X-Sender: bala@...
X-Apparently-To: agathiyar@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8 0 3 2); 22 May 2002 08:20:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 13015 invoked from network); 22 May 2002 08:20:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 May 2002 08:20:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO sydney.net) (203.22.101.2) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 May 2002 08:20:51 -0000
Received: from bala (nas1ppp55.sydneywerks.com.au [203.22.103.247]) by sydney.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id SAA14642; Wed, 22 May 2002 18:23:39 +1000
X-Authentication-Warning: churchill.sydneywerks.com.au: Host nas1ppp55.sydneywerks.com.au [203.22.103.247] claimed to be bala
Message-ID: <023a01c2018e$e21e1000$d8bafea9@bala>
To:
Cc:
Subject: Solving The Deep Distrust Problem Amongst Tamils: Tamildom Contract Insurance
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 18:17:28 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "Bala Pillai"
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1292804
X-Yahoo-Profile: bala2pillai
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 18166
Anpulla Erumbugale,
Solving The Deep Distrust Problem Amongst Tamils: Tamildom Contract
Insurance
http://www.libertocracy.com/PoliveriumE-2/E-2Sectors/E-2Capitalium/E-2Econom
yX/insuranceX.htm
(if you have web access, best to go to URL above - easier to read)
Libercratic Contract Insurance
Legal Assurance - Surety
A Mechanism for Consensual Law Enforcement
Contract insurance (assurance or surety) is the mechanism for the
enforcement of voluntary, contractual law. Contract insurance is a surety of
protection for other people in one's interactions with them. It is the way
in which people who are civilzens of different governments assure each other
that each person will be held accountable for one's actions across
governmental jurisdictions. Should a person commit a crime or violate a
contract or commit a tort then contract insurance will be the mechanism
which will ensure that the person will pay full restitution to the person(s)
harmed. And it will help to compel appearance in court to face charges or to
testify as a witness or to answer other court summonses which may come from
governments other than the one of which the person is a civilzen.
1 (A) If, for instance, you were to do business with someone through the Web
who lives in another part of the world who was a civilzen (citizen) of a
different government and there was no treaty agreement between your two
governments and if you were to invest money with the person or firm who
owned that business or were to buy a product or service from someone who
makes certain claims on the product or agrees to return your money if not
completely satisfied, then contract insurance provides the assurance that
this person will live up to one's contract. Contract insurance will provide
protection for both parties. In the current world system of states there is
no way to be protected. If you send your money to such a person you are just
throwing your money into the wind and hoping to receive a return. The state
under which both parties live are restricted to their territory of control
and if there is no common authority between the two of them then your money
will be gone with no way to get it back. The only effective way of assuring
that business is honest between people of different governments is through
contract insurance. In this way people may engage in fair and honest free
enterprise universally without the limitations or restrictions of state
borders with much greater protection and with something that the state
cannot do; a guarantee of protection.
Contract insurance is in the form of a trust whereby a person turns over
a key to all of one's assets to a trustee of one's choosing that is also
accepted by others who are within the same contract as the other person. The
key provides access by the trustee to everything that one owns, one's bank
accounts, stocks, bonds, titles to property, home, vehicles and all of one's
business assets and properties. The trust is not a separate account into
which all money must be collected, the trustee has the electronic key to the
location of all of the person's assets, so the later may freely transfer
money, make withdraws, purchase property and do business. The trust doesn't
in any way interfere with or hamper one's financial freedom. The trust is a
general agreement; a trust between those agreeing and the trustee. Contract
insurance does not necessarily require a person or firm to pay premiums or
purchase anything, one's assets should be sufficient to cover most cases,
but should more coverage be needed, then one should purchase liability
insurance. Basic contract insurance is free, it is simply a statement of
trustworthiness; that I am as good as my word and here is the proof backed
by my own money. If I fail to live up to or do what I have claimed, then you
have the recourse to take contract action against me with the trustee who
holds my assets assuring that I will comply with all contract obligations.
Likewise, contract insurance compels a person to answer a subpoena to
appear in court as a witness or to answer other court orders. If the person
were to refuse to appear, then the trustee would seize one's assets and the
recalcitrant person would be fined as punishment. The authorities would then
track the person down and require that the person appear in a video or phone
deposition or the person would lose all of one's assets.
When a person or firm gives a key to one's assets over to a trustee, it
doesn't mean that one's assets are put in an untouchable trust or taken out
of circulation. One's assets whether it be in money, investitures or in
physical property is handled and controlled completely by the owner without
restrictions on what may be done with that property as long as no act is
taken to conceal the property from the trustee. The owner may transfer
assets into anything that one wishes, one may take all of one's money out of
an account and spend it on property, goods or services. The trustee has no
authority over the management of these assets and can only freeze or seize
them with a court order. The court order or other authority is chosen by the
persons who have entered into the contract. So they may choose an existing
supreme or civil government or a treaty organization or they may establish a
private court which is operated by a justice firm to settle disputes among
themselves. The terms and procedures for these courts must be pre-negotiated
by the signatories. Private justice firms, besides operating fair and
neutral courts, may also offer contract insurance trust services. Unlike
with other forms of insurance, contract assurance is not something that one
has to purchase, there are no premiums that have to be paid, it can cost a
person nothing to have it. Though greater liability may require purchasing a
contract insurance policy by paying premiums. It is just a person saying
that I am honest and trustworthy in my business or personal associations and
I wish to engage in fair and honest interactions with others and this is the
proof of my word and the guarantee to others that I will keep it.
(B) For a contract to be effective it must be enforceable, there are several
ways to attempt to enforce a contract; one would be to rely upon the state,
which is unreliable and hazardous to our rights, another would involve
enforcement based on trust, this would limit contracts to only those people
who are close family and friends who can be trusted, and even some of them
may not be completely trustworthy. Other methods might be; those employed by
the Mafia (not good) or by superstition, primitive societies use the fear of
evil spirits or ancestors to enforce their customs, as they do the power of
tradition. Realistically, I think the best way to enforce private contracts
is through personal insurance, where all signatories put up assurance that
they will abide by the contract, this may take the form of actually paying
certain fees or paying insurance premiums or it may involve allowing a
trustee to have access to your assets to provide the assurance to all
signatories. The preference for choosing asset insurance is that it is
cheaper, it doesn't involve paying fees or premiums, and is more
comprehensive, when all signatories realize that all of their personal
assets are its stake, they are most likely to live up to the contract. This
system respects the sovereignty that an individual has over one's assets and
allows each individual to remain in possession and control over one's assets
while relying on each person to take full responsibility for one's actions
and be held accountable for their voluntary choices.
The state does not ask its citizens to voluntarily choose a trustee or to
put up their assets within a consensual contract, the state seizes control
of people's assets through regulation of banking, property and private
businesses and then confiscates them when it sees an interest in doing so.
That's why I believe people need to move their assets into completely
private holdings, out of the reach of the state. In doing so, and individual
may live an isolated life with one's money either buried in the backyard or
in an offshore account. But when sovereign individuals go into business
together or have associations with other people, where is the assurance that
all parties will live up to their contracts?
An example of contract insurance would be where people attending a
gathering would sign up, using their credit cards, with a trustee (security
officer, accountant or lawyer) that all persons have agreed to and trust, if
someone steals damages property at the event, then the trustee well seize
the credit card of the suspect until the suspect is brought before a court
and a decision rendered. If the suspect runs off, then the trustee will have
the contractual authority to keep the credit card and extract that person's
money from one's bank account to pay recompense to the party harmed, because
that would be the contract that everyone signed. Therefore it would bind all
members to answer to all charges and to appear in court.
People engage in this type of contract insurance on a daily basis, every
time you give your credit card number to another person you are trusting
them not to abuse it and you are also giving them the authority to take
money from your account, in some cases for extra fees or fines that are
levied for misuse or damage to property, for example, when you make a
security deposit on a boat or a cabin that you rent. When it comes to
contract insurance, you would choose the trustee yourself and that trustee
would be insured by a larger organization that all signatories trust. The
trustee might be a bank, an insurance company or, in the future, a firm that
acts as a trustee in contract insurance.
Citizens of states suffer having their privacy violated and the state
takes the power to have access to seize one's assets at any time, in fact
more tyrannical regimes even make it a crime to conceal assets in secret
accounts. Free government respects the sovereign control a person has over
one's property and because every association must be entered into
voluntarily, the way for people to be able to govern their interactions
between people of the same and different governments which have no common
contract and to be able to compel each other to answer criminal or
litigation charges or to appear as a witness and to pay restitution if
guilty is through contract insurance trusts.
(C) If the opposing party knows one will probably lose and thus refuses to
go to court and has by some tact been able to withdraw and conceal one's
assets from the trustee, then you may tell your insurance agent of the other
party's refusal to appear in court and file a claim under your policy,
collect compensation for your losses, and leave the matter in your agent's
hands.
The authority to take the other party to court now transfers to your
insurance company, which contacts the refusing party's insurance company (or
government) to compel appearance. Then the insurance company's claim to
restitution may be sold to a private collection agency who may seize assets
or garnish wages. The insurance company or government may offer a reward to
anyone, such as the employer of the recalcitrant person, who is able to
seize that persons assets in order to extract restitution. This is one way
in which persons from an alien jurisdiction may be made to pay restitution.
Refusing to appear in court is a forfeit of all money held in the
assurance trust and one can expect one's contract insurance premiums to
skyrocket or to lose one's policy altogether.
In either case, if one tries to get a policy from another insurance company
one will find that it has heard of one's behavior through a legal office set
up and run by the insurance industry.
Such consequences will prevent most people from refusing to go to court
voluntarily.
The parties' terms to a contract or the requirement for doing business or
traveling into a secured area or one's chosen government may require that a
person or entity maintain a certain amount of assents within the assurance
trust at all times, one may be allowed to withdraw all of one's money from
one's account as long as one continues to allow access by the trustee to
one's stocks, bonds, titles to property and businesses and other holdings,
whatever amount is agreed upon as being necessary to assure other parties.
Insurance companies, banks or other firms who act as trustees may profit
from it when a guilty party is convicted or found liable in a suit and will
have to pay a fee to the trustees of all parties involved in the case.
Trustees who oversee the assets of parties who never commit transgressions
may receive very small maintenance fees from the interest earned on the
assets.
2. Credit Card Assurance Trust
Contract insurance may be secured through one's credit card.
It may be required, as an alternative to asset trusts or purchasing a
policy, for a person who enters into a civil jurisdiction or a person with
whom one does business or associates to give one's credit card number to a
neutral trustee as a personal assurance that one will comply with the law
and all contractual agreements. Both parties must accept the trustee who is
legally bound to keep all credit card numbers totally private, in fact, the
trustee should not even look at credit card numbers except to confirm their
initial authenticity and periodically to check their validity. The numbers
should be help in a secure computer file. The trustee is forbidden to give
the numbers to any other person or institution, and is particularly
forbidden to give the numbers to any police, including our own police, this
is absolutely necessary to maintain the integrity of the trusteeship and to
keep it independent of the police. When the trustee receives a court order
to charge the person who has blatantly refused to abide by one's contract,
refused to appear in court, or has refused to submit to a lawful judgment.
The trustee upon receiving the court order will then charge the recalcitrant
person and hand over the money to the court of jurisdiction.
A person may be required to keep a certain amount of money in one's bank
account to cover initial costs rather than charging them. People who enter
into associations with people who have credit card assurance should take
into consideration their credit limit and not assume risks which may exceed
that limit. Persons who may incur a greater liability than their credit
limit may sign a contract with other persons who have credit card assurance
to share the risk, so that if a person is assuming a liability greater than
their individual credit limit, then that credit limit may be greatly
exceeded by sharing the credit limits of many other individuals who have
consented to form their own credit assurance trust. Likewise, institutions,
businesses and other entities may also share their credit limits by forming
a multi-institutional credit assurance trust. Credit card companies should
be informed of any contracts to which an individual or entity enters which
may incur liability, and most importantly, the credit card companies must be
informed of the formation of credit assurance trusts because of the
possibility of liability being spread over many customers. The credit card
company is entitled to know of the risk that they have in their customers
and to decide on whether or not to approve the existing credit limit, reduce
it or increase it, the companies may want to charge higher interest rates to
cover the greater liability. If any individual or entity ever exceeds one's
credit limit or is unable to pay all of one's debts, then that person or
entity may be dropped as a customer and the company will share the
information that this former customer is a bad risk with other companies who
may deny the customer credit cards or loans in the future, such a person or
entity may find it nearly impossible to function in electronic commerce in
the future. This threat should be a very effective deterrent to make people
obey the law and live up to their own voluntary contracts.
Credit card assurance is a most efficient form of contract insurance and
while it may be used as a requirement for becoming a civilzen, it should
mostly be used for associates, guests and customers who enter into a civil
jurisdiction, in this way a person may quickly and efficiently bind oneself
to the law and their explicit and implicit contracts to which they enter
when they choose to enter the particular jurisdictional space or engage in
any business or even casual associations with civilzens.
Seeking to form a wider credit assurance trust will make a person or
entity more accountable to society through the other people in the trust who
will look at the person's character, credit history, criminal record and
will check references from other people. Persons who cannot be trusted will
not be able to receive a wider credit assurance and may be greatly
restricted in one's associations or business dealings because the person's
credit limit will be relatively low and the various trusts and credit card
companies will share information that will warn others of a person's
irresponsibility. For this reason other people may choose to keep their
associations with this distrustful person to a minimum, only at a level
which is covered by their minimal credit limit, or they may refuse all
association. Once a person or entity joins a credit assurance trust, the
other members of the trust will take responsibility for keeping the person
or entity honest, they will eagerly provide information and even assistance
to help their partner comply with the law and their agreements so as to
avoid any liability, as long as everyone within the trust trusts each other
and works in good faith they will be considered members in good standing who
are assured of respecting the rights of others and complying with the law
and their contracts.
3. Purchasing Coverage to Guarantee Compliance
(A) To guarantee that a person will comply with the law, particularly if the
person's assets are small or the person has no real assets at all, the
person in question may purchase a contract insurance policy from a company
and by doing so the person gives one's explicit consent to the insurance
company to use police action against that person, put one under arrest and
extract restitution. Persons who are civilzens of supreme or civil
governments like Librademia and Poliverium automatically have contract
insurance and have already given their consent to the government to use
police action against them, this provides the guarantee to aliens that our
civilzens will be fully accountable. Purchasing a contract insurance policy
is mainly for aliens so that Librademian civilzens can be certain that the
alien will be held accountable. By paying contract insurance premiums, the
policy holder has expressed a commitment to abide by the law and respond to
court orders, the best thing about this policy is that it creates an
incentive on the part of the insurance provider, to prevent their policy
holder from committing crimes. The way they do this is by being selective in
who they accept and rejecting people who can't be trusted. Once a person is
a civilzen or policy holder, the insurance provider will encourage and guide
the policy holder in responsible conduct which should lead to a miniscule
crime rate within FSUTO. The main threat to FSUTO members comes from aliens
who have no contract insurance, they can best be dealt with by being totally
excluded from FSUTO territory, therefore we allow only people who are
responsible and respect other people's rights to participate in our
civilization.
(B) Parties to a contract may pay a direct fee based on a percentage of the
value of the assets covered by the contracts to their chosen government or
insurance company. This fee would cover the cost of investigating and
adjudicating disputes, but would not necessarily cover comprehensive
liability, that would have to be purchased as explained above.
4. Persons Without Contract Insurance Assets or a Policy
(A) Exclusion
But what if your opponent doesn't have any contract insurance or assets to
lose? In that case, you probably wouldn't have done business with that
person in the first place, having discovered that upon your request one
couldn't give a valid proof of legal coverage. If you go ahead and do
business then its at your own risk and if you file a claim on losses arising
from doing business with someone without coverage, then you will have to
rely on the other person answering the suit.
If a person has no money or physical assets, then it is left up to other
people to decide whether or not to accept this person's word and engage in
business or other organized activities with the person. Mainly contract
insurance protects people from unscrupulous business practices which means
obviously, that if you're doing business with someone, then that other
person or firm has some assets which will serve as contract insurance.
Activities with someone who has no assets at all will likely be limited to
profitless associations. People without assets may establish some measure of
contract insurance by signing a contract agreeing to hand over the key to
one's assets when one gains assets in the future. If the person so agreeing
gets a job then one's pay and everything that one buys will be under the
supervision of the trustee, so that if the person was to commit a trespass,
then when that person does gain assets, the trustee may automatically seize
enough to pay restitution, if the person who committed the wrong has not
agreed to pay through work, service or some other manner or has reneged on
the court ruling. The enforcement of this contract will be through other
people and firms, because if the person refuses to hand over the key to
one's assets after agreeing to do so, then any person or business for which
that person works may be under a prior contract to turn over the person's
pay to the trustee.
(B) Underwriting
Persons without assets may have someone underwrite their contract insurance,
meaning that this other person or firm will guarantee that the former will
meet all legal obligations and will pay restitution if that person wrongs
anyone else. That's what governments do who provide contract insurance to
their civilzens, they guarantee accountability for their civilzens by being
obligated to pay restitution to other persons and then extract reimbursement
from their own civilzen later.
Persons without contract insurance assets who commit crimes may be held
in detention if they can't get bail. Bail is itself a form of contract
insurance, whereby the bail bondsman puts up enough money to cover the bill
to the police, the potential court costs and restitution so that if the
suspect flees, then the bail bondsman will have to pay full restitution.
(C) Unsecured Contract
Alien citizens without contract insurance assets may be fully compelled to
obey the law, appear in court and pay restitution by getting the person to
sign a contract agreeing to obey the law, submit to lawful arrest and appear
in court when called and accept the courts ruling and pay restitution within
a particular jurisdiction. Should an alien be arrested, summoned to court or
required to pay restitution but refuses, runs off or calls an alien police
complaining about being held without one's consent, we will produce the
clear consent in the form of the contract one signed with witnesses; so that
if the subject is hiding on alien territory and absolutely refusing to meet
one's legal contractual obligations, them we will have the recourse of suing
that person in the citizen's own courts, if after the person still refuses
to tun oneself in, then we will claim huge damages that includes full
restitution to the victim, the bill to our police, court costs (we will try
to negotiate with the subject to have the trial in a private neutral court
or we will pay to use the state's courts so as not to charge citizens with
more taxes) and punitive damages. So that even if the person becomes
recalcitrant, we will still be able to get justice for the victim and pay
for our police and exact a deterrent to future transgressions.
People without contract insurance assets who are civilzens of a
government or treaty organization are required to testify by their contract
and would be tracked down and required to do so with a fine being imposed
that would result in a sentence of labor to pay for it.
(D) No Contract
Aliens who have not signed any contract and are without contract insurance
are not subject to obligations which have not been consensual validated.
However, such an alien is bound by natural law to respect the natural rights
of others--to commit no trespass against the sovereignty others. If such an
alien enters a sovereign's jurisdiction, then that alien has consented by
one's choice at entry to abide by all implied (not explicit, but implicit)
contracts while on the owner's property. If the alien were the to commit a
crime or otherwise violate the owner's rules, then the alien would be fully
subject to the owner's right to defend one's property and rules against
anyone would would violate them and the authority to pass judgment on the
violater. The alien can then, by one's consent to the implied contract, be
arrested, prosecuted and made to work to pay restitution for committing
crimes whether or not the alien has insurance. If the alien who commits a
crime flees the jurisdiction, a warrant for arrest may be issued to the
alien jurisdiction who is asked to arrest the suspect, but if the alien
jurisdiction has signed no contract, they are under no obligation to do so,
though refusal to cooperate in apprehending a fugitive would mean that the
persons under that authority would be punished with the fact that they would
find it extremely difficult to engage in business or other associations in
the future because other members of the treaty organization are by their
prior contract discouraged from forming contracts with aliens who may have
employed an alien from an uncooperative regime who has refused to submit to
arrest or to testify in court. Terms of a contract may require the employer
or other person who provides or handles the recalcitrant alien's assets to
hand over those assets to a trustee who would fine the person for the
earlier refusal to submit to arrest or testify, such a contract is with the
employer, the alien in question would then have to accept the employer's
terms as a pre-condition of working for the employer.
Persons without assets in a trust but with hidden assets will be fully
liable for restitution damages in criminal and litigation cases. Finding
and retrieving those assets may be difficult, but the authorities will use
whatever means that is legally available to them to accomplish this. Even if
the assets are not recovered, the person who is liable may be placed under
court supervision so that all of that person's visible assets from that time
forward will be managed by an authority appointed by the court to extract
restitution and the liable person would be watched to see if one tries to
move assets or use them to gain benefits. The authorities may then use any
of this information to track the assets. The liable person may remain under
the supervision of the authority until that person has fully complied with
one's legal obligation, even if it takes for the rest of that person's life.
But, while this obligation to pay restitution extends after the death of the
liable person on that person's assets only, no government authority may spy
on or track the business of the liable person's heirs. However if the
authorities legally observe the heirs claiming ownership of those assets,
they may move to seize the assets.
(E) Alien Citizens
Persons who are citizens of states who are not Libercratic civilzens and who
work for the state or there is evidence that they lobby for or otherwise
support the crimes of the state may be required to purchase additional legal
liability insurance with higher premiums because they are a higher risk to
deal with and are supporting actions which cost other people and infringe on
their rights and result in higher Libercratic security costs.
(F) Insurance companies or other private firms may compile records on the
creditability (as explained in Philip E. Jacobson in his article Business in
a Free Nation) of individuals and entities which may be used to set the
price for premiums and a person's or entity's credit rating and
trustworthiness may be used to set different interest rates for different
individuals or firms on loans. People or entities who renege on voluntary
obligations or refuse to abide by court rulings and pay restitution will
find that their creditability rating has been ruined, they may be fully
ostracized and boycotted and even blockaded by neighboring jurisdictions and
refused entry into any Libercratic jurisdiction.
In order to do business with or even to be allowed on the territory of
responsible people who belong to Libercratic governments simply putting
their assent under the authority of a trustee isn't enough, they will have
to pay very high premiums for contract insurance as well and they will find
it extremely difficult to get a job or a loan. Such a person will have to go
to great lengths to prove one's trustworthiness.
I consider contract insurance to be essential in governing human affairs in
a free enterprise government, consensual community or an anarcho-capitalist
system. There are various kinds of contract insurance. I'm totally opposed
to any government imposing an insurance obligation. Contract insurance as I
described it is only meant to be the enforcement mechanism for private,
consensual government under voluntary contracts.
I have described various possible types including one of the most common
in use--credit cards. One example of a simple form of contract insurance
would be for a gathering of people, some of whom don't know or trust each
other, to agree to hand their credit cards over to a trustee sitting at the
door who locks the cards in box. If everyone behaves themselves, then when
they're ready to leave they will be handed back their credit cards. But if
one of the guests goes on a drunken rampage, flies loose and wrecks the
place, steals something and runs off without paying for the damage, the
trustee will seize his credit card and take the money from his account.
For some associations only partial assets may be required. A common
example is renting a boat which requires a small security deposit. You get
your deposit back when you return the boat. For small liabilities people are
only asked to put up the amount that would cover the risks, if the risk is
small, the deposit can be smaller that the value of property being used.
A person would only pledge all of one's assets when one chooses to become
a civilzen in a consensual government. Allowing access to one's assets is a
consensual way to match the enforcement mechanism of the state without the
coercion. Sovereign individuals who are free agents would have to negotiate
terms of contracts and insurance on a case by case basis. Though an
individual may purchase comprehensive personal liability insurance that
would cover one in all of one's dealings without having to negotiate on
every interaction.
Since a crook might take advantage of the company or association by doing
his worst and running off and leaving them holding the bag. There has to be
a market incentive for the company to be willing to insure people. An
insurance company doesn't provide insurance because of charity. I know that
I would not agree to be held liable for other people's obligations without
being compensated for it. I know that sureties worked for some ancient and
medieval societies, particularly among the Saxon and Celtic tribes and in
Iceland, but those societies were small and more isolated. Today for such an
assurance mechanism to work there would have to be market incentives for an
association to be willing to accept liability, i.e., they would have to be
paid premiums or would have to hold the members assets in some sort of trust
to cover possible liability, otherwise they would open themselves up to
financial ruination. I don't think that it's efficient for small social
associations to provide comprehensive liability insurance anyway, insurance
companies would be able to spread the risk and more efficiently manage
liability since they specialize in it, and insurance companies have
re-insurance to cover larger liability.
The problem of insurance companies welching on claims is why I think that
a neutral trustee having access to the assets of the company and the policy
holders is most efficient, the trustee would be paid to be a watchdog and
would be insured himself so that any wrongdoing on his part would incur
liability. Unlike an insurance company, a trustee would have no incentive to
try to fight a claim, the merits of the claim would be determined in a
private court who would then issue a court order to pay the claim or to
seize the assets of the guilty party for refusal to pay.
A system would be in place where neutral authorities have the power to
seize the insurance company's assets should they pull something crooked or
lobby politicians to force people to buy insurance, as they do with auto
insurance. Re-insurance is a critical linchpin in the system. In such a
system everybody and everything would be insured, there would be a network
of insurance that is held together by consent which would be judged by
neutral authorities which have been consented to by all concerned.
I consider the opportunity of choosing a trustee to watch over joint
assets to be preferable to the fact that states have access to your assets
already if they're in a bank anywhere in the world. There are no truly
secure banks.
To prevent hiding assets, the neutral trustee overseeing such trusts acts
as police who would immediately notify the organization representing the
person who has just attempted to weasel out of an agreement, such and
attempt would automatically violate the contractual agreement and would
require the trustee to freeze the assets immediately.
Not having contract insurance may prevent a person being able to engage
in business with certain people or to enter certain territories. I would not
want to formally do business with anyone participating in an organization
which has any enforcement capacity without requiring that all participants
have some form of contract insurance.
There are ways to insure poor people, one is in a tight knit community
where the person is dependent on the family and larger community. If there
was an incentive for the community to accept liability for the person, then
a poor person would be insured because of the trust of other members of the
community. Another way, would be to require a poor person, without assets,
who is seeking insurance to accept wearing an electronic tracking device, to
make sure he doesn't run away from a his voluntary obligations.
If you ask, 'who will protect me from the trustee?' Your judgment would
protect you. People entering an association must do so by mutual consent to
all terms, including a trustee or watchdog if you prefer. A key to one's
assets may be held in a secure computer, which may only be accessed if a
suspect is convicted in a private court who's judgment the suspect agreed to
accept prior to entering into the contract.
I think that a system of multiple levels of insurance would be more
secure and effective, because if a trustee steals everything under his
control, the insurance company insuring him would be liable to pay
everything back, if that insurance company defaulted, the group of companies
who provide re-insurance would be responsible for paying all claims. Such a
system plans for some failures and theft and provides ways of compensating.
Trustees would have to be kept fair and neutral by being insured
themselves by a company whose survival and reputation depends on being fair
and neutral.
I would never ask or expect anyone to give access to their assets to
anyone you don't trust, the idea of a trustee is that you choose someone
whom you trust and that others in your association concur.
The state simply cannot be trusted to enforce contracts, if we form a
private institution and deal with statist citizens, and get them to sign
contracts to agree to abide by the laws that they themselves agree upon,
they cannot be trusted to abide by their word. A significant portion of
litigation in the U.S. comes from people refusing to take responsibility for
the fact that they either explicitly or implicitly accepted a contract to
use a product or property in a certain way that was clearly understood by
all parties, yet because the consumer misuses the product, the consumer is
harmed or simply disappointed in the outcome, and seeks satisfaction through
litigation. Recently a man in Connecticut who rented a car from Acme rent a
car, signed a contract agreeing to Acme's rules which prohibited speeding
over 79 mph and they stated that they use G.P.S. to track their cars. Later
after the man chose to speed repeatedly, he was fined for speeding, for
misusing the car owned by Acme. He then complained to the state Consumer
Protection Agency and filed a lawsuit against Acme. The court sided with the
consumer and ordering Acme to pay back the money he was charged plus
damages. That means that companies cannot protect their own property through
contracts and it means that individuals voluntary choice is meaningless, it
means that no contract is secure in United States. This goes to show you
that the state will not enforce certain contracts, when it comes to private
social and economic contracts based on libertarian principles, don't count
on the state to enforce those terms. Therefore we must find mechanisms to
enforce them ourselves. This is an advantage because it creates a much more
efficient private system of law and adjudication. Signatories to a contract
can specify their preferred means of dispute resolution, either a private
court, arbitration or flipping a coin, whenever they want.
by Gregory Flanagan
