19A019 A ZGS Drug Deal by Jim Davies,  5/7/2019    

In the coming zero government society there'll be no government, therefore no laws, therefore no punishment, as explored a bit in this ZGBlog and others. What, then, of the sale and purchase of mind-altering drugs? Let's imagine a drug deal - one that happens to go bad. Able sells Baker a baggie of coke for 25 grams of silver (25 Aggr.) (Notice that the price has plunged, following dissolution of anti-drug laws, for there's no longer a high cost of distribution incurred by bribing cops, judges etc.)

Baker knows Able to be a reliable retailer, so doesn't need to repeat the careful due-diligence he carried out on his first buy. Wisely, he knows the caveat emptor principle. So the exchange is quickly done. Able values the silver more than the coke, and Baker values the coke more than the silver. Thanks to the subjective nature of value, each departs happy. No other party is involved.

Unwisely, then, Baker takes a snort before getting into his car to drive home. He knows better, but takes the risk anyway. A little while later, the buzz kicks in and his control over the car wavers. He drifts into the oncoming lane and crashes head-on into a car driven by Charlie. Baker's airbag deploys and he's unhurt, but Charlie sees the danger, steers sharp right and, although his airbag helps too, cracks his head on the left-side door frame and suffers concussion. Both cars are wrecked beyond hope of repair.

Charlie is whisked off to hospital and wreckers remove the two cars, and a week later the bills begin to fly. The hospital charges 100 gold grams (100 Augr), picked up by Charlie's insurer. The two insurers pay for replacement cars, but jack up Baker's premium by 15 Augr per year, for he was clearly responsible so is an increased risk.

Charlie also bills Baker for an extra 30 Augr to compensate him for the pain, suffering and emotional stress on himself and Mrs Charlie. Baker hasn't insured against that kind of claim, and declines to pay. Charlie invites him to his chosen court, and wins the case. Baker still won't pay; he flouts the court order. The whole sequence of events is recorded against his name on the Internet.

There is, of course, no crime involved, no punishment by any uninvolved third party called George. But notice what Baker's bad actions have cost him.

1. Like Charlie, he got a bad fright.

2. His car insurance premium has doubled.

3. His reputation is shot to bits; everyone who checks his profile knows he cannot be trusted to do the right thing, restoring damage that he caused. He will also be known as a junkie, whose judgment is therefore unreliable.

In consequence, a lot fewer people will trade with him, and because his employer happens to be in a business downturn and so has to lay off staff, Baker is among the first to be let go. In order to get a new job, with his impaired reputation, he has to reduce his price. Before the ill-fated drug deal he could sell his services for 120 Augr a month; now, he's lucky to get a job for 90.

Is that "punishment"? - no, not at all. But it is a natural, rational consequence of bad choices.

Let's take this hypothetical story one stage further; for after all, coke is addictive. A few months later Baker repeats his folly, and this time injures Dog, the driver of a Dodge Ram. Again there are hospital charges and insurance payouts. Dog's pickup is repairable, but now Baker's car insurer declines to renew his policy and no rival is willing to step in. He has become too big a risk. There is (of course!) no law compelling car insurance but now, Baker is heavily exposed.

His fortune and reputation are further damaged by this second encounter, but now if there's a third incident he will be in very deep trouble indeed. He will be impoverished and unemployable, as well as a coke junkie. In effect, his life will be over. Whether he jumps off a bridge to end it all, or goes on living under the bridge as a vagrant, or starves to death, he'll not survive long.

Notice, this story did not involve any krime at all; negligence, yes, but not any deliberate intention to harm Charlie or Dog. If Baker had malevolently set out to injure someone, his reputation would not have survived the second incident. No third one would have been needed, to put him in Queer Street.

No, there will not be any punishment. The natural consequence of bad acts will be worse. And that prompts the intriguing question: is the archist, primitive eye-for-eye idea in fact a disguised system of welfare for the irresponsible? - to warehouse them in cages but to keep them adequately fed, at the expense of everyone else? I don't know whether it was designed that way. But it is the actual result.