As I said, there's not much any system can do when the majority of a society is bigoted against a particular group, and most will even enshrine that bigotry into law. Of the options I am aware of, NAP handles it best: You may hate them all you like, and you may refuse to deal with them, but you may not aggress against them.
Ahhhhhhhhh I get it. I think you are suggesting that, in order to eliminate racism, all racist people must suddenly stop acting racist. Now I understand why I never got it until now.
But, more simply, until such a time as some wealthy and powerful philanthropic entity decides to eliminate slavery for no benefit of its own, a NAP society will tolerate slavery; again in the sense that it will not actively eliminate it. True or false?
False. Any person who sees slavery, and finds it abhorrent, can begin the process of ending that particular instantiation of it, in much the same way as it is handled today. The primary difference being that rather than calling the police, he will call
his police.
So any random person can engage in violence against the pimp? I understood that violence was only justified as self-defense under the NAP. But please answer clearly - you already stated there is no economic argument for eliminating slavery in NAP land. Does the elimination of slavery then rely on the kindness of strangers? See how you answered; you seem to be contradicting yourself:
- fergalish: "until some kind stranger decides to eliminate slavery, a NAP society will tolerate it insofar as it will not be actively eliminated, true or false?"
- myrkul: "false. Any person can take it upon themselves to eliminate any instance of slavery at any time."
But now, are you suggesting that any person can take violent action to eliminate (or perhaps even prevent?) any perceived violation of NAP, even if they themselves are not the victim?
I think you are not factoring all risks that the shady repair man is taking, but you are also forgetting that the insurance company pays the damages to the pedestrian, as well as to the car, and all the driver pays is the premiums. The insurance agency would have significant incentive to do the tracking, and there are no laws mandating tire treads, or paint layer patterns. Only databases in law enforcement agencies hands, and there's no reason that those databases would disappear, only change hands to the protection agencies, or even the insurance agencies themselves.
I must indeed be underestimating shady repair man's risks. What are they? He is merely fixing someone's car. Is he obliged to carry out checks before doing so or is he free to conduct his business as he wishes? Are the victims of hit-n-runs entitled to engage in violence against him on the possibility that one of his clients is a hit-n-runner?
On average, the sum of the premiums is at least equal to the sum of the damages and compensations. Therefore it would be cheaper for all drivers to collectively not pay insurance and fund all damages and compensation claims from their own pockets, simply because then they're not paying the insurance company's internal costs and profits. In case the driver has no insurance, which insurance company pays?
Even if it was this random stranger?
How do you imagine the average Iraqi feels about that guy?
Are you suggesting that people will need to travel armed like that under NAP? I hope not. But in any case, I might have a very good aim with poisoned darts and a blowgun. You're not answering the question: If I perceive a threat, am I justified in responding with violence EVEN IF (unknown to me) no threat was intended?
To answer your question, I'm sure the average Iraqi doesn't like him. But then, he doesn't intend any harm against pro-NAP Iraqis. By your argument, they have no cause to dislike him. Indeed those who were persecuted under Hussein's rule might even have cause to welcome him.
Its like you keep forgetting "The Machinery of Freedom."