A World Without Theft

re: A World Without Theft

Matt — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:57:03 GMT

There are a few things that would limit their ability and incentive towards injustice, but no doubt unjust acts will always be committed; we are looking to minimize them. It is utopian to think men can have a society with no crime.

The first hurdle for an insurance company would be the arbitration. The lack of a centralized arbitration monopoly would open up to a market of arbitration companies. These companies would act as neutral third parties to settle disputes. When you sign an insurance policy, you and the insurance company would both agree on an arbitration company you both would trust. When you have a dispute with the insurance company they would not be the ones to decide, the mutual third party would. Now its obvious that there would be nothing explicit to prevent arbitration and insurance companies from working together to rob you. However, if an arbitration company gained a reputation for being corrupt they quickly lose a lot of business as the selection of the arbitor is mutual.

Likewise, insurance companies would have an incentive to fulfill their contracts, otherwise they would gain a reputation of fraud and nobody would do business with them.

Lastly there's always the option of reinsurance. If you are uneasy with an insurance policy you can have it re-insured by another company, who would charge you a premium based on how much they trust the insurer and in the event of a breach in contract by the original insurer, the second insurer would fulfill the contract for you and seek to reclaim their money from the other company.

While insurers would have the power to break their contracts, they could not do it on a noticeable scale without provoking market forces. The government on the other hand is not limited by the market. When dealing with the state there is no re-insurance I can take out on the social security I'm promised. When dealing with a breach in contract with the state, you can only turn back to the state to decide on the case.

In conclusion, a free market system of order would not be perfect, but perfection is unattainable. The important part is that it would be more efficient, less costly, and much more severely limited in abusive power than the state.

re: A World Without Theft

Ben Weiss — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:02:34 GMT

While I too have had these thoughts before, the stumbling block into which I inevitably run concerns information. In your model, you assume a world in which

1. Everyone knows (or trusts someone who knows) the laws in detail of their insurance company {not too hard here, but were I that insurance agency, I probably would insist on a period of adjustment and "we can change the rules when we want to but we'll notify you" ness.

In the last great fire in the Oakland (CA, USA) hills, many hundreds of homeowners lost their homes *without* full compensation because nobody but an engineer would notice that tiny clause in the contract they all signed which stipulated that the house would not be considered to be 100% destroyed (and therefore, 100% compensated) if any part of the chimney was left standing. Even a few engineers were duped by this. It turns out, (surprise surprise) that chimneys are *designed* to withstand intense heat for some reason, so there was, for instance, a street (upon which I personally stood and to which I can therefore personally attest) full of completely incinerated houses with nothing standing but all the chimnies.

Since insurance companies will always have brighter lawyers (on average) than everybody else, this leads us to the free market for:

2. Insurance Consultants could read to you your contract and even negotiate with your insurance agency, but there'd need to be some kind of mechanism for you to punish them if they screw you, no?

and, most persuasively,

3. How do we know any of the insurance companies ever treat any of their constituents the way they claim by their contracts? Why, with honest media, of course. Gee. We don't have that. How do we garentee that?

I'm not saying yours isn't the best solution to many of our problems I've yet found; in fact, it is. What I'm saying here is that I don't know how to solve the last mile, "who will watch the watchers" problem.

Right now, many of the problems with our current form of government can be traced to not having unbiased sources of information. Same problem. Solve it for the utopia in your article, solve it for our republic as it stands. Thoughts?

re: A World Without Theft

Matthew — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:58:10 GMT

Very thought provoking. I had never considered insurance companies to be an agency of "law", but I'm warming up to the argument.

re: A World Without Theft

ayrnieu — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:18:06 GMT

Ahah! Thanks!

re: A World Without Theft

mitcjm — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:32:15 GMT

mousley(???)= muesli, a breakfast dish of uncooked rolled oats, fruit, and nuts.