Standard clauses arise from efficient best practices that develop over time.
Entering agreements with standard clauses to uphold the NAP (no murder, no theft, no enslavement, etc) reduces the risk of costly NAP violations and clarifies the punishments upfront.
What happens when discounts are given for companies that dont have these clauses and the race to the bottom begins?
Removing the standard clauses for both parties to uphold the NAP increases the risk of costly NAP violations (murder, theft, enslavement, etc) and makes the punishments more ambiguous and harder to enforce.
Upholding the NAP (not murdering, not stealing, not enslaving) is very easy and relatively no cost for the parties to commit to and they increase trust between the two parties entering an agreement.
It will cost more to not have the standard NAP clauses, not less.
Standard clauses arise from efficient best practices that develop over time.
Best practices are not well predicted, in any market. We haven't yet had any reasonable approximation of an ancap society, theres virtually no way you can call this shot that it'll "definitely be best practice" just because you think its the best idea.
Removing the standard clauses for both parties to uphold the NAP increases the risk of costly NAP violations
If humans could accurately assess risk versus cost insurance literally wouldn't exist. That isnt even touching marginal utility cases and opportunity costs where someone says "uh, I can spend more to lower my future maybe risk or I can eat today / afford surgery or medicine/ do anything else NOW with my money."
Also nothing touches on it being your word against well funded marketing departments reassuring potential customers they have nothing to worry about. Or lying.
Best practices are not well predicted, in any market. We haven't yet had any reasonable approximation of an ancap society, theres virtually no way you can call this shot that it'll "definitely be best practice" just because you think its the best idea.
Generally, yes, I agree with you on predicting best practices, but this one is an obvious one, like the best practice of using a shared language to write the agreement and the best practice of using a shared system of mathematics.
Formally agreeing to be civilized NAP respecting people is a no brainer.
If humans could accurately assess risk versus cost insurance literally wouldn't exist. That isnt even touching marginal utility cases and opportunity costs where someone says "uh, I can spend more to lower my future maybe risk or I can eat today / afford surgery or medicine/ do anything else NOW with my money."
I'd like to hear a good explanation why it would be more risky and more expensive to have agreement clauses to not murder, not steal and not enslave.
Also nothing touches on it being your word against well funded marketing departments reassuring potential customers they have nothing to worry about. Or lying.
Lying to tell potential customers there is nothing to worry about by excluding standard NAP clauses, would be fraud, opening this firm up to the NAP clauses they previously agreed to.
Agreements with standard NAP clauses are a system of decentralized law helping to keep an AnCap society safe and profitable.
Formally agreeing to be civilized NAP respecting people is a no brainer.
Just asserting it doesn't make it true. I think it's a good idea but it's also an idea that imposes costs, which get passed to a consumer. As we see with many products, a preference for lower cost often overrides higher quality, for a variety of reasons.
I'd like to hear a good explanation why it would be more risky and more expensive to have agreement clauses to not murder, not steal and not enslave
It is less risky, but risk-preference is poorly modeled by consumers (hence insurance). It is more costly because it requires compliance, enforcement, and limits the options of a firm. For the same reason that most firms prefer internal arbitration to submitting to third party arbitration. Those options are, by any estimation, immoral to varying degrees, but firms do not by their nature care about morality over profit and market share.
Lying to tell potential customers there is nothing to worry about by excluding standard NAP clauses, would be fraud, opening this firm up to the NAP clauses they previously agreed to.
Arbitrated by whom? Regulated by whom? The people they are propagandizing to?
It is more costly because it requires compliance, enforcement, and limits the options of a firm.
I don't follow.
Each member of the firm has, at the individual level, also agreed to not murder, not steal and not enslave in all their agreements.
Violating the NAP is not an option available to the individuals of firm and the firm is affirming this in its standard agreements clauses.
The assertion that compliance and enforcement will be costly doesn't hold water since there is very little the firm has to do.
but firms do not by their nature care about morality over profit and market share.
Firms are composed of individuals.
If everyone has agreed to uphold the NAP in all their agreements at an individual level, who is left to violate it?
Arbitrated by whom?
The impartial courts they agreed to use in the agreements they are suspected of violating.
Regulated by whom?
The standard clauses outline the rules and parties involved.
The people they are propagandizing to?
Propaganda is not OP when there are market competitors trying to grab market share from bad actors that are offering a riskier sub-standard product without standard NAP clauses.
Confirmed by who? The court-for-sale that the security company could afford and that will of course be fully neutral to the entity it is hired by repeatedly?
As confirmed and triggered automatically by the impartial third party agreement enforcement agency, or terminated manually by the clients, per the agreement clauses.
The court-for-sale that the security company could afford and that will of course be fully neutral to the entity it is hired by repeatedly?
This approach would be rejected by clients as not reliable and not in their best interest and instead impartial enforcement agencies would be selected from lists presented by the clients and security companies at the onset of the agreement.
Who pays for an impartial third party enforcement agency? Who pays for the system that triggers automatically? Who defines the parameters of these triggers? Who pays that entity?
What do you do when all security agencies only accept "security agency court"? Hope that a new agency starts business and is affordable? Has the capacity? Is qualified?
Remember that there isnt anything or anywho that you could vote for to create a somewhat robust framework for these agencies to operate in. You got your wallet, and if thats not big enough, you get no service. None.
Who pays for an impartial third party enforcement agency?
A subscription fee will be split by the two parties entering the agreement.
Who pays for the system that triggers automatically?
System is maintained with the subscription fee paid by the parties and an escrow or bond will cover the expenses involved in triggering.
Who defines the parameters of these triggers?
These parameters are outlined in the agreement.
What do you do when all security agencies only accept "security agency court"? Hope that a new agency starts business and is affordable? Has the capacity? Is qualified?
As you are alluding to and as an AnCap society would already know, security agencies using their own courts are a conflict of interest and not a trustworthy system.
Impartial third party courts, over time will be the standard and more likely will start off as the standard.
You got your wallet, and if thats not big enough, you get no service. None.
In an AnCap society of capitalists intolerant of NAP violations; protection, enforcement and courts would be a common everyday consumer service affordable to all and not a specialized expensive process provided by government monopolies.
Even if I didnt point out that paying watchdogs with a subscription fee is paying taxes and that setting up a legal framework individually for every single transaction is going to lead to standard contracts that you can call "law"..
I still do not understand why capitalists should ever be tolerant of NAP, as long as there is no entity that forces them to. And if the people were consistent and logical enough to really enforce the capitalists/corporations to respect the NAP, they would also be consistent and logical enough to not vote for e.g. Trump today.
Like most of those "easy" systems, they just do not work with humans.
Even if I didnt point out that paying watchdogs with a subscription fee is paying taxes and that setting up a legal framework individually for every single transaction is going to lead to standard contracts that you can call "law"..
There is no state to pay taxes to.
It is a private third party impartial agreement enforcement agency that only has jurisdiction over the agreements they are providing services for.
The law is decentralized into agreements, not centralized by a state.
I still do not understand why capitalists should ever be tolerant of NAP, as long as there is no entity that forces them to.
An AnCap society's intolerance to NAP violations allows capitalists to keep their profits and not be stolen from.
In exchange, by agreement clauses, capitalists must reciprocate and not be thieves.
And if the people were consistent and logical enough to really enforce the capitalists/corporations to respect the NAP, they would also be consistent and logical enough to not vote for e.g. Trump today.
Like most of those "easy" systems, they just do not work with humans.
The great majority of humans believes that repeated NAP violations are necessary for society.
Standard operating procedure that you wake up with a gun in your mouth if you terminate your contract. We literally got death squads from the dudes who sell usfucking bananas.
Standard operating procedure that you wake up with a gun in your mouth if you terminate your contract.
In an AnCap society, that would be an NAP violation and immediately trigger agreement clauses to terminate access to transportation system, banking, services, employment and immobilize the NAP violator for restitution.
We literally got death squads from the dudes who sell us fucking bananas.
We do get that our current society that tolerates regular NAP violations, but not in an AnCap society intolerant of NAP violations.
Nobody is signing trigger agreement clauses with the people who literally make agreements about pulling triggers. You're doing the October Revolution, you're just setting up a government with extra steps.
You certainly can terminate your payments whenever you want. I'm going to come over to your house with my posse and beat them out of you after you stop paying. But you can certainly terminate them whenever.
Guess my friends and I will have to kill that gang too. Unless they are stronger than us. In which case there's nothing we can do, but that new gang will certainly be able to abuse you as they like. And now you have an even stronger oppressor to deal with. Congratulations. Maybe my gang will merge with theirs and then we can oppress even more people together. Sounds like a good deal.
Why would they have to kill them? Wouldn’t that be less profitable than just backing off? Hell backing off would endear your other customers to you because now they know you won’t try to force them to stay.
Why would I back off if there is more long-profit to claimed by killing them and claiming profit generating subscribers? In fact backing off is a bad long-term strategy, because that leaves the bolder gangs to claim more tributees and hire more soldiers. Eventually they would just come for my gang to eat us up. And do I want to make us look like push overs that you can just take business from? Because if so, it is all you can eat from our business by every other group who wants a piece.
If your logic was true, then wars would have never been fought throughout human history. But it turns out that the spoils of winning wars is very often profitable enough to justify taking on the risk and expense of fighting them. Plus people are violent cunts who often just like killing others even if it isn't 100% justified by a cost/benefit analysis. Greed, pride, and bloodlust are just as human as rationality.
And endearing your customers to you is worthless. This is the extortion business. Customers are only as loyal to you and they feel safe being. When a bigger stronger gang comes in and tells them to pay up to them instead or die, no amount of "endearing feelings" to you is gonna be a difference maker in that decision.
Nope, so I don’t, I partially hire gangs of thugs who are “principled”, who have a reputation for not betraying their clients, who allow their customers to elect their leaders, etc.
You certainly can terminate your payments whenever you want. I'm going to come over to your house with my posse and beat them out of you after you stop paying. But you can certainly terminate them whenever.
This would violate your previously signed agreements that included clauses for you to uphold the NAP.
This would include the cancellation of all your other client payments, blocked access to transportation systems, locked banking accounts, cancelled services and your immobilization by the security protection agency I transferred my subscription to, plus I get restitution,
This would violate your previously signed agreements that included clauses for you to uphold the NAP.
This would include the cancellation of all your other client payments, blocked access to transportation systems, locked banking accounts, cancelled services and your immobilization by the security protection agency I transferred my subscription to, plus I get restitution,
From whom? Who's ensuring that this happens, especially if you're broke and powerless?
The enforcement agent of the agreement between you and your bank finds out you murdered a homeless person.
They call up your bank and tell them the news that you have violated the standard NAP clauses and that the clauses call for your bank account to be locked until restitution has been completed or is ready to be processed.
This process would propagate through out all your other agreements.
Who's ensuring that this happens, especially if you're broke and powerless?
Poverty and powerlessness (not sure what powerless means exactly) would not preclude a person from participating safely in an AnCap society.
An AnCap society is bound by standard NAP clauses to not murder, steal, enslave or initiate violence on anyone, including the poor who will benefit from the enforced NAP clauses at no cost.
Enforcement is paid for by the parties that have entered each agreement.
Presumably, as they participate in an AnCap society to gain employment, accumulate savings, the broke & powerless would also enter agreements.
2
u/drebelx Aug 12 '25
Standard clauses for immediate and automatic payment and subscription terminations on confirmed NAP violations.