Sasan, Thanks for clarifying things for people like us, who were generally raised in heavy fog. Let me add that technology will continue to make it easier for reputations to be known.
Technology seems to be the great under-addressed force for change. Try to imagine talking and leaning about a government-less society without computers or the internet. I've heard it said that people don't really change, but technology "forces" them to. It seems to have some merit. Of course some technologies empower people to aggress others in new ways, but other technologies encourage them to behave. Latter ones include DNA forensics and recording technologies. Of course computing technologies make all other technologies more efficient, especially communications technologies. Now consider using these technologies against the state. "Big Brother" video cameras are not inherently bad; they are just pointed at the wrong people. You are starting to see it already on YT with all the cell-phone cameras capturing all that police brutality. Now just try to imagine the effects of a few technologies evolving just a wee bit further. We will all have cell phones that are not only online 24/7 and recording HQ video and audio 24/7, but will also have face & voice recognition software (that works). Among other things, this will reveal the real criminals by literally tracking people's reputations online. Imagine meeting a potential business partner, and after seeing his face and hearing his voice, your cell phone immediately tells you some unflattering things about him. You then tell him you need time to think about his proposition, and you go to the computer and Google his name and up pops evidence of past bad business. Same goes for potential friends, mates, employees, employers, etc. In the future, everyone will be Googlable; and for some, Google will be a worse prison than bars and concrete. Your reputation the perfect life sentence, because it's of your own making. --------------------------------- Allow me to address these points one at a time. First is the accusation that a private arbiter may show favoritism when making decisions. Since an arbiter's success depends ENTIRELY on how fair they are perceived to be, it seems to me that an arbiter would want to avoid favoritism at all costs. You can also expect to see an arbiter refuse to handle certain cases simply because there may be a conflict of interest. Corruption is a product of POWER, and arbiters have no power. They are simply performing a service under contract. Courts, however, DO have power and are therefore corruptible. This is the difference between VOLUNTARY and COERCIVE systems. Second is your assertion that the decision of the arbiter may be ignored simply because one party may be stronger than the other. Are there no market forces that would prevent such a situation? In a voluntary society your reputation is EVERYTHING. Without a solid standing in the community you will find it very difficult to survive. How do you think that your reputation will be affected if it becomes known that you do not honor contracts? Third is your implication that arbitration must be forced onto the disputants or else the conflict will become a "contest of strength". You seem to be forgetting another market force which keeps such situations in check: TRADITION. In the absence of Government intervention, traditions develop over time to provide guidelines for a civilized society. In a voluntary society, tradition will dictate that disputants must first attempt to resolve conflicts through peaceful means such as arbitration. The price for violating tradition is a tarnishing of your reputation, and as we discussed before, the Court of Public Opinion is a tremendous market force. I mentioned is a previous post that the technique most often used by those in favor of Governments is to identify all of the worst-case scenarios that may occur without Government. While all of these dire predictions are technically possible, one thing is absolutely clear: forming a criminal protection racket (Government) does absolutely NOTHING to prevent these problems. Governments are highly proficient at CREATING conflicts, not resolving them. ---Sasan
