Thug Insurance....

[Anonymous]

If a private society/club was created that you could pay membership fees too and it helped you in cases of attacks by the gang we shall call "the government" would you join up? What if it paid your legal fees in the situation you were prosecuted for using bitcoins ie the taxman cometh

What level would the fees need to be and do you think it would be a worthwhile service?

I think the qualification to receive assistance would be that there is no victim and it is related to your use of bitcoin. Perhaps "the society" would help pay your bail or support your family in case of prosecution?

eg http://cdevolution.org/

[theymos]

I have been thinking that the best way to start a regime of anarcho-capitalist protection agencies (other than seasteading) is to start companies that protect you from the government in various ways.

Since "payout" is expected to be rare for at least a while, the fee should be low. I might be interested in joining -- I wouldn't be surprised if my Bitcoin trading violates some law or other. I am very sick of worrying about whether my activities are legal...

[Anonymous]

I have been thinking that the best way to start a regime of anarcho-capitalist protection agencies (other than seasteading) is to start companies that protect you from the government in various ways.

Since "payout" is expected to be rare for at least a while, the fee should be low. I might be interested in joining -- I wouldn't be surprised if my Bitcoin trading violates some law or other. I am very sick of worrying about whether my activities are legal...

I think such a society would help those who have the gumption to go out on a limb and invest in bitcoin trading such as the various exchanges. I think high net worth individuals would want to protect these entities who would be the first targetted. In a lot of cases "private members clubs" are off limits to the state. What are the pros and cons to this method? This is not about protecting illegal activity it is about providing protective cover to those engaging in victimless free trade.

[FreeMoney]

Do you mean that it is about protecting illegal behavior, but not bad behavior? I suppose a precise definition of bad would need to be developed.

[chaord]

I would be very interested in joining.

Do you mean that it is about protecting illegal behavior, but not bad behavior? I suppose a precise definition of bad would need to be developed.

A precise definition of bad is inherently subjective.  However, this is where arbitration (common law) could shine.  So perhaps a member must also be willing to subject himself to arbitration by other willing (emphasis on willing and voluntary) peers subscribing to the same service?

[Anonymous]

Do you mean that it is about protecting illegal behavior, but not bad behavior? I suppose a precise definition of bad would need to be developed.

There are so many laws it is impossible to know when you've broken one.Its one of the unfairest things and was a feature of the former soviet union where you did not know what little thing would get you sent to the gulag, with families encouraged to dob on each other.

Basically if you follow the non-aggression principle it means a crime cannot happen if there is no victim. Smoking a joint is not a crime while injuring someone's property is and you are bound to make them whole. Protection from the arbitrary whims of beauracrats is badly needed in today's world.

This could be services such as emergency call in numbers and support systems such a private investigators and security personnel to proactive protection using legal action.

As chaord says arbitration is vital in this situation.

[Anonymous]

Smoking a joint is not a crime while injuring someone's property is and you are bound to make them whole.

Unless you are also driving a car -high- and don't have the reflexes to stop at the cross walk and run over the kid. 

Plenty of private fraternities exist maybe not for this reason but this sort of thing is surely not illegal. That is why I am a master freemason. Because I can be.

Yes but then you have caused harm to someone. Smoking the joint is not the problem it is your bad driving. That is also an urban myth, mj smokers are no more dangerous than anyone else. You should be judged by the harm you do not by the harm you might do - this leads to thought crime legislation and the nanny state.

http://heretic.blastmagazine.com/2010/05/potheads-drive-like-your-grandmother/

[Babylon]

Damaging someone's property is an extremely arbitrary category and that is where a lot of the difficulties are going to arise.  It will be really important for an organization like this to spell out quite clearly what situations they will not cover.

That aside, yes I do think this is something which would be a good idea.  Whether as an insurance company or as a legal defense fund. 

[nelisky]

http://heretic.blastmagazine.com/2010/05/potheads-drive-like-your-grandmother/

haha... don't get me started on old people drivers! I would vote for a constitutional amendment to make it illegal to be old and drive

Yeah, but do it quickly, before you get old and change your mind

[Anonymous]

Damaging someone's property is an extremely arbitrary category and that is where a lot of the difficulties are going to arise.  It will be really important for an organization like this to spell out quite clearly what situations they will not cover.

That aside, yes I do think this is something which would be a good idea.  Whether as an insurance company or as a legal defense fund. 

If someone buys drugs with federal reserve notes they dont make it illegal to use federal reserve notes. However I think if someone did the same thing but used bitcoins the outcome would be very different. This is the situation the defense fund would cover I think. It might be a PR problem more than anything else. All they have to do is claim bitcoin funds terrorism or child porn and the public will believe it. That's when things will get really hairy 

The fact that all these things can also be done with federal reserve notes wont come into it.....

[Anonymous]

Damaging someone's property is an extremely arbitrary category and that is where a lot of the difficulties are going to arise.  It will be really important for an organization like this to spell out quite clearly what situations they will not cover.

That aside, yes I do think this is something which would be a good idea.  Whether as an insurance company or as a legal defense fund. 

My point was that the property damage was the crime as there is an obvious victim while smoking a joint has no victim. The state cant be a victim as it does not exist,except in people's minds. Also putting someone in jail means people are then forced to pay taxes to support them sitting in a cell rather than allowing them to make their victim whole financially which means the victim suffers and the state gets to look like its "tough on crime". That's a pretty warped system we have.

No victim= No crime. Its not that hard to judge 

[Babylon]

Damaging someone's property is an extremely arbitrary category and that is where a lot of the difficulties are going to arise.  It will be really important for an organization like this to spell out quite clearly what situations they will not cover.

That aside, yes I do think this is something which would be a good idea.  Whether as an insurance company or as a legal defense fund. 

My point was that the property damage was the crime as there is an obvious victim while smoking a joint has no victim. The state cant be a victim as it does not exist,except in people's minds. Also putting someone in jail means people are then forced to pay taxes to support them sitting in a cell rather than allowing them to make their victim whole financially which means the victim suffers and the state gets to look like its "tough on crime". That's a pretty warped system we have.

No victim= No crime. Its not that hard to judge 

So you wont cover copyright infringement?  That's one of the areas that bitcoin has been proposed as a facilitator.

[Anonymous]

Damaging someone's property is an extremely arbitrary category and that is where a lot of the difficulties are going to arise.  It will be really important for an organization like this to spell out quite clearly what situations they will not cover.

That aside, yes I do think this is something which would be a good idea.  Whether as an insurance company or as a legal defense fund. 

My point was that the property damage was the crime as there is an obvious victim while smoking a joint has no victim. The state cant be a victim as it does not exist,except in people's minds. Also putting someone in jail means people are then forced to pay taxes to support them sitting in a cell rather than allowing them to make their victim whole financially which means the victim suffers and the state gets to look like its "tough on crime". That's a pretty warped system we have.

No victim= No crime. Its not that hard to judge 

So you wont cover copyright infringement?  That's one of the areas that bitcoin has been proposed as a facilitator.

It is abhorrent that someone thinks they are entitled to your property because someone else broke a contract with them. I would not be opposed to defending people accused of copyright infringement simply because they downloaded a file and didn't profit from it,this is no different to your friend sharing it with you. Someone who actually profits from a content creators work without fare compensation is a different story.

[FreeMoney]

Damaging someone's property is an extremely arbitrary category and that is where a lot of the difficulties are going to arise.  It will be really important for an organization like this to spell out quite clearly what situations they will not cover.

That aside, yes I do think this is something which would be a good idea.  Whether as an insurance company or as a legal defense fund. 

My point was that the property damage was the crime as there is an obvious victim while smoking a joint has no victim. The state cant be a victim as it does not exist,except in people's minds. Also putting someone in jail means people are then forced to pay taxes to support them sitting in a cell rather than allowing them to make their victim whole financially which means the victim suffers and the state gets to look like its "tough on crime". That's a pretty warped system we have.

No victim= No crime. Its not that hard to judge 

So you wont cover copyright infringement?  That's one of the areas that bitcoin has been proposed as a facilitator.

It is abhorrent that someone thinks they are entitled to your property because someone else broke a contract with them. I would not be opposed to defending people accused of copyright infringement simply because they downloaded a file and didn't profit from it,this is no different to your friend sharing it with you. Someone who actually profits from a content creators work without fare compensation is a different story.

There is nothing magic about profiting in money. Do you care if the file they downloaded made their girlfriend happy and they got a BJ? What if the music helped them focus during their poker session? Or is it only bad if they explicitly trade it for money? What if it makes up part of a preference? What if the performance was a talent show with a first prize only and they didn't win it, but could have?

If you really think someone is free to put whatever pattern they want onto their hard drive I don't see how doing something productive with it makes it worse. In fact if I was King Insano I'd say you can download whatever you want, but you HAVE TO profit from it (and ship me 8%).

[Anonymous]

Damaging someone's property is an extremely arbitrary category and that is where a lot of the difficulties are going to arise.  It will be really important for an organization like this to spell out quite clearly what situations they will not cover.

That aside, yes I do think this is something which would be a good idea.  Whether as an insurance company or as a legal defense fund. 

My point was that the property damage was the crime as there is an obvious victim while smoking a joint has no victim. The state cant be a victim as it does not exist,except in people's minds. Also putting someone in jail means people are then forced to pay taxes to support them sitting in a cell rather than allowing them to make their victim whole financially which means the victim suffers and the state gets to look like its "tough on crime". That's a pretty warped system we have.

No victim= No crime. Its not that hard to judge 

So you wont cover copyright infringement?  That's one of the areas that bitcoin has been proposed as a facilitator.

It is abhorrent that someone thinks they are entitled to your property because someone else broke a contract with them. I would not be opposed to defending people accused of copyright infringement simply because they downloaded a file and didn't profit from it,this is no different to your friend sharing it with you. Someone who actually profits from a content creators work without fare compensation is a different story.

There is nothing magic about profiting in money. Do you care if the file they downloaded made their girlfriend happy and they got a BJ? What if the music helped them focus during their poker session? Or is it only bad if they explicitly trade it for money? What if it makes up part of a preference? What if the performance was a talent show with a first prize only and they didn't win it, but could have?

If you really think someone is free to put whatever pattern they want onto their hard drive I don't see how doing something productive with it makes it worse. In fact if I was King Insano I'd say you can download whatever you want, but you HAVE TO profit from it (and ship me 8%).

No Im not arguing that profit is wrong I am saying the originator deserves a cut if your profit is money.
Thats also the moral thing to do imo. No one will be motivated to do anything if you just take without compensating the creators.

[Timo Y]

No Im not arguing that profit is wrong I am saying the originator deserves a cut if your profit is money.

What's so special about money? Money is just one form of storing value, among many. What if your profit isn't money but, say, a friend who thinks he owes you a favor? Then the originator doesn't deserve a cut? Why not? The profiteer is profiting either way.

Thats also the moral thing to do imo. No one will be motivated to do anything if you just take without compensating the creators.

Not true that *nobody* will be motivated  to do anything if there's no money in it. Perhaps fewer people, but not nobody. Psychological studies have shown that intrinsic motivators (eg. sense of purpose, belonging, social status) are stronger motivators than extrinsic motivators (eg. money, threat of punishment).

As for compensating creators, I agree that it is the moral thing to do, but that doesn't mean it should be an obligation.  Just like saying "thank you" and helping old ladies across the street shouldn't be.

[FreeMoney]

No one will be motivated to do anything if you just take without compensating the creators.

Money is a great motivator, but this is just wrong. Most of what I do in a day is not motivated by money, and I don't think I'm unique at all.

People love to create and share.

[ribuck]

Money is a great motivator, but ... People love to create and share.

Research shows that, once you have enough money to live on, the chance to gain extra money is a strong motivator for non-creative tasks, but is actually a demotivator for creative tasks.

Details in this video presentation are easy to follow:

"Drive - The surprising truth about what motivates us"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

[nelisky]

No one will be motivated to do anything if you just take without compensating the creators.

Money is a great motivator, but this is just wrong. Most of what I do in a day is not motivated by money, and I don't think I'm unique at all.

People love to create and share.

Yep, artists love the spotlight, I know I do in my own way. I don't have any real data to backup this, but I believe that artists will always share, give, offer or otherwise pay for showing their things to other. Making a living as an artist is only for a few selected ones that either are greedy enough to not be full hearted artists in the altruistic sense (not to put any limitation to their art) or have 'rich uncles' (don't know if that expresion works in English too).

The latter are to blame for us associating art with money, I believe. They are not artists, they don't create, some are possibly frustrated artists but that should cover it. They are business people and they make (a lot of) money out of other people's willingness to create art for peanuts. So we assume that if we don't pay for what we download, some artist will starve? It's not morally correct to copy that album your friend has that you would otherwise never know about and become a fan of? How would you decide which live shows to go to? You'd let the labels just tell you what's hot? Are you *already* doing it?

I think the whole file sharing issue is moot, when it regards to causing damage to the creators of the content (just art, folks, not industrial espionage and the like, that's a different, altogether more spiky subject). We aren't hurting the creators of content, even if we sell their stuff. We're actually helping spread out the word, which is what they pay labels to do anyway.

[Anonymous]

No one will be motivated to do anything if you just take without compensating the creators.

Money is a great motivator, but this is just wrong. Most of what I do in a day is not motivated by money, and I don't think I'm unique at all.

People love to create and share.

Yep, artists love the spotlight, I know I do in my own way. I don't have any real data to backup this, but I believe that artists will always share, give, offer or otherwise pay for showing their things to other. Making a living as an artist is only for a few selected ones that either are greedy enough to not be full hearted artists in the altruistic sense (not to put any limitation to their art) or have 'rich uncles' (don't know if that expresion works in English too).

The latter are to blame for us associating art with money, I believe. They are not artists, they don't create, some are possibly frustrated artists but that should cover it. They are business people and they make (a lot of) money out of other people's willingness to create art for peanuts. So we assume that if we don't pay for what we download, some artist will starve? It's not morally correct to copy that album your friend has that you would otherwise never know about and become a fan of? How would you decide which live shows to go to? You'd let the labels just tell you what's hot? Are you *already* doing it?

I think the whole file sharing issue is moot, when it regards to causing damage to the creators of the content (just art, folks, not industrial espionage and the like, that's a different, altogether more spiky subject). We aren't hurting the creators of content, even if we sell their stuff. We're actually helping spread out the word, which is what they pay labels to do anyway.

If you broke into someones house and stole their work you have harmed them. If someone has a monetary price on their work and you take it without paying you have stolen from them. Its twisted logic to claim otherwise,because free trade requires both parties come away from a trade satisfied. If someone else then finds that work on the street they have not stolen anything and there is no victim. It is only in the case of a loss to one party that a victim can exist.

When someone breaks a contract they are responsible not their friend who was not a party to it. Only those who are direct parties to the incident are the the ones who can absolve or make whole the loss. The protection company would protect you as long as you are not a party to creating a victim. Why is this hard to understand?