Robert White

1. "In my scenario, since there is no government solution, I would hire a private insurance agency to deal with the problem neighbor matter. "

In what manner? Negotiations? Pay them off? Buy their land? These sound like very expensive transactions. Rather than resolving a conflict that clearly interferes with your rights, your solution is to pay the instigator. See my response to the comment above. Now we create incentive for people to be bad neighbors. They get a great payday.

You also incorrectly assume that once you hire the insurance company you won't have to deal with problems anymore, except you neglect the incredible premiums that will surely skyrocket since, let's face it, who wouldn't want to get payed for being an ass to their neighbors? You also have the chance that your insurance company is going to decide it's cheaper to move you than deal with the problem. Great, now you have to leave your home that you may have had in the family for generations. Can you refuse? Sure, but don't expect the insurance company to offer anymore solutions for your neighbors after you refuse their offer.

2. "If I have any disputes with them, we both agree to take our dispute to an arbitrator. If either of us are unhappy with the decision, we can appeal the first arbitrator to a second. If the first arbitrator is overturned, the first arbitrator pays, so they have an incentive to do it right the first time. "

Yikes! Where shall we begin...

Let's start with arbitration in general. Arbitration is always a messy solution to legal problems. Let's say you go to Walmart and buy an appliance, and it malfunctions, causes a fire and burns your house down. You want to sue Walmart, but you didn't realize that when you bought the appliance, it included a terms of use agreement that required mandatory arbitration. Alright, fine, whatever. Instead of taking it to court you just go to arbitration, no big deal, right? So who arbitrates the dispute? The terms of use agreement provides the answer: Walmart Arbitrators of America. It's an arbitration company who gets all their business solely from Walmart. That means Walmart will keep sending them millions of dollars in business every year, provided they make "good" decisions. What do you think Walmart thinks is a good decision?

Isn't arbitration a great solution to the legal system? How could there possibly be any bias?

Now let's get back to your arrangement. We have one arbitrator, and if the decision gets appealed to a second arbitrator (and why wouldn't it?) and if they reach the opposite conclusion, the first arbitrator pays. So now you need an agreement from the first arbitrator to pay for the costs if the second arbitrator overturns their decision. How do we get them to agree to that? You have two possible ways this will work out.

You recommend an arbitrator to act as the "appeal arbitrator". They will obviously respond with "hell no!". Legal issues are complex. The right answer is not always clear. No one is going to agree to front the bill just because some other guy at some other arbitration company thinks it should have turned out the other way. No solution here. Let's try the other possibility.

The other possibility is the arbitrator you choose recommends their own "appeal arbitrator". Who do they recommend? This great company they've worked with for many years. What kind of relationship do they have? The Appeal Arbitrator reviews the first arbitrator's decisions, and if they decide the first arbitrator did everything correctly, first arbitrator is happy and keeps sending them business. If they decide the first arbitrator made a mistake, then the first arbitrator loses money and finds themself a new Appeal Arbitrator.

In the end, the arbitrator's incentive to "get it right" is no greater than it was before.

3. "In fact, it would always be "loser pays" for any dispute."

Now my incentive to bring an action is diminished, even if I know I'm being screwed over. Why? Because if I lose, then I get screwed over by the defendant AND I have to pay for the court/arbitration costs. There's a reason this system was abolished.

4. "If the loser cannot appeal and does not make the winner whole, they are financially ostracized"

The problem with this arrangement is it does not offer any solutions to the current Statist set up. Think about it. In our current system, the public votes to create a law, and then if you refuse to follow that law, they force you to follow it. How? First they Fine you. Then they arrest you. Then they throw you in jail where you rot until you die. Great.

But does ostracization solve this problem? Let's check. You have a disagreement with your neighbor. At arbitration, they win. Now you have to pay a fine to the neighbor. If you don't, you get ostracized. No one buys from you, no one contracts with you. You run out of money, you can't buy food, or water, and you die. Wonderful Solution. Either way, you're at the mercy of the community, and if you refuse to obey, they kill you. How can you seriously and honestly call that a voluntary society?

5. "It might be hard to believe that it is never necessary to look to government for any reason. "

Yes, you say we never need government, but then you gave a list of 3 laws that should always be adhered to. And who enforces these laws? A Private company? What authority do they have over me if I don't obey? None. So now we're back to ostracization? And do you remember where that leads us? If I don't follow the community's rules, agreement or not, they kill me. How is that different from Statism?

6. "it would be highly unusual to look to any kind of government judges after already agreeing to a private solution. Someone who appeals to government after a getting a private arbitrator would also be ostracized."

That's a wonderful solution. So now when I try to sue Walmart for selling me that faulty blender that burned down my house, I have to go to "Walmart Arbitrators of America", and if I try to appeal to some other authority, I get ostracized. And where does that lead us? I get killed. Wonderful.

7. "But it resulted in a net savings of $20 or $25 billion for the businesses being deregulated. How much do you think would have been saved if they just got rid of the whole ball of wax?"

You really know how to look at all sides of the issue. Obviously we should deregulate all businesses! I mean, if they just make more money, what's the problem? You know what the first regulation we get rid of should be? How about the regulation that prevents companies from dumping waste in our ground water? Think of all the money the companies will save? Surely this will provide a great benefit to everyone. Let's just get rid of the whole ball of wax. It really is that simple and easy.

8. "There are innovative solutions we could never dream of."

Right, and if no one can think of them, then no one can implement them.

9. "Let's suppose a private protection agency is formed to seek out evidence to suggest children like this could exist."

Did you even read your solution? It requires people to pay a private company to spy on them by talking with neighbors and searching through our garbage. Sign me up! Why wait for the government to set up big brother when I can pay someone to watch my every move right now? I'm sure that will be a huge success...

10. "I don't see how voluntaryism is Utopian."

Finally we agree on something. If it doesn't provide a solution, why bother?

Great solution. Now I can get paid for being a noisy neighbor. What's that? You want me to stop being irresponsibly loud on my property? Pay the price I demand or buy my property for the price I set. It's a win win.

http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2444.0

Re: redundant work. Yes, that was explained to me elsewhere. I'll just have to take all'y'all's word for it.

"... in an alternative system like this, none of the systems in the pool do redundant work."
False. There is no redundant work. every node works on different hashes. All hashes are equal.