SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In personal finance, practically everything can turn on one's credit score. It's both an indicator of one's financial past, and the key to accessing necessities—without insane costs—in the future. But on Tuesday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced that two of the three major credit-reporting agencies responsible for doling out those scores—Equifax and Transunion—have been deceiving and taking advantage of Americans. The Bureau ordered the agencies to pay more than $23 million in fines and restitution.
In their investigation, the Bureau found that the two agencies had been misrepresenting the scores provided to consumers, telling them that the score reports they received were the same reports that lenders and businesses received, when, in fact, they were not. The investigation also found problems with the way the agencies advertised their products, using promotions that suggested that their credit reports were either free or cost only $1. According to the CFPB the agencies did not properly disclose that after a trial of seven to 30 days, individuals would be enrolled in a full-price subscription, which could total $16 or more per month. The Bureau also found Equifax to be in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which states that the agencies must provide one free report every 12 months made available at a central site. Before viewing their free report, consumers were forced to view advertisements for Equifax, which is prohibited by law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @01:58PM
I should think that the counterproposal is inherent: Replace the monopoly with a market of competing service providers; after all, you already understand the value of the separation of powers.
It must become a cultural norm that "the law" is simply (and only) the collection of all the contracts that exist between individuals—the law under which you live is different from the law under which I live, because each of us lives under a unique set of contracts (indeed, this is largely how much of society already is, at least in the "west").
The key, though, is to realize that the contract-enforcement industry is not special; it does not require some blessed, ordained monopoly on violence granted by "The Creator" (or "The Will of the People", or whatever such nonsense); it's an industry like any other, and must also exist according to the continually negotiated contracts that define the whole of society's "law": As with any other sector of society, it is through competition within this market that society as a whole cooperates to find (through evolution by variation and selection) the most workable (if not the best) implementations of the intended service.
Let go of your statist religion. That one particular organization in your community is not special, regardless of its attempts to establish an exalted position through ceremonies, pageants, hymns, pledges of allegiance, and sacred symbols. It's just a bunch people who are as confused as anybody else—Intelligent Design is a myth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @03:05PM
What happens if I have a contract dispute with the contract enforcer for a contract with somebody?
For that matter, if I'm required to pay damages by a contract, who's going to collect when I just keep shooting contract enforcers for getting on my lawn?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @03:20PM
These are not issues that are solved by the present exaltation of one particular enforcer, so what could your point possibly be?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @03:38PM
Three things. I'm trying to determine how this system differs from the present exaltation of one particular enforcer. I would also like to know how that system handles bad actors. I'm also wondering what, exactly, contract enforcers do? (I.e. why would this industry spring up?)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @04:16PM
It's different in that it requires every organization in society to be funded through the voluntary association of participants (consumers and producers), rather than through violent imposition; a "government" is just another organization in the market, but one that declares its income regardless of its performance, and that is not an acceptable foundation for a civilized society—neither does it comply with the process of evolution by variation and selection, which is the most robust process for honing a complex system to perfection.
An organization that cannot go out of business (or, indeed, that can request even more resources when it performs badly) is very dangerous; make no mistake, a government can go out of business, but that usually requires the complete breakdown of societal organization. It's a very stupid way to construct society.
What do enforcers do? Well, the nature of contract-enforcement is necessarily specified by the contracts themselves; both the contracts (that is the "law") and the enforcement industry co-evolve. Naturally, there will develop standards for common contracts, relationships between enforcement agencies, etc. It doesn't make sense to try to explain exactly what shape this industry should take, because the whole point is to find that shape through evolution by variation and selection rather than through the mistake of attempting that which is bound to fail, Intelligent Design.
This industry would arise for the reason that governments arise: People want order, because order is profitable. The key is to realize that the Justice industry is not special; not only is there no need to exalt one organization to a position of demi-divine power, but doing so is inherently catastrophic: Enshrining the right of one particular organization to dictate terms will only ever lead to a tyrannical imposition, regardless of who is supposedly in charge of that organization.
The culture must change to respect voluntary contracts (each of which includes how it will be enforced) rather than coercion, and the only way to do this is to include in the competition within a market even those services you unfortunately associate with "government".
Yes, a natural monopoly might form under these circumstances, but such centralization does not matter when the underlying culture respects at least the possibility of a more decentralized system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @04:42PM
Thanks. That's a bit more to chew on.
(Score: 1) by Chrontius on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:51AM
I asked you to surprise me, and I have been surprised. Thanks! :D
I'm concerned that such contract-based law may have a result of causing interlocking contract clauses to get multiple contract-enforcement firms into a shooting war.
Worse, if they don't end up with shoot-on-sight orders, we may end up with a corrupt cabal emerging out of "peace talks", except unlike "Leviathan" governments, they will be hiding their nature.