7 votes

A question to ponder for fellow anarchists

This question has now come to my attention on more than one occasion, and so, I suppose it deserves someone to formally address it. How can property rights be enforced in a voluntary society without the use of force?

Now, hold on for a minute before you hastily click on the reply button. On one account this question is very easy to address. That is, if someone is, for instance, physically stealing your property, the NAP allows for defensive use of force. Case closed.

However, what if you establish a contract (verbal or otherwise) with another party, for example a loan contract, and the other party doesn't live up to their end? Can you drive over to their house and beat them or kill them? Does that fall within the NAP?

These two cases, while both infringements on property rights, are fundamentally different in one regard. In the case where the thief is physically stealing your property, the interaction, on your part, is completely involuntary - whereas, in the case where you contracted, you voluntarily entered into an agreement with another. Why is that important?

In the first case, you were a victim. In the second case, you made a poor business decision.

When you loan money to a family member, if/when they don't pay you back, do you go beat them, kill them, or seek to imprison them? Then, what is a sound argument to do so against a non-family member that does the same?

In your vision of an anarchist society, could force be used against those who renege on contracts?

You may counter with, "We'll use free market courts," but what if the person tells you to go shove your court?

Personally, I am of the opinion - "A man is only as good as his word" - and - "Once bit, twice shy." In other words, treat them like hot check writers and refuse to do business with them - that is, shun them.

What are your thoughts?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
tasmlab's picture

Agree, in practical application...

I agree. I would think most sour contracts end up with the lender, or even both parties, taking one on the chin.

I would think most bad apples would out themselves on relatively small deals. They would probably welch early when they are just forming their reputations. For example, nobody would give an unproven actor millions in loan money. Not at least without collateral.

In my 20 years in business, both the company I own and my enterprise clients, a bad or unfulfilled deal is really rare and I very rarely hear of anyone using the courts. Reputation and future business are what really polices voluntary contracts, even in our existing system.

Even as consumers, most folks don't even shop lift. Not because it would be hard to pull off, but usually because I'd be embarrassed to be caught, think it's unfair, and if it is my local grocery store, I'll need to go there next week to buy more food.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

In the case of contract violation - ostricizm

So if you have a contract, the guy renege's, so his rating will reflect it, and the guy will get ostracized to SOME EXTENT; perhaps he will be unable to make contracts of certain types because of his horrible rating, or perhaps his DRO price will skyrocket. So if he wants his contracts to be backed by the DRO, he will have to pay 50x what others would.

^Perhaps these "extortion DRO rates for contract breakers" could even then be "part of the comensation to the victim" system.

So he reneged on a contract worth $5000 in goods or services, you tried to use the DRO arbitration to recover the $5000, and written into the original contract was THE TERM that "If you renege, your DRO will cost $500 extra per month until you repay the $5000...

Something to that effect.

So THAT COULD SETTLE alot of the "Well what if he just straight refuses after reneging to obey any arbitration court ruling?"

Still not perfect, but still this would "solve" some cases.


Another possible solution is to build into the contract, that if he reneges, that stores under DRO contract will RAISE HIS PRICES significantly. So this guy goes to the gas station or grocery, and if he wants to purchase, it's gonna hurt him, because a tank of gas will cost him %300. And the proceeds go to the original victim.


So either he is ostracized, and is unable to do certain things, such as buy gasoline, use the roads, buy groceries... And that will "force," (NAP not violated, no force is used against him or his property, people are just choosing not to enter contracts with him, at the gas station, at the grocery...)the man to take some action toward settling the contract that he broke.

^Let this happen a couple of times and become a public lesson. NOW THAT YOU SEE how bad an ostracized guy gets it, and how badly it goes afterwards, and that life will never be normal for you again; THAT IS AN INTENSE PRESSURE to know what the consequence is to break a contract.

This public lesson will have a strong deterrent effect.

This is the type of thing that I had in mind...

Have you ever read - And Then There Were None?

No I haven't read it.

I did see your post about that book. I feel shameful for saying this about myself, I'm not one to sit and read books. I love articles, posts, excerpts, podcasts, videos of any length, and audiobooks if on a long drive.

I am just too busy in the head to stare at pages, it just doesn't suit me. And it's embarrassing to admit.

Not that you needed to KNOW ALL THAT about me haha. (tmi!)

But thanks for the book recommendation. I may get onto parts of it one day.

I still haven't touched one of Stefan's novels yet either. Just too much straight philosophy content now in video or podcast or article form to commit time to books and novels.

I know, shame on me.


Oh and keep the ancap content here on the DP rolling. The more we discuss it, the more exposure it gets. And I think alot of people are opening up to it and facing their "most difficult objections to ancap."

I can say my most "difficult objections to ancap" is "military and nation defense," and "how will geographical towns counties states etc form so that there is no issue moving or traveling or neighboring town conflicts?"

And I am ancap by the way.

with you...

I think I am with you. Anonymous interaction is one factor that has resulted in "wealth" creation, but this is "wealth" as defined by economists---who have no position of priority to define it, nor apparently any understanding of how it should be defined. Second, this "wealth" and the contracts that have played a role in making it possible have been, in my opinion, very counterproductive to society. And this is all aside from the immorality of requiring structures of "enforcement," or whatever you want to call it.

In my opinion, one should start slowly and develop trust, and "contracts" are made in the context of that trust. Loss as the result of such an agreement is the price paid to determine the character of the one with whom one deals. Thus, responsibility and restraint are required. If you roll the dice with a stranger, you cannot necessarily expect me or any others to suffer loss to make his failure good. In the context of trust, and betrayal, with the parties and details well-known, certainly there could be community enforcement, i.e., I may voluntarily agree with you to do something about a certain violation of an agreement. This is specifically the kind of "enforcement" which is necessary for a reasonable notion of property rights.

But as far as I can tell, the outcomes of "title ownership" and "contract law," while profitiable for some, are almost always undesirable morally and for the coherence of a society.

What type of community enforcement?

For instance, I would agree with spreading the word about whatever the person did - so as to help others avoid the same fate (like stores sometimes display lists of hot check writers).

It's amazing how powerful public rejection can be.


I primarily had in mind property, which isn't exactly a formal contract, but let me give you three examples including that one.

1. I agree with a neighbor for common use of a forested area between our properties (partially on his and partially on mine) under the condition that neither of us leave any lasting trace of our presence in the area, and that it can also be used by "commuters" under the same conditions. This contract could be formal and written, and probably should be.

The neighbor decides to clear large portions of the forest in violation of the contract. Perhaps he also has others participate in this violation, and they are more than I can comfortably remove, defend against. Assuming I have confronted the neighbor, and see my options to individually enforce the contract being undesirably limited, I can look to the community.

In this case, I can go to others in the community and, having explained the situation, they can make up their mind to come and help me forcibly stop the offensive behavior.

One key point here, is that each member of the community will make up his own mind on participation in this, and will be responsible for his actions. This is very unlike enforcement via authority, where some anonymous enforcer takes no personal responsibility for his actions. Such a decision will, no doubt, be based on many factors including my standing and reputation in the community as well as the nature of the contract violation. If others see the violation as one that I can bear the loss for or that is not worth the personal risk of enforcing, then I will presumably, simply suffer the violation.

2. (What I really had in mind.) County organizations do, I think, serve a purpose in recording land ownership, and it is desirable that competition in land claims is kept to a minimum in a stable community, or at least takes place under certain well defined parameters. I reject the current system of forced title ownership and taxation/theft to support this service. But the point is that it is an ongoing service for which I, and most others, will pay.

So, say you have a community organization which maintains records of surveys and related land ownership/claims and to which one voluntariy subscribes (i.e., pays the expenses of---an office, employees, whatever). This is not a contract of the sort you had in mind per se, but indeed if someone moves fences/markers or otherwise infringes on my land, then having the community keep a record and be willing to enforce those boundaries of ownership is something which I think is probably necessary and desirable. And in the same way, using the community records office as confirmation, I am justified in gathering others to voluntarily help me in defense.

3. Taking the last example to the extreme. Say someone from outside the community (individuals acting under the illusion of corporate irresponsibility, a government, or some other immoral construct) comes and attempts to "invade" my land.

The resources and capabilities of such individuals may be formidable, and it is desirable to seek help from the community to help me in defense against them. I and others individuals will, no doubt, maintain a significant level of martial capability in my community. Hopefully, it will be enough for defense.

If it is not, then our fate will be like that of the American Indians or the Branch Davidians.

These are things I had in mind concerning community enforcement. In all cases, the "community" does not really act. I shouldn't say that. But individuals within the community act (if they so decide) in cooperation with me to enforce or defend contracts or property ownership. I suppose the latter might be called "title" in the broad sense, but that is a somewhat separate issue, and I would think that ownership would be justified on a rather different basis than in our current title ownership system.


How would contracts be enforced without government?

Uh, read the contract. It ought to tell you. Every good contract should set out the conditions for its own enforcement, and what penalties apply if it is breached. Most contracts do that today, with provisions for binding arbitration.

If there were no government to be final arbiter of private agreements, I'm sure contracts would be written with provisions for enforcement by private collection agencies -- who may be armed as necessary. Force may be used if both parties to the original contract wrote such a clause into the contract. If they didn't -- consider it evolution in action, a learning experience. A contract that doesn't clearly establish what recourse the parties to it have, if it is breached, is not, by definition, an enforceable contract.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

I just don't think there is an inherent need for third party...


When people contract with each other, they are taking a risk. So, people should take the time to get to know the other person before putting trust in them.

I look at it from a natural perspective that occurs commonly in life. Suppose you know a fellow that everyone knows is untrustworthy, but for some reason, you decide to contract with the person and give him a loan. Would you be at surprised or pissed off if he breached? What would be the reaction of people that tried to inform you against the deal? Would you seek retribution, or consider yourself a sucker and learn from the mistake?

Now, suppose you contract with a person whom you are unsure of his or her trustworthiness, and he or she breaches. Why is this case different?

tasmlab's picture

I'd put 99% of all contracts

Armchair conjecture, but I think 99% of all contracts would not require a third party enforcer. The overhead is inefficient, it slows down the deal and it costs money.

If the risk was really high, either due to the amount of money involved or the risk profile of one of the actors, people could either put collateral in escrow or buy insurance for the deal.

I wonder how dramatically the mortgage industry would change in a free society? It's probably the most mis-matched relationship in terms of risk profile and line item size. The house itself can be collateralized as an asset like today, but you could imagine guns being involved in some small percent of defaults.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

The purpose of having a contract

The purpose of having a contract is to enable you to do business with someone you do NOT know well, by limiting the risks of the deal. A neutral third party should almost always be a part of the contract, in case the mutual obligations are ever breached, to provide arbitration and/or recovery of misappropriated property.

The two primary signatories to a contract cannot be expected to resolve all differences themselves: it is against the possibility that one of them is untrustworthy that a written contract is necessary at all. If someone rips you off, failing to carry out his part of an agreement, are you willing to write it off as the cost of poor judgment on your part?
Poor idiot. You need a contract to protect yourself from your own poor judgment and trusting nature. That's what it does. That's what it's for.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

I don't interact very long with people I don't think...

I can trust. If/when I get screwed, I dissociate immediately and don't look back.

However, to get back to your response, in a completely voluntary society, what if someone signs the contract, reneges, and then refuses to abide by the arbitrator's ruling? What should happen to them?

What should happen to them:

Whatever the contract says should happen. Arbitration is a first recourse. If one party refuses to abide by the arbitrator's decision, the contract should have set out what recourse the defrauded or injured party shall have. Absent government, use of an armed collection agency would probably be specified. But that's rarely going to happen, because whatever goods are the subject of the dispute would be put in escrow pending arbitration, with the arbitrator having the authority to release the property according to the result of arbitration. Ever buy a house? That's what escrow services are for: making sure nobody defrauds or reneges on a contract before it's complete.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Never bought a house before...

I don't use credit anymore.

This questions was answered

This questions was answered by Murray Rothbard. See here:


This doesn't deal with enforcement....

This treatment just clearly defines ownership at any given time. While that is grand, how does one go about enforcing the contracts?

Enforce is the wrong word

The proper lawful action to perform is to UPHOLD the law not enforce the law. There is a huge difference between the two.

Note to everyone-An understanding of "enforcement" of law is lawfully invalid. Anyone using this term as valid lawful activity will be disregarded as one still confused about the proper application of real law.

Sorry to be blunt, but that's where I'm at now. Enforcement is off the table forever.

All forms of enforcement are rejected, period.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

What I'm trying to dig out are non-violent solutions to the....

violations of contracts.

Nitpicking, "upholding the law" is still too vague. For instance, whose law? Perhaps, we could say "upholding Natural Law". This, then, begs the question - how far does Natural Law extend? Do contractual agreements fall under Natural Law or man-made law, for example?

Suppose an individual owns a piece of land and the buildings on it. Further suppose, somewhere down the road the individual decides to join neighbors in forming some type of HOA. At some point, the fellow doesn't live up to the rules of the HOA. Can the HOA force the person off the property - even though he owned it before its inception? Which is more in-line with Natural Law - his ownership of the property - or the rules written in the HOA contract?

The answers you seek have already been addressed in the law

Just because corrupt assholes corrupted the 'law' doesn't mean the law itself is broken. It is only men who are broken from ignorance of the law.

Addressing the violations of contracts is easy for those who live within the protections of law because they learn what a contract is and they form those contracts with jurisdiction (or a defined process for discovering jurisdiction in finitely random way) for disputes over the contractual duty.

As for your HOA scenario, a man astute in law would not enter into such agreement. Freedom is maintained through minimizing contractual duty. The freest men in the world have no contractual obligations to anyone with the maximum wealth. If someone acquired rightful property why would they tie that to contractual obligations of other random people and possibly not address an unforeseen issue that causes jeopardy later on, especially when involving your real property? One can go down that road but IMHO that whole idea is abhorrent to freedom.

The law already works a certain way within nature. If we utilize it's protections that is the only way we can protect ourselves. Upholding contracts comes from the granting authority which is the consenting parties. Anything within nature is accessible to uphold a contract with the only limitation being according to the defined terms of the contract so the real key is for each to realize they are in the driver's seat of how the contract gets upheld and take full responsibility for both sides of the contract answering to jurisdiction when valid claims of injury are made by another and to be astute enough to make the contractual terms in such a way that they WILL be upheld or remedy is due. If this process is not done correctly people will make major problems for themselves and likely lose their property from ignorance of the law.

The answer is in full liability for your actions and strategic positioning with leverage.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...


"In the first case, you were a victim. In the second case, you made a poor business decision."

The concept of ownership can be seen in two obvious ways:

Stewardship (along the lines of highest and best use)

Exclusive dominion enforced criminally

Another way to see this is by looking at the two concepts of Credit and Debt.

1. Credit and Debt are:
"In the first case, you were a victim. In the second case, you made a poor business decision."

2. Credit and Debt are:
Yes to the following questions.

However, what if you establish a contract (verbal or otherwise) with another party, for example a loan contract, and the other party doesn't live up to their end? Can you drive over to their house and beat them or kill them? Does that fall within the NAP?"

Obviously, when free market forces work, the best at conflict resolution, at the lowest price, wins, and as those winners gain market share those conflicts that can be resolved are resolved as best as is possible among people who include criminals who will perpetrate crimes if the pay is good.

"What are your thoughts?"

I think you may find anarchism (as you define it) in that time period between 1776 and 1787, in a Federal form (including trial by jury), and the following words (which are not mine) help, some, along that way:


Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.

Same book, more words quoted_________________
But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.

From the following source are words from the original American Anarchists who began thinking in free market terms starting with Josiah Warren and then with Benjamin Tucker who began printing a magazine called Liberty:


First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.

The Declaration of Independence was, is, and can be the document that establishes Non-Aggression as a Principle in time and place.

From that time and place there were 13 mutual defense associations formed by people forming competitive (free market: meaning Non-Aggression or NOT ANTAGONISTIC COMPETITION)defense associations, all of which included trial by jury as a method of conflict resolution.

Those 13 mutual defense associations (some were more despotic than others: meaning some where lower in quality and higher in cost as people supplied free market government to fill the demand for free market government) formed a Federal contract (debt and credit) for their mutual defense.

In other words: the criminal army of The British Central Banking Monopoly Power had to attack, occupy, plunder, and mass murder the people in one Defense Association at a time, because it was not economically feasible to attack all 13 defense associations at once.

While one defense association was brutally subdued by the invading criminals, while free minded people were rounded up and murdered in torture chambers and death camps, the other people in the other defense associations were still viable as working defense associations, able to fight defensively with a form of fighting that is now understood as maneuver warfare.

The criminal British Monopolists sent in agents to infiltrate the rank and file defender population as a covert means of subduing the defensive, free market, people.

Those who were on the side of the British criminals covertly hidden behind a false front of being on the side of the "rebels," "insurgents," and "levelers," were George Washington:


Alexander Hamilton (Central Banker explained above)

John Adams of the Alien and Sedition Act infamy.

And the red coat, blue coat, red coat chameleon James Madison who was in power when the false Federal Capital was burned, and the Second (Central Fraud) Bank of The (so called) United States was reestablished.

Why did those Red Coats torture and mass murder so many people in America?


If those people were allowed to live and let live, in a free market government experiment, the obvious result would have been the abolition of Slavery, Piracy, Fraudulent Banking, Conscription, and false government; World Wide.

It was a close race; but those who race to the bottom won in 1787.

The Rat RACE.

Extra Credit:


In theory, there are two possible solutions, neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours.

One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises' suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.

Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard's solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?

There would be no government-issued money. There would be no government mint. There would be no legal tender laws. There would be no barriers to entry into coin production.

There would also be no free services. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Anything other than free banking or 100% reserve banking is a pseudo-gold standard or silver standard. It is just one more invitation to confiscation.

Caveat Emptor


I am not a solute in a pot...

I don't want to be experimented on.

While I'm still reading your references, I'm now enjoying the mises.org George Washington article that you cited.

"...neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours."

Only a few short years ago, people were saying that about marijuana. Absolute certainty only exists in very narrow corners of the world around us.


The concept of individualism is explained well here:




Confusing individualism, which can be accurately measured as fact, with connectivity among individuals, can happen too.

I am also not a solute in a pot...

I am connected to other individuals through mediums of exchange.

Have you heard of something called The Dictator's Dilemma?

Here in this link is a useful chart:


What would be the result of a device offered in a free market area, not an absolute utopian fantasy area, but a more free, competitively free, not the best possible freedom ever, but a free area relatively free compared to other less competitively free places, whereby this device works the following way:

The user of the device can record their current situation and upload their current situation into a Network of information available to people offering a competitive insurance service called Anti-Despotism Insurance.

The device offered in this free market zone is part of something like this:


That is a general sketch of what I call Anti-Despotism Insurance.

But my question to you concerns the device that is not yet described entirely.

The device offers real time video, audio, connectivity of what is happening in time and place to people who serve the user of the device, when the user of the device wants help.

The device also offers the user an ability to stun someone, anyone, and make someone immobile for one hour, and this device has been perfected through free market forces, as the highest quality, and lowest cost, to date, device that accomplishes the goal of immobilizing someone for one hour at minimum health risk to the target of this immobilizing device.

So...my guess is that you are following this scenario well enough to see the implications.

This device is available in the free market zone.

Do you move to that free market zone?

Will criminals allow such a device to exist, or such a service to exist?

This is similar to the Red Button story here:


This device and this service is opposite of this:


I have yet to view that last link. The GAINING CURRENCY effect of Assassination Politics (a.k.a. put options, or selling short) was slow in rate of acceleration since Jim Bell went to prison, but lately, the rate of acceleration is quickening.


Bump for potential discussion...