How about self defense, right off the bat?
I can’t picture anyone not being willing to pay for self defense. The difference is, in a state-free society since you can choose your defenders, and since they are not subsidized by other parties, they focus on streamlining the process of protecting their clients, rather than saber rattling. The exploding private security industry illustrates this point.
The challenge for us as seasteading pioneers is to prevent states from preempting the security function - which they do every chance they get. Existing mechanisms such as those outlined by Joe need to be formalized as standard procedure. Organisms that violate the pact - states in particular - need to be exposed as aggressors.
No, that makes sheeple that get herded by their ‘guardians’. I have to disagree. By hiring out, what you can do for yourself, you lose too much. It becomes ‘that’s what we hired X for’, and ‘I was just doing my job’. No recourse, no accountability. This needs to be internal. I don’t care who is ‘against violence’, when it comes down to it, if you and your stuff is valuable to you, then you have to defend that. Sure, some would rather hire that out, but the morality is that it would be ‘our’ action, therefore our responsibility, not something that creates the same modern police-state we have in America.
There is nothing in that pact that prohibits self defense. It is your right to protect your property.
… and you end with the disconnect between civilians, those in authority and service members/veterans, as well.
When you expect people to serve in your place and do things you don’t want to do, cheer them for joining, then revile them for doing what you and your leaders sent them to do, then nobody will continue to perform that function, very much longer.
The reason we have the high veteran suicide rate is partially because of that disconnect. Moral superiority is a facade, when, ultimately, you paid and sent someone else so your hands didn’t get dirty.
Seven days ago @joequirk started this thread with a “interesting hypothesis”
The hypothesis is:
There are interest groups moving forward with the agenda of “government oversight on the oceans”
Is that really so ? - and if it is so - what are their chances to succeed ?
This is a question seasteaders should be interested in debate about…
Can people cruising in sail boats form a government?
We are all going to be pirates.
Get ready, get you parrot now, before it is too late.
In the thread investigating the drivers of oceanic freedom the case was made that what drives the “rules people act along on the oceans” are not really “law” and state grip - it is more a “culture of convenience” driven by the smallest common denominator which is “non interruption of trade”.
Interesting stuff, John. When I report an aggression-- say, somebody vandalizes my car on Halloween-- is my report private?
I think this video is a clear explanation of how private defense companies would operate.
I agree, but you are always going to have meat eaters that won’t be their own butcher. You see examples on this very board where some people are so afraid of guns that they don’t want you having one either. There are also people that physically aren’t able to protect themselves. Those people still need to be protected as well. I would prefer a private entity over a government entity any time in those cases.
Nice. What happens when I do not have any money to pay for protection?
4 days out of 7 I carry a gun. Guess which 4.
The report that you file can be reviewed by potential parties that would like to participate in the RTR process. You could have the option of reporting anonymously, in order to avoid embarrassment. But certain details would necessarily need to be made public (at least to the participants), in order to carry on an investigation, &c
It should be noted that the tortfeasor can also enjoy a degree of anonymity if he settles early, and if it appears that he will not continue such activity (for example, if the offense was clearly an accident). At any rate, he receives a certificate of settlement at the end of the process, so he can move on. The parties involved in recoupment may also assist the tortfeasor in finding gainful employment, in order for them to get a faster return on their investment.
This system does not require insurance. The claimant is compensated for his loss in exchange for transfer of his rights to restitution. The tortfeasor must pay all costs allocated to settlement of the case - which, if it needs to be extended over a matter of years, would also include interest payments.
How does you seastead float? Let me know. Good luck to you.
This is a “Law and Politics” discussion. I will leave engineering elements to others. But it should be noted that RTR is ideally suited to the high seas, where it will experience the least resistance, and where the playing field is the most level. The type of physical structure on which it takes place is largely irrelevant - except where in involves claims related to structural integrity, lease contracts, security, guarantees, &c.
It should also be noted that this private system of justice can also occur on land within the confines of existing nations to the extent that victim compensation is allowed along with subrogation of allocated loss adjustment expenses. It can be implemented immediately.
In some way it is a new kind of law that is in existance without a legislator without a jurisdiction without a state. It is based on expert knowledge, basedemocratic agreement, and the will to settle disputes and come along - interesting that it explicitly EXCLUDES lawyers and courts as “part of the problem” leading to a “sclerotic situation not desired by anybody”.
In some way it is doing what “burning man” is doing - it creates a “culture of solutions and peaceful come along” rather than a “legal sistem” with “law enforcement”. - A new way of “organizing human activity along different lines then violence and enforcement”
Good luck, and twenty more characters.
I would like to present the hypothesis " it is " and put out the postulate that human interaction on the liquid surface of the planet is fundamentally different to human interaction on the solid part of the planet surface.
One of the most important differences - the actions are not dictated by strikt law texts and jurisdiction but by a kind of culture based on a few core values like the right of free passage and the convenience of non hostile come along forming the base of global trade in a multipolar world…120 million container units per year are moved and handled under this seafaring culture without interference and interruptions in a state free ambient - vital to human survival on the planet.
Would there be a potential problem with anonymous accusations that are untrue?
The process is largely identical to that in the video you posted. Investigation and arbitration will provide a clear picture of the event early in the process. Where disputed, representatives for the accused will jump on the opportunity to prove their competitor wrong. Accusations determined to be false through arbitration would reverse the recoupment process. The original claimant becomes the tortfeasor and the alleged tortfeasor becomes the claimant, who may now receive payment for any inconveniences that he suffered. Likewise, the false accuser must pay all expenses for services rendered. If his agent upheld a false accusation, he will also be required to pay reparations. Anonymous accusations would be treated no differently. The bill would be sent to the agent(s) who falsified evidence or otherwise erred in their investigation…