences.
	That's just an insurance thing.
	And again, I don't want to get into all the details.
	You can look at my book, available for free at freedomainradio.com, called Practical Anarchy, for more But I don't know if jail is the appropriate solution.
	Just because this is what governments have done doesn't mean that it's the appropriate solution.
	We don't know what the solution is.
	You know, if I was an abolitionist to say we should end slavery in the 17th century or 18th century, I'd say we should end slavery.
	And you said, well, how are we going to get blacks to pick cotton without slavery?
	Well, the whole point is that once you get rid of slavery, the whole paradigm changes.
	Once labor becomes expensive, then investing in capital equipment like automatic combine harvesters or whatever picks cotton automatically, that's what gets out.
	Giant robot machines are going to pick the cotton and they're going to be fueled by the juice of prehistoric tree trunks dug out from a mile under the ground.
	You'd say, well, that's a ridiculous solution.
	But that is, in fact, what happened.
	We can't predict the solution.
	But don't assume that what's there is even remotely virtuous or functional.
	And don't assume that a free society has to replicate what the state does.
	You know, say, well, let's privatize education.
	Well, how are we going to get children to spend 12 years of their life sitting in boxes like a bunch of brainless sardines being lectured at by some idiot with a whiteboard?
	Well, who knows what education is going to look like in a free society?
	Anyway, so that would be my suggestion.
	How are roads, airports, water and sewage pipes, meteor deterrent systems and rockets, military and secret police supposed to be funded?
	Really?
	How are we supposed to fund secret police?
	This is your big question about a free society.
	How are we going to fund the catching of slaves after we free slaves and end slavery?
	Are these going to be funded voluntarily?
	What if there comes a point where people forget how important they are?
	For example, if there hasn't been a foreign invasion, meteor strike or terrorist attack in a long time.
	Well, property damage is expensive.
	And the way that people deal with unpredictable expenses is through insurance, right?
	So you don't get insurance.
	You don't get car insurance for oil changes.
	That's just something you go and do.
	But in case there's some sort of catastrophic accident, you get insurance for that.
	You don't get insurance for a common cold.
	You may get insurance for some sort of cancer or some sort of, I don't know, cystic fibrosis or something that might strike that's unpleasant and somewhat random.
	And so if you want protection against meteors, then people will come to you and say, listen, for a buck a year, we'll build a protection from meteor system.
	And they will make that case, and they will find it valuable to do so.
	And if you won't take out the insurance, then your insurance company will take out the insurance.
	So this all can be funded.
	You just need to look at actuarial stuff this way.
	Sewage pipes.
	I mean, I don't even understand that question.
	People don't generally want to take craps in their own house and have it sit there And stink.
	And, well, actually, I have to give somebody who won Free Domain Radio last week.
	I did a video where I said basically nobody gets paid for peeing, and somebody suggested that I expand my porn references.
	I don't know what it means, but it sounds pretty funny.
	Twink, twink, twink, little golden showers.
	All right.
	So, the military, if there's threats of invasions, then people will pay for that.
	I mean, the majority of people want to pay for it in the government system, right?
	That's what a democracy means.
	If the majority of people didn't want to pay for the military, there'd be no military because they'd vote to get rid of the military, right?
	So, the majority of people we know already want to pay for the military.
	It's just that.
	And it would be far cheaper for each individual.
	As the price of paying for the military goes down, more people are going to want to participate.
	If paying for the military is like 10 or 20 bucks a year, which in America is going to give you, what, three quarters of a billion to a billion dollars, you can do a lot of defense.
	You can't do a lot of 700 bases around the world.
	You can do a lot of defense for that kind of money.
	You just can't do a lot of offense, which is kind of the point.
	If you don't want terrorist attacks, don't be doing a whole lot of offense in unstable countries.
	And so, yeah, I mean, this stuff will be funded.
	Now, don't forget there's a very powerful thing called social pressure, which is really, really important when it comes to how to organize society.
	If you genuinely are a pacifist and don't want to fund the military in a free society, then don't fund the military in a free society.
	However, those who do fund the military may have their names listed in a big, easily searchable database.
	Or they may get stickers for their chest, they may get stickers for their car, or whatever it is.
	And then anybody without this sticker will be clearly identified as not having contributed to the military.
	And if you go for a job, they may do a search for that, and they may say, we don't hire people who don't contribute to the military.
	They may, they may not.
	It's all the free societies, all voluntarism.
	There may be companies who say, we don't hire people who do contribute to the military because we're a bunch of Quakers.
	So, don't forget, if you don't pay for the military, then your neighbors will probably know.
	If it's important, like if there's enough people who aren't paying for the military that people want to bring social pressure into place.
	And this is a very powerful tool that is often underappreciated by people who think that we've got to point guns and force everyone to do anything.
	Conformity, getting along with others, going along with social norms.
	I mean, that's why Greeks have one dance and Turks have another, which is usually dancing on the heads of Greeks.
	So anyway, I just wanted to point out that there's lots of ways that we can enforce things in society, either through prevention, through insurance, through social conformity, through identifying people who are going against the general wishes of community.
	Again, not for any kind of retaliation or any kind of aggression, but just pointing it out.
	And, you know, generally, women go out with makeup on.
	There's no law that says they have to, they just generally do.
	And generally, there's no law against not wearing your underpants on the subway.
	You cannot wear pants on the subway.
	You can wear a tiny European Speedo banana hammock on the subway and a mesh t-shirt.
	There generally is wear clothes when you go out, and that's what people do.
	People are quite conformist, no matter how hot it is.
	There's no law that says you have to look your best for a job interview, but people generally do.
	This kind of conformity is no particular problem.
	It will work just fine.
	If there is no state, how will you purchase land that does not belong to anybody?
	What if someone manages to take over by a huge amount of land, including many forests Isn't it unfair that he can ask people to leave these places, or that he can chop down all the trees if he wants to?
	This is so funny.
	I mean, this is so funny, because basically what people who defend the state—I don't know if you're defending the state or just asking questions—but people who defend the state say, well, the worst possible outcome for a free society is that we have a state.
	What are you defending?
	I mean, what are you defending?
	If the worst possible outcome of a free society is that we end up with the government again, then shouldn't we get rid of the government?
	I mean, my God!
	I mean, if I, you know, I was just recently battling cancer, and my cancer may come back.
	I have no guarantees my cancer may come back.
	But if the worst possible thing is for my cancer to come back, then shouldn't I want my cancer gotten rid of now?
	Right?
	I mean, that's like me saying, well, cancer is great, but if I get rid of cancer, the worst possible thing to happen would be for my cancer to return.
	Well, then cancer can't be great.
	So what you're saying is, well, what if people end up with a whole bunch of land where they can just enforce arbitrary rules inside it?
	They're called countries.
	They're called countries.
	So, what you have right now is what the worst possible outcome you can imagine for a free society.
	So, stop defending it as the worst possible thing.
	You can't buy land from...
	You can't buy unowned land.
	Who are you going to give the money to?
	You would enclose unowned land, I would assume.
	There's huge amounts of historical precedence for how land ownership accrues in a free society.
	You can do research on this if you want.
	There's tons of stuff on Mises.org and so on about how people used to homestead land in a free society.
	I mean, outside of the government handing them land claims and so on.
	That's all been solved by common law many, many years and many, many times in the past.
	So, you can't purchase land.
	What if somebody manages to take over a huge amount of land and chop down all the trees if he wants to?
	He's not going to want to.
	Oh, man.
	People are not random billiard balls that just bounce around doing crazy stuff all the time.
	I mean, come on.
	That's like saying, well, what if a farmer encloses and fences and prepares and fertilizes and clears all the tree off and plants all this wheat and then just sets fire to it?
	That's not how people work.
	I mean, what kind of crazy-ass planet are you living on?
	If somebody encloses the land, gets rid of all the trees, digging up all the roots, brings in nice soil and fertilizes and plows and plants and nurtures, they're not going to set fire To their wheat.
	They're going to grow the wheat and they're going to make sure that the investment that they've put into making the land highly arable is going to accrue over the long term by getting more crops planted.
	Again, I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.
	Somebody who has a whole big forest is not going to just chop down all the trees.
	They're going to want to replant the trees so that they can harvest them again in the future.
	I mean, come on!
	I don't know.
	I don't know what people...
	Do you just play SimCity on drugs?
	I don't know how people even come up with these questions.
	Forest management is an ancient practice among human beings.
	Human beings have always wanted trees, and forest management is an ancient practice.
	The only reason that people at the moment cut down all the trees is because the government retains ownership of the land.
	If the government 100% transferred ownership of the land with trees on it to private companies, then those private companies would make sure that they replanted the trees.
	Why?
	Because if you only harvest the trees once, then you have all this land.
	Nobody else wants it.
	So you can't bid that much for it because you're only going to get one set of trees out of it.
	So you can bid more for the land if you can get a renewable resource, if you can plant trees and grow trees and plant trees and grow trees.
	So given that you can bid the most for a resource that you can renew, ownership will accrue to those who can bid the most for it, which means creating or maintaining the resource as renewable.
	I mean, how much are you going to pay for a printer which says, after you print one page, I'm going to self-destruct, right?
	Well, you're not going to pay anything for it because you want a printer that can print multiple pages.
	Anyway, so, God, I don't know where you people live.
	What about ocean pollution?
	No one owns the ocean, so people can't be punished for polluting it.
	Okay, agreed.
	No one owns the ocean.
	I think you've just hit the nail right on the head there.
	So the ocean should be owned.
	Again, this was all handled in the past.
	You know, the cod resources in eastern Canada, off Newfoundland, were a resource for 400 years.
	When the first settlers came, they said, there are so many cod in the ocean here, it's like we can walk from the fishing boat on the backs of the cod to the land.
	There's that many.
	And this lasted with no government, almost no government interference.
	This lasted for...
	Hundreds of years until the government upped the quotas in the 90s, upped the quotas so that they could get elected by saying to people, you can fish even more.
	Nobody owned it, and the government allowed people to fish more and more to get voted back in, and now the card has been completely destroyed.
	But, you know, people, I mean, villagers lived around lakes and fished the lakes, and they never fished them out.
	They never fished them out.
	Because anybody who fished too much would be like a jerk that nobody wanted to socialize with.
	Or have their kids marry, or take care of their kids, or have their kids play with their kids, and that brought people back in line very quickly.
	Anyway, it's all been solved before.
	All right.
	Gun rights is a good thing, all right?
	But philosophically, how can you explain that people do not have the right to own bombs and nuclear weapons?
	What do we do about clinically insane people?
	Can they roam around free by guns in a libertarian society?
	Well, I mean, clinically insane people are all over the place in the modern world, And you're concerned about them maybe getting guns.
	I'm concerned about them currently having armies.
	I mean, you get that the people who are in charge of governments are all mentally ill.
	I mean, they're all narcissistic, megalomaniacal sociopaths.
	I mean, I hesitate to tell anyone what to do.
	I mean, there's some things I say people shouldn't do, right?
	Initiate force, fraud, rape, assault, theft.
	But what people should do?
	Anybody with half a brain and, you know, a shred of empathy is not going to want to go around telling everybody what to do, and certainly not at gunpoint.
	Only a sociopath can do things like order an invasion of another country and then go and sleep at night.
	Only a sociopath can pass laws that throw innocent people in jail and then go to sleep at night.
	And this goes for the police as well.
	I mean, imagine in a free society, people say, well, how are we going to reproduce how wonderful the police is in a free society?
	Well, just imagine this.
	You are a store owner.
	No, you're a factory owner in a free society, and you process gold, and you store gold in your factory.
	Now, of course, you may be concerned about people stealing from you, and I come up to you and say, listen, I can protect you from thefts.
	And you're like, well, that's interesting.
	How much is it going to cost me?
	I say, well, it's going to cost you 6% or 7% of your entire gross income.
	Wow, that's quite a lot.
	What kind of service can I expect in return?
	I say, well, I can't guarantee you at all that any of your stuff will be protected.
	In fact, if it's stolen, I have no recourse whatsoever.
	I say, well, what's your incentive?
	I'm already paying you, but you're not guaranteeing me.
	My cell phone service will guarantee me airtime.
	My web hosting company will guarantee me uptime.
	You're not going to guarantee me any protection for my goods?
	No, not at all.
	Oh, one other thing too.
	Just before you make the decision to hire me as your security company, I must tell you that your gold is eight times more likely to be stolen by me than it is to be stolen by some outsider.
	So what?
	What now?
	Yeah, my security guards, they're kind of light-fingered, and I make sure, I have tests to make sure that I don't get any really intelligent security guards.
	Like, I have an IQ cut off.
	If they're above a certain IQ, I just won't hire them.
	And statistically, your gold is eight times more likely to be stolen by my guards than it is by some thief from the outside world.
	You say, wait a minute here.
	You're asking me to pay six to seven percent of my income For you to protect my gold, there's no guarantee that you will.
	I have no legal recourse if you don't.
	And your guards are eight times more likely to steal my gold than some outside thief.
	And I have to sign a document that says I will never sue you or pursue legal recourse against you.
	Would you take that deal?
	Well, of course not, but that's exactly how the police work.
	The police have no legal right or duty to protect.
	The money to fund the police is taken from you at gunpoint.
	You can't say, well, I've got to pay these people to protect my property and then give them the right to take my property at force.
	And the eight times is a very generous estimate.
	You're eight times more likely to be killed by a cop than by a terrorist, and terrorists are much less common than common thieves.
	That's why they call them common thieves.
	And so the idea that you are going to somehow protect yourself through the state is a complete madness.
	It only seems normal because of propaganda being raised with the media and movies and television and books and public school and religion and so on.
	So you just led to believe that this stuff is normal and this is how a free society to reproduce things.
	So I'm concerned about the police having guns.
	I'm concerned about the military having guns.
	And I'm concerned about mentally ill people having the ability to invade other countries and having nuclear weapons.
	People do not have the right to own bombs and nuclear weapons.
	Who the hell wants a nuclear weapon?
	I mean, nobody's going to want a nuclear weapon.
	And nobody's going to do business with anyone who makes nuclear weapons.
	And certainly nobody's going to do business with anyone or fund anyone or give them land or give them investment or give them skill or give them labor or work for them or supply electricity to them or water.
	You're going to be completely economically ostracized if you're going to do anything like that.
	And nobody's going to want to buy nuclear weapons anyway.
	So, yeah, there will be a few clinically insane people in a free society.
	Even if we fix all childhoods, there's going to be a few.
	I mean because people, you know, occasionally they put nail guns through their forehead, which affects their personality.
	They might have a brain tumor or something like that, which affects their personality, makes them violent.
	It can happen.
	And, you know, I guess I'll take my chances.
	It's true that if we cure polio, occasionally people will be killed by asteroids.
	I think I'll take my chances with the asteroids.
	What about copyright?
	Is that a good idea in libertarianism, and where would the limits go?
	Should you be able to copyright a simple expression, a simple idea?
	A very simple guitar riff.
	Who will determine these things?
	The who will determine these things is the argument that these things should be determined or must be determined by some external agency with a monopoly of force.
	Right?
	I mean, if I say, well, who's going to get married to who?
	How will ugly people get married?
	And your answer is, well, we'll create an agency with a monopoly of violence that will force women to marry whoever we say.
	I mean, that would not be...
	A particularly good solution.
	How will we deal with declining birth rates?
	Well, what we'll do is we'll hire people and we will give them the right to rape women when they're fertile.
	We understand that the monopoly of violence is not a solution to any particularly complex social problem.
	Around copyright, copyright is the initiation of force.
	If I play guitar riff, I'm not initiating force against anyone, and therefore copyright is a violation of the initiation of force.
	I release all my books copyright-free.
	People can do whatever they want with them.
	All my videos are copyright-free.
	Copyright is the initiation of force, and that's really all I have to say about that.
	I would recommend checking out Jeffrey Tucker's book Bourbon for Breakfast.
	I read it as an audiobook.
	It's got a great chapter on that with great references.
	Let's do the last one.
	In a libertarian society, do people like paparazzis have a right to infringe upon your privacy, taking pictures of you, even if they themselves stand outside your property?
	Can they publish it?
	What about lists of bad employees to avoid?
	Could bosses make such public lists legally?
	This is called defamation, right?
	And isn't it a breach of free speech with our current laws?
	I mean, that's an interesting question.
	I don't have a particularly good answer to it.
	Certainly taking a picture of someone is not initiating the use of force, but if you were to sort of surreptitiously make a sex tape of someone and then publish it without their permission, that would certainly be a violation of privacy and would affect their reputation and would affect their...
	That significantly negatively affect their happiness and increase their stress and so on.
	I mean, there are ways of harming people that aren't gun-to-the-head stuff.
	I mean, if you, you know, repetitively harass or stalk people and make them stressed, that is harming them.
	Cortisol, over the long run, is actually a carcinogen, so it's like a slow poisoning.
	So there are ways that you can harm people through creating stress in their lives, even if you aren't Directly stabbing them, right?
	And this is, I mean, if I put a gun to your head, I'm causing you massive amounts of stress, even if it turns out that the gun is a toy gun or is unloaded or whatever it is, right?
	That's still assault, even if I can't actually do you any harm.
	And there are slower, more indirect ways of doing that, I think, would be harmful.
	So, yeah, I think that if people are causing people undue stress and you would measure that medically and so on, then, yes, I think that there would be a case to be made that that's a violation of the non-aggression principle and so on.
	Lists are bad employees to avoid.
	Could bosses make such public lists legally?
	I'm sorry.
	So the response to that would be, if I make a sex tape of you and publish it, then you would have the right to take action against me, which would mean lodging a complaint with your insurance company or what I call the DRO, dispute resolution organization.
	They would investigate it and they would find out maybe that I had made a sex tape of you.
	And then what would happen is, at least what I think should happen, I don't know how it's going to work finally, but what I think would happen is...
	This person would then have to make restitution or be cut off economically from the society, which means no electricity, no water, no food sales, no water sales.
	I mean, they would just be ostracized, and then you can't live in society if people aren't going to participate with you.
	If people aren't going to sell, you can't live in a society if people aren't going to participate with you economically, which is an incredibly powerful thing.
	It's an incredibly powerful tool.
	It doesn't require the initiation of force, because in every contract it will be, we will supply you electricity, unless you're found guilty of harming someone else, in which case we will cut off your electricity.
	We will cut off your water.
	We will cut off your...
	Now, you can then leave.
	You go live in the woods and whatever it is, in which case, problem solved.
	The person's out of society and can't be taking pictures of anyone anymore.
	But most people will then make the restitution in order to be able to restore their economic association with society.
	Bad employees to avoid?
	Except in England, I think the ultimate defense to what's called defamation or slander is truth.
	So if I say you're a murderer, it's not slanderer if you're a murderer, and so on.
	So I wouldn't say bad employees is like a conclusion, but if an employee of yours steals from you and is found in a truly free society legitimately guilty or you have video footage and so on, then you can certainly publish that that person has stolen from you.
	It's not defamation, because telling the truth about someone cannot be defamatory by definition.
	So, I think that would be how it would work.
	So, thank you so much for these questions.
	I think that they are interesting, but I invite you to look at some of the principles that what currently is considered to be working really doesn't work at all, and there's many other options available in a free society.
	We can't imagine the future.
	We can make some rough guesses, but fundamentally, it doesn't matter how a free society works.
	It doesn't matter how the cotton gets picked in a hundred years.
	Let's just end the damn slavery.

▲