Explain to me how that works? Fraudsters are thieves that trick little old ladies, and then steal their money. Nothing about that is free market. They are robbers.
Discussion
How is that NOT free market? If we're defing a free market as one without government intervention then that scenario surely qualifies.
You inquired about the ancap position on this so I gave it. As for how it works there are already free market mitigations for this kind of thing. I'm no financial expert but insurance, auditors and ratings agencies come to mind. Crowd sourced info akin to yelp could help. Some level of transparency could be achieved with public legers or some other tech if there was enough market demand for it.
Fraud is already illegal yet it still exists. Preventative and voluntary measures are preferable to putting people in cages and all the centralized bureaucracy that entails IMO.
You haven't explained the ancap position, though. How is fraud prevented or punished in the absence of government? Let's assume complete knowledge. Everyone in the community knows someone committed fraud. Old lady's savings still gone. What next? I'm missing the disincentive.
I didn't say I explained it, just that I gave it in my initial reply.
I gave examples of prevention.
As for punishment, putting the guy in a cage doesn't get the money back if he's already spent it.
There are disincentives for antisocial behavior that don't involve government. Some don't include force at all. Do you think that the only reason people act morally is fear of government? Most people do good because they're good people.
One major disincentive is reputation. The guy that steals from the old lady will find it difficult to do again if it spoils his reputation.
Anyway if you're actually interested in alternatives to government there are plenty of resources freely available online. You could also look into buildung alternatives yourself. But if you want to convince me that government is some necessary evil then your wasting your time.
The reputation and information angles aren't convincing me they are sufficient for fraud prevention. Fraudsters are liars. They can lie about who they are and commit the act again. The reputation argument also assumes those inclined to antisocial behavior are rational. In the most extreme cases, antisocial individuals want to burn the world.
So, a world where there is no justice for a first offense and the old lady stays robbed doesn't sound great. I mean, she checked his record and it was clean.
No worries, I don't mind if you're not convinced. You are more than welcome to your opinion.
In the end laws obviously don't prevent fraud 100% just like free market isn't perfect either. Never claimed it was. I just prefer voluntary and decentralized solutions to coercive and centralized ones.
After all this is nostr. Innovative decentralized solutions are what make this conversation possible. Let's expand that spirit past social media and banking to solve other problems that were traditionally countered with coersion. 🤙