Тег: law enforcement

Transaction security is easy and without power control!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

We have already considered the topic of transaction insurance once before. This method is perfectly applicable to the issue of guaranteeing transaction security and compensating for damages in the event of a breach of agreement by one of the parties. The need to resort to violence and forceful measures of coercion is thus eliminated, meaning this concept is fully implementable in the absence of a state monopoly on law enforcement, and indeed in the absence of any police or security agencies whatsoever. Furthermore, it is compatible with the concept of reputational institutions, which creates additional scenarios for its application. Even now, it is actively used in large transactions and in the lending sector. However, doubts are sometimes expressed regarding its applicability in small, everyday transactions.

The way accident insurance currently works can help us dispel these doubts. You have surely been in a situation where, when buying a ticket for a bus, train, or plane, you were offered insurance. Insurance is also offered when renting transport via a mobile application, even if it is just a bicycle or a scooter. Usually, the cost of such insurance is only a few dozen rubles, yet the compensation in the event of an insured loss reaches tens and hundreds of thousands.

See how easy it is? For a provider of risky services, there is no difficulty in concluding a contract with an insurance company and adding the option for their customers to take out accident insurance. This is even profitable for them, as they can receive additional profit from the insurance company for implementing its services. And in the case of transport rental, this matter is simplified to the press of a single button in a mobile application. Since this type of insurance is so easily implemented, there is no problem in making transaction insurance simple as well.

The parties sign a contract, after which it is uploaded to the insurance company’s application (or perhaps concluded directly within it). Then the application calculates the insurance premium rate and the participants of the contract pay it. That’s it. If one of the parties eventually breaches the agreement and the other party provides the insurance company with evidence of the breach, they will be entitled to an insurance payout, which should be sufficient to cover the damage caused. The party that breached the agreement, of course, will not go unpunished if reputational institutions are used alongside this. They will simply be placed on blacklists until they admit guilt and cooperate.

Even in the case of the most ordinary purchases, this concept is also applicable. At a self-checkout terminal, by pressing the corresponding button, or by asking the salesperson, one could also take out insurance. If the product turns out to be unsuitable, defective, or even worse, causes harm to the buyer, and the seller denies their guilt, there would be an opportunity to compensate for the damage through this insurance (and the seller, of course, would suffer reputational punishment). To attract buyers, sellers could add the insurance function and openly publish data on which insurance companies they work with. And those sellers who are unwilling to insure their sales can simply be bypassed by buyers as unsafe agents.

Some might criticize this idea by pointing out that buyers would now have to pay more for goods, and in general, all transactions would become more expensive. However, this is exactly what is happening right now. Due to VAT, excise duties, customs duties, licenses, and the tax burden on entrepreneurs, more than half of the cost of goods already consists of contributions to the state, including for the maintenance of a giant, organizationally extremely inefficient state judicial and police system. Transaction insurance, on the other hand, is a cheaper and more effective solution. Sometimes insurance premiums, where they are currently applied, amount to less than one percent of the transaction amount or the potential insurance payout. Thus, it is a much better solution than state bureaucracy and forceful control paid for by taxes.

The next step in the evolution of humanism

Voluntarist, Bitarch

We all know well how the history of punishments for offenses has evolved. In the distant past, the death penalty was an acceptable, if not mandatory, measure in the event of violations of various social orders. Usually, this concerned religious norms and traditional life principles. Burning, hanging, or stoning could occur for some kind of “witchcraft,” for treason, for non-traditional sexual relations, for theft, or even simply for words that contradicted the dominant opinion in society. And this was considered absolutely normal; violence bothered few people—on the contrary, crowds of onlookers often gathered to watch such a spectacle.

Over time, the scope of the application of the death penalty has steadily shrunk. This punishment was abolished for non-violent crimes; it remained only as a supreme measure against particularly distinguished brutal rapists. But even this did not last long; in most developed countries, this measure was soon completely abandoned and replaced by imprisonment. And punishments for non-violent crimes became even more lenient.

But even this cannot be called a desirable state of affairs. Of course, many are still at the very beginning of the path of humanism, and in some countries, one can still be stoned for treason, theft, or an improper lifestyle. But at the same time, some societies have already surpassed everyone else in the development of humanism. A good example is Norway, where even the most hardened rapist, Anders Breivik, was placed, effectively, in luxury quarters with all amenities. Of course, he was deprived of his liberty—this is still a coercive measure—but the punishment ends there; besides the loss of liberty, nothing bad awaits the prisoner. In general, the Norwegian law enforcement system is one of the most humane in the world; several prisons are closed annually due to a lack of prisoners, and those who do end up in incarceration have many benefits and considerable freedom (including movement) within the prison institution. To some, it may seem extremely surprising that prisoners can freely, solely of their own will, go to the football field, the library, or the kitchen, and in the latter, kitchen knives may even be at their disposal. But for some societies, this is already a reality.

Now I want to make a small note regarding why we should be humane at all. This may seem completely unfair in the case of certain categories of criminals. But the answer is quite simple and obvious: to carry out violent punishments, we need people prone to violence. If no one can pull the trigger at the sight of an unarmed person, then a death sentence cannot be carried out. However, if someone is capable of doing this, nothing will stop them from killing not only to execute the “supreme measure,” but also to punish insignificant and non-violent offenses, or even to pursue personal goals or satisfy their violent nature.

By making violence a normal phenomenon, even as a measure of punishment, we contribute to the negative selection of the species Homo sapiens in favor of people more prone to violence. Without this, there would be no executioners, who are necessary for a legal system based on force. But an executioner can always become a rapist, and by fostering executioners, we cannot help but foster rapists in general. And it will be impossible to restrain this phenomenon. If a person is not prone to initiating violence, they will not commit it regardless of what views they hold. If a person has such inclinations, then with a change in views, only the circle of victims of their violence will change, but in general, there will always be victims. They will also always initiate violence in situations that provoke it, for example, in conflicts, quarrels, when raising children, and in many other cases. Violence in society will only increase, and the problems of violence will worsen.

In some societies, executioners have almost disappeared; there are only people capable of limiting the freedom of others by force, and even then, not fully. But this is not the end of the development of humanism, because according to the scenario we described, by fostering even such minimal agents of force, we will quite possibly get people who, while perhaps not as dangerous, are still capable of initiating violence. This, among other things, will be enough to maintain a violent hierarchy of dominance in society (the current state system). Likewise, the development of scientific and technical progress will be impossible due to the probability of catastrophic consequences for all mankind if (or rather, when) dangerous technologies fall into the hands of a person prone to violence. Therefore, we need to take one more step in the development of humanism.

This step is the complete renunciation of the initiation of violence, including for the execution of punishments. The only scenario in which violence may be permissible is defense against a direct attack. This is defensive violence; people capable only of such violence pose no problem, as they cannot initiate violent actions themselves for any reason whatsoever, including the fact that they cannot create and maintain a violent hierarchy of dominance, as it requires precisely the initiation of violence in the form of forcing people into submission. Such a behavioral model is evolutionarily optimal for all highly armed species in nature, one of which is Homo sapiens thanks to the ability to manufacture weapons. In all other cases, non-forceful measures of pressure and punishment must be used against criminals and violators of order. These can be various reputational and financial instruments.

This step is a natural continuation of the process of making society more humane, which has already lasted for many centuries and has currently led us from the permissibility of widespread killing to punishments that, while still forceful, are quite lenient and involve only the restriction of freedom without depriving one of the benefits necessary for leading a normal life. This step is needed to further suppress, and in perspective, eradicate violence as a phenomenon as a whole. This is the next stage in the evolution of man and human society. Let us contribute to this process, rather than hindering it and sliding back into violent barbarism!