"Police state?" off-topic question: (How does non-police state handle scammers)

[Matthew N. Wright]

How do you handle scammers in a non-police state? Just kill anyone you think is cheating for some reason? (That seems like it would end up with 1 person left standing eventually)

[1713281057]

1713281057

[1713281057]

1713281057

[Hawker]

A non-police state is like a non-feline cat.  There can never be such a thing.

[Matthew N. Wright]

A non-police state is like a non-feline cat.  There can never be such a thing.

Roger Ver once told me (at a dinner here in South Korea) that he believed police should be removed from the state and instead private security could be hired. Any thoughts on that?

My personal belief is that then the richest people would be in an uncheckable position of power.

[myrkul]

So when Tom Williams refuses to submit himself to the private super happy funtime judicial "process" that is non-violent and doesn't force anyone to stop raping you? How does the non-police state handle it?

First off, Non-aggression is not nonviolence. Vim Vi Repellere Licet, and all that.

Secondly, if you refuse to abide by the judicial process, you're not protected by it, either. Vengeance is unfortunately likely if restitution is refused.

[Lethn]

In a non-police state the best thing I suppose you could do would be to blacklist the scammer and warn other people about them like people do here, you just have to make sure it's justified, this is also how unions originally came about, I know neo-conservatives etc. love to bash unions but they're actually a great idea, it's just when people decide to use them for mob tactics that they become no better than the people they claim to fight against.

The only time you could or should ever use violence against a scammer is if they turn into a thief and try con you by force, then I guess that turns into extortion and blackmail, usually to avoid a scammer it just takes a no or some careful reading.

[Hawker]

A non-police state is like a non-feline cat.  There can never be such a thing.

Roger Ver once told me (at a dinner here in South Korea) that he believed police should be removed from the state and instead private security could be hired. Any thoughts on that?

My personal belief is that then the richest people would be in an uncheckable position of power.

Thats like privatisation of the police service.  What's the point? They are still enforcing the law.  So they are still police.  Without them, there would no state.

[Matthew N. Wright]

In a non-police state the best thing I suppose you could do would be to blacklist the scammer and warn other people about them like people do here, you just have to make sure it's justified, this is also how unions originally came about, I know neo-conservatives etc. love to bash unions but they're actually a great idea, it's just when people decide to use them for mob tactics that they become no better than the people they claim to fight against.

The only time you could or should ever use violence against a scammer is if they turn into a thief and try con you by force, then I guess that turns into extortion and blackmail, usually to avoid a scammer it just takes a no or some careful reading.

Okay, so let's say someone tries to rape my wife in a non-police state. I attack him in defense. He claims I tried to rape his wife instead. Without police, who is going to investigate? If the investigation is done by "peers", who said those peers aren't corrupt? I guess the real purpose of a police state is to keep everyone from being subject to corruption (ironic that it does exactly the opposite)

[myrkul]

Okay, so let's say someone tries to rape my wife in a non-police state. I attack him in defense. He claims I tried to rape his wife instead. Without police, who is going to investigate? If the investigation is done by "peers", who said those peers aren't corrupt? I guess the real purpose of a police state is to keep everyone from being subject to corruption (ironic that it does exactly the opposite)

There would be investigators. They might even wear blue costumes. They just wouldn't have a monopoly on the job.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Okay, so let's say someone tries to rape my wife in a non-police state. I attack him in defense. He claims I tried to rape his wife instead. Without police, who is going to investigate? If the investigation is done by "peers", who said those peers aren't corrupt? I guess the real purpose of a police state is to keep everyone from being subject to corruption (ironic that it does exactly the opposite)

There would be investigators. They might even wear blue costumes. They just wouldn't have a monopoly on the job.

Seems to me that would create conflicts of interest.


"Our investigators said the cause of the problem was A, your investigators said B, and these guys over here paid their investigators to say it was C"

Who's the judge that will decide who is lying and just being paid to lie? When he decides, who will enforce his ruling or is his judgement (if there even is a judge) just for informational purposes only, like the bitcoin police?

[myrkul]

Who's the judge that will decide who is lying and just being paid to lie? When he decides, who will enforce his ruling or is his judgement (if there even is a judge) just for informational purposes only, like the bitcoin police?

Private arbitration is already being used, and while the arbitrator's decision would not have the threat of force if the loser of the case did not comply, breaking that contract would make you an outlaw, not protected by the laws you denounce. As I said, if you refuse the judicial process, that leaves only the old-fashioned art of vendetta.

[Hawker]

Who's the judge that will decide who is lying and just being paid to lie? When he decides, who will enforce his ruling or is his judgement (if there even is a judge) just for informational purposes only, like the bitcoin police?

Private arbitration is already being used, and while the arbitrator's decision would not have the threat of force if the loser of the case did not comply, breaking that contract would make you an outlaw, not protected by the laws you denounce. As I said, if you refuse the judicial process, that leaves only the old-fashioned art of vendetta.

As I recall, you also approve of lynch mobs for situations like this.

[myrkul]

Who's the judge that will decide who is lying and just being paid to lie? When he decides, who will enforce his ruling or is his judgement (if there even is a judge) just for informational purposes only, like the bitcoin police?

Private arbitration is already being used, and while the arbitrator's decision would not have the threat of force if the loser of the case did not comply, breaking that contract would make you an outlaw, not protected by the laws you denounce. As I said, if you refuse the judicial process, that leaves only the old-fashioned art of vendetta.

As I recall, you also approve of lynch mobs for situations like this.

Lynch mobs? No, I don't recall ever approving of a lynch mob.

[Ekaros]

Does non-police state mean that there is no police?

[Hawker]

Does non-police state mean that there is no police?

It really means there is no state.

[myrkul]

Does non-police state mean that there is no police?

It really means there is no state.

That would be accurate.

[Ekaros]

Does non-police state mean that there is no police?

It really means there is no state.

So if there is no state is there any laws? Or just private contracts?

I wonder is statelessness preferable to having a state. If you aren't specially powerfull or have influence...

[Hawker]

Does non-police state mean that there is no police?

It really means there is no state.

So if there is no state is there any laws? Or just private contracts?

I wonder is statelessness preferable to having a state. If you aren't specially powerfull or have influence...

States exist and will always exist.  Debating what would happen if they ceased to exist is like debating how may angels can dance on the head of a needle.

However if you are seriously interested, you could read "The Mechanics of Freedom" by Friedman. He shows how you can have things like a justice system, conscription and eminent domain without a state.

[myrkul]

So if there is no state is there any laws? Or just private contracts?

Well, that depends on what you mean by "law." If you mean a dense body of statutes and legislation, no.

I wonder is statelessness preferable to having a state. If you aren't specially powerfull or have influence...

I would certainly prefer it. After all, ask yourself where most of that power and influence comes from....

States exist and will always exist.  Debating what would happen if they ceased to exist is like debating how may angels can dance on the head of a needle.

Criminals exist and always will exist. Debating what would happen if states were seen as the criminal organizations they are is necessary, and as a bonus, enjoyable.

However if you are seriously interested, you could read "The Mechanics of Freedom" by Friedman. He shows how you can have things like a justice system, conscription and eminent domain without a state.

"Machinery of Freedom" actually, and it can be found here: http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

A great summary can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o It's an abbreviated, illustrated summary, given by Friedman himself.

[Viceroy]

IF I were in a police state.  And Mrykul was my neighbor... whether there was proof I was scammed or not I would simply accuse mrykul of scamming me and then I'd go gut his cat.

 Like this: http://www.rolfkenneth.no/Cat%20gutted%202005.jpg
 Mod note: NSFW image unembedded


That's how my police would handle a scammer in this imaginary police state.

[wdmw]

IF I were in a police state.  And Mrykul was my neighbor... whether there was proof I was scammed or not I would simply accuse mrykul of scamming me and then I'd go gut his cat.

 Like this: http://www.rolfkenneth.no/Cat%20gutted%202005.jpg


That's how my police would handle a scammer in this imaginary police state.

If someone guts your cat without an agreed upon judgement, would they then be subject to any ramifications?