8. Law and Order. Nearly the entire spectrum of political thought includes the implicit assumption that the State is the institution best suited for the production, interpretation and enforcement of law and order. In fact, the variance in most political discourse is confined to which laws the State ought to produce and how they should be interpreted and enforced. The questions often left unasked, though begged by traditional political thought, is the State the institution best suited for these tasks, if not what is the superior alternative will be examined. This chapter will focus on a systemic evaluation and critique of the State as a monopolistic producer of law and less on the content of present legal systems. As such, this analysis will remain pertinent to any State-administered legal system, despite its ever-changing law code and or legal procedures. The problem of social order. Because the demand for various resources exceeds their availability, norms must be established to promote their economic and just use. As men are neither saints nor angels, disputes over resource ownership abound. Thus, a legal system based on property norms serves as the mechanism by which various disputes may be settled in a predictable and just manner. Recall that violent interpersonal conflict is only possible in Safara's scarcity exists. Whether it is two men fighting over a beer, a mugger and his victim, or a breach in contract, every violent dispute has ultimately to do with the allocation and or control over some scarce good, whether of one's own body or external good. The solution to the problem of social order thus lays in the formulation of a rational set of property rights, such that if followed would negate the emergence of any and all violent conflict. The solution to social order. The solution to social order may be summed up in two words, private property. Private property is a norm and, as such, works towards facilitating the avoidance of interpersonal conflict. The way in which we compare the efficacy of any given norms will be by examining whether or not and to what extent they generate or avoid conflict. Hopper cogently sums up why the norm of private property, compared to other property norms, is best suited for conflict avoidance. Quote, contrary to the frequently heard claim that the institution of private property is only a convention, it must be categorically stated a convention serves a purpose and it is something to which an alternative exists. The Latin alphabet, for instance, serves the purpose of written communication and there exists an alternative to it, the Cyrillic alphabet. That is why it is referred to as a convention. What, however, is the purpose of action norms? If no interpersonal conflict existed, that is, if, due to a pre-stabilised harmony of all interests, no situation ever arose in which two or more people want to use one and the same good in incompatible ways, then no norms would be needed. It is the purpose of norms to help avoid otherwise unavoidable conflict. A norm that generates conflict, rather than helping to avoid it, is contrary to the very purpose of norms. It is a dysfunctional norm or a perversion. With regard to the purpose of conflict avoidance, however, the institution of private property is definitely not just a convention, because no alternative to it exists. Only private, exclusive property makes it possible that all otherwise unavoidable conflicts can be avoided. And only the principle of property acquisition, through acts of original appropriation, performed by specific individuals at a specific time and location, makes it possible to avoid conflict from the beginning of mankind onward, because only the first appropriation of some previously unappropriated good can be conflict-free, simply because, by definition, no one else had any previous dealings with the good. End quote. Before any talk of legal punishment, however, it should be clear that a victim is not obliged to punish or press charges against his aggressor. However, the following discussion will examine the extent to which a given victim may, justifiably, punish his aggressor. In a free market or voluntary society, it is likely that many victims would prefer a monetary or some other material restitution from their aggressors over inflicting physical harm on them. Such a society, being largely composed of voluntary and peaceful relations, will probably be more opposed to violence as an end in itself than our current environment, even when justified. Finally, monetary or material restitution permits someone a wider range of options to satisfy his desires, whereas using physical force against a perpetrator constitutes only one fleeting means of satisfaction. There is an important distinction between defence and punishment. The former has to do with what is justified in the defence of one's person or property as it is being violated, while the latter has to do with applying punishment after the fact when the perpetrator is no longer actively violating property rights. One may justifiably use as much force as necessary to stop a person who is actively committing aggression, no matter how trivial the violation may seem. For instance, if someone were to trespass on another's property and refuse to leave despite the owner's requests, then the owner would be justified in using any level of force against this trespasser to defend his property. Though technically the owner would be justified in killing this trespasser, this does not mean that doing so would be without consequence. The consequences may include an increase in the owner's defence or insurance premiums, and he may face some degree of social ostracism for the perceived excessive use of force. If someone commits a justified act, this merely entails that a violent response to said act would be unjustified or criminal. Anyone may ostracise anyone else for whatever reason they deem appropriate, such as killing trespassers. Thus harsh behaviour may be tempered by social and economic pressures. Punishment. Defending oneself physically, however justifiable, is not sufficient for the attainment of justice. Prudence demands knowing what consequences may be justifiably imposed ex-post on someone who commits an injustice and violates property rights. Violations of property rights are unique from any other activity in that they may justifiably be met with physical force or threats thereof. Stephen Kinsella provides what is known as the estoppel justification for punishment, as a proof for why such violent or physical recourse may be warranted. To clarify, the term estoppel refers to a common law principle that prevents or precludes someone from making a claim in a lawsuit that is inconsistent with his prior conduct. To show the relevance this principle has on a justification for punishment, Kinsella states, quote, In short, we may punish one who has initiated force in a manner proportionate to his initiation of force and to the consequences thereof, exactly because he cannot coherently object to such punishment. It makes no sense for him to object to punishment, because this requires that he maintain that the infliction of force is wrong, which is contradictory because he intentionally initiated force himself, end quote. He then uses this estoppel approach to demonstrate why defensive force and punishment may be justifiably employed in response to threats made against one's body or property, quote. This method of analysing whether a proposed punishment is proper also makes it clear just why the threat of violence or assault is properly treated as an aggressive crime. Assault is defined as putting someone in fear of receiving a battery, physical beating. Suppose A assaults B, such as by pointing a gun at him or threatening to beat him. Clearly B is entitled to do to A what A has done to B. A is estopped from objecting to the proprietary of being threatened, i.e. assaulted. But what does this mean? To assault is to manifest an intent to cause harm, and to apprise B of this so that he believes A, otherwise it is something like a joke or acting, and B is not actually in apprehension of being coerced. A was able to put B in a state of fear by threatening B, but because of the nature of assault, the only way B can really make A fear a retaliatory act by B is if B really means it and is able to convince A of this fact. Thus B must actually be capable of being willing to carry out the threatened coercion of A, not just mouth the words, otherwise A will know B is merely engaged in idle threats, merely bluffing. Indeed B can legitimately go forward with the threatened action if only to make A believe it, so that he is actually assaulted. Although A need not actually use force to assault B, there is simply no way for B to assault A in return without actually having the right to use force against A. Because the whole situation is caused by A's action, he is estopped from objecting to the necessity of B using force against him. End quote. One is only bound to respect the rights of another so long as this person reciprocates. The right of self-defence allows those under attack to respond with violence. As one is not required to suffer abuses to his body or property, but can justifiably defend himself from such abuses, it follows that he must regard an aggressor as having lost or relinquished some claim of peace and non-invasion. By his own conduct, such an attacker demonstrates a desire for aggression over agreement, and as such tarnishes his status as an innocent party. The concept of property rights itself entails that physical force may be used against those who violate one's just possessory claims. This is the very characteristic that separates rights from non-rights. If defensive violence is justified, perhaps violence for restitution or for attributive reasons is as well. If so, what would its limits be? A hallmark of justified punishment has long been meeting the criteria of proportionality. What is meant by proportionality? It would seem at first glance that what is truly proportional is purely subjective, and admittedly there is significant grey area in this realm. However, there are some situations in which we may be able to objectively identify an excessive amount of force used as punishment for a particular property rights violation. For instance, if person B steals person A's pack of bubblegum, then executing person B as punishment for this crime would be clearly disproportionate. Other than an intuitive notion that this would be excessive, we may also be able to rationally defend this position. At the very least, person A would be justified in taking back the pack of gum from B, as well as some additional desired goods for the inconvenience and violation that person A was made to suffer. It is because person B initiated this force upon person A that person A would be justified in taking more from person B than the identical pack of gum he stole. For this would only restore person A to the position he was in before the incident. However, it would not compensate him for the subsequent inconvenience and violation he had to endure in the interim. Additionally, we may determine that executing person B for this petty theft would be excessive because this would involve the absolute destruction of person B's rights, for life is a necessary prerequisite of rights, as punishment for an act which violated only a portion of person A's rights. This distinction is more than arbitrary sentimentality. It reveals the categorically scalar nature of rights. The unjustified ending of a life is a more egregious infraction of justice than is the pilfering of sugar-free chicklets. B's minor rights violation only warrants minor force to be used against him, contrary to his victim's preference to impose capital punishment. However, the degree to which stealing a pack of gum harms person A may differ from how much it harms person C, as they may each value the gum differently for whatever reason. As we cannot compare value into personally, it is impossible to assess the degree to which people gain and lose from actions. As a result of such incongruities in valuation, the punishment person A may be justified in imposing on B may vary in regards to how person C may punish person B for the same act. The level of psychological trauma A and C suffered from this encounter will also be relevant when determining to what extent they may justly apply punishment. Of course, as it is impossible to determine exactly how much one values a thing, determining a proper punishment for B will be difficult. If person A and person B cannot come to a mutually agreeable resolution on their own regarding compensation, they may solicit outside opinion for their case, in a process known as arbitration. Decentralized law finding systems versus centralized legislation. For this section we will compare and contrast the general characteristics of decentralized legal systems, such as common law and private law, with legislation. Legislation, or law by decree, is by its nature less predictable than decentralized legal systems whose development is limited to extrapolations from previously established legal principles. As a result of the comparatively less predictable nature of the legislative legal system, fewer contracts are made owing to the uncertainty of their enforcement. Stefan Kinsella discusses the implications of this decrease in predictability under a centralized legislative system. Quote, another pernicious effect of the increased uncertainty in legislation-based systems is the increase of overall time preference. Individuals invariably demonstrate a preference for earlier goods over later goods, all things being equal. When time preferences are lower, individuals are more willing to forego immediate benefits, such as consumption, and invest their time and capital in more indirect, i.e. more roundabout, lengthier production processes, which yield more or better goods for consumption or for further production. Any artificial raising of the general time preference rate thus tends to impoverish society by pushing us away from production and long-term investments. Yet increased uncertainty which is brought about by a legislation-based system causes an increase in time preference rates, because if the future is less certain it is relatively less valuable compared to the present. End quote. With this relative increase in time preference and decrease in prosperity, there comes an associated increase in crime. This general increase in time preference makes crime more appealing as it serves to satisfy more immediate desires. Accordingly the prospect of potential punishment will be less of a tempering factor for one with a higher time preference, i.e. one who places a high premium on current consumption versus future consumption. In addition to this, an arbitrary edict-based legislative system lacks access to a pricing mechanism, which would otherwise serve as an invaluable indicator of the effectiveness or desirability of a law relative to consumer or societal preference. With a pricing mechanism one can judge such things by measuring their profitability. However edict-based legislative systems are generally promoted by states which are funded in a compulsory manner, taxation. Thus whether or not a certain law or set of laws is more or less desired by the public is comparatively more uncertain and difficult to determine. Without such institutionalised aggression such things would be relatively easier to apprehend as one could check his balance sheet to verify customer satisfaction. Hence the pricing mechanism enables such a decentralized free market legal system to continually refine and reinterpret various legal codes more rationally relative to consumer preference. Not only does the pricing mechanism serve as an indicator for what type of law is favoured but also how much it is favoured over alternative attempts to produce law. Moreover in edict-based legislative environments there is bound to be an over or under production of law in various fields as there is no rational feedback that provides data comparable to a profit and loss system. Legislative law systems also tend to be inferior as the legal system is comprised of many disparate laws unrelated to any rationally justified principles and as such are less credible compared to decentralized legal systems which tend to extrapolate from organically established legal principles. Furthermore the unbridled scope of what legislative law systems may cover tends to result in an over expansion of legal codes. One consequence of this ever expanding legal code is that it creates more de jure criminals. By definition as the law expands to constrict greater amounts of human conduct more people will be rendered and prosecuted as criminals. As more and more people are said to be engaging in criminal behaviour credibility will continue to be lost by the legal system especially if such outlawed behaviour does not constitute aggression against other people or their property. Worse yet such a system makes virtually everyone vulnerable to prosecution by the state whenever its agents deem fit. Of course this threat of impending punishment serves as an effective tool of intimidation used for ensuring obedience to state rule. Kinsella summarizes the advantages of a decentralized legal system quote the position of common law or decentralized judges is fundamentally different from that of legislators in three respects. First judges can only make decisions when asked to do so by the parties concerned. Second the judge's decision is less far reaching than legislation because it primarily affects the parties to the dispute and only occasionally affects third parties or others with no connection to the parties involved. Third a judge's discretion is limited by the necessity of referring to similar precedents. Legal certainty is thus more attainable in a relatively decentralized law-finding system like the common law, roman law or customary law than in centralized law-making systems where legislation is the primary source of law end quote the state as provider of law and order. Before discussing the state's role in the provision of law and social order a proper definition of the state is required quote the state according to the standard definition is not a regular specialized firm rather it is defined as an agency characterized by two unique logically connected features. First the state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making that is the state is the ultimate arbiter in every case of conflict including conflicts involving itself. It allows no appeal above and beyond itself. Second the state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of taxation that is it is an agency that unilaterally fixes the price that private citizens must pay for the state's service as ultimate judge and enforcer of law and order. End quote. Put more simply the state is that institution which enjoys a monopoly over the production, interpretation and enforcement of law. In addition to this the state also has the sole right to force its citizens to pay for its services the price and scope of which are also dictated by the state and are subject to change at its discretion. The resulting conflict of interest and moral hazard from a single institution being equipped with these exclusive legal privileges should be readily apparent. Hopper brilliantly summarizes the logical incoherence of holding both the belief that monopolies are bad for the consumer and that law and order must be exclusively provided by the state. Quote. Among economists and philosophers two near universally accepted propositions exist. Proposition one. Every monopoly is bad from the viewpoint of consumers. Monopoly is here understood in its classic meaning as an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or service or as the absence of free entry into a particular line of production. Only one agency A may produce a given good or service X. Such a monopoly is bad for consumers because shielded from potential new entrants into a given area of production the price of the product will be higher and its quality lower than otherwise under free market competition. Proposition two. The production of law and order i.e. of security is the primary function of the state as just defined. Security is here understood in the wide sense adopted in the American Declaration of Independence as the protection of life property and the pursuit of happiness from domestic violence crime as well as external foreign aggression war. Both propositions are apparently incompatible with each other. This has rarely caused concern among philosophers and economists however and in so far as it has the typical reaction has been one of taking exception to the first proposition rather than the second. Yet there exist fundamental theoretical reasons and mountains of empirical evidence that it is indeed the second proposition that is in error. End quote. Hopper demonstrates that the state is not immune from the principles of economics. The exercise of a state monopoly over the provision of any service will lead to the same inefficiencies and destruction of wealth as any other monopolistic operation. The second major disadvantage of state provided law and order is the lack of contract. Quote. If one wanted to summarize in one word the decisive difference and advantage of a competitive security industry as compared to the current status to practice it would be this contract. The state as ultimate decision maker and judge operates in a contractless legal vacuum. There exists no contract between the state and its citizens. It is not contractually fixed what is actually owned by whom and what accordingly is to be protected. It is not fixed what service the state is to provide, what is to happen if the state fails in its duty, nor what the price is that the customer of such service must pay. Rather the state unilaterally fixes the rules of the game and can change them per legislation during the game. Obviously such behavior is inconceivable for freely financed security providers. Just imagine a security provider whether police insurer or arbitrator whose offer consisted of something like this.  I will not tell you what specific things I will regard as your to be protected property nor will I tell you what I oblige myself to do if according to your opinion I do not fulfill my service to you. But in any case I reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service. End quote. Finally under a status legal system citizens are much less incentivized to take an active role in shaping the rules which govern them. The reason for this is simple.  To vote according to one's interests one must determine what policies are actually in line with his interests and who represents these policies. The relatively high cost of conducting the research and introspection required to achieve this tends to be greater than the impact a person's single vote will have in an election. Thus he chooses to remain in a state of rational ignorance as the costs of alleviating his ignorance are not worth the benefits of him doing so. Furthermore any representative may change his stance at any time with little to no recourse despite his campaign promises. This representative is not bound by any contract to exercise or manifest his promised course of action. To further compound the issue one may only like policies one, three, five and seven of representative A and policies two, four, six and eight of representative B. In such a situation one is put in a position where he has to accept an unfamiliar and diverse basket of policies depending on the unique opinions of the representative he chooses. This is converse to the situation in which one is permitted to choose between a variety of law providers and insurers under free competition. In the latter scenario his choices will have a far greater impact on the laws that rule him than they would under a state system. Speculations on free market law and order quote specifically regarding the problem at hand in a private law society the production of security of law and order will be undertaken by freely financed individuals and agencies competing for a voluntarily paying or not paying clientele just as the production of all other goods and services end quote in a free market society the functions of security auditing media consumer evaluations insurance investigation arbitration and law enforcement will be provided in tandem in order to maintain the protection of the consumers that finance them highly contingent and specific details cannot be determined beforehand however the particular configuration of agencies and their functions to what degree competition will exist and how many agencies there may be in a given geographic area cannot be known in advance though the possibilities are endless a few remarks may be made regarding how economic incentives would structure organizations within this industry given the obvious concerns of bribery moral hazard and various conflicts of interest it behooves the reader to scrutinize every proposal offered emerging from the accumulation of billions of mines worth of creativity is a spontaneously ordered legal system that adjusts to fulfill the ever-changing desires of families communities businesses and individuals its customers as organic legal systems emerge to replace state-sanctioned legislatures and courts there will be a strong diversity of practices in different regions over time improvements in technology and organization will further develop the success of private law structures empowering everyone to command and act in accordance with justice the following scenario will be used to illustrate some of the general characteristics of such a system bob desires two things security and in the case where his liberty is violated restitution he wants to employ human and material goods to defend himself from attempts on his liberty or property and he also wants a mechanism that restores him to his natural state before the violation to accommodate this demand competing defense insurance agencies dias offer bob their services of protection and indemnification in exchange for monthly premiums commensurate with his security risk bob has several firms from which to choose and makes his decision according to which dia has a reputation and plan that suits his individual needs bob chooses shield a dia renowned for its low prices harm prevention and excellent history of providing solid restitution for its clients he chooses the basic plan which covers acts of mugging assault and murder in most areas of his hometown shield offers bob the option of carrying a tracking and panic device with him at all times in order to more effectively offer its assistance during emergencies in exchange for bob's willingness to carry such a device shield agrees to lower his monthly premium for its services one day while riding his bike to work bob is confronted by a man demanding his bicycle at knife point who then rides away with it using the device bob immediately alerts shield but unfortunately by the time they arrive the mugger is long out of sight per bob's contract shield covers the cost of bob's bike as well as additional compensation for his troubles and trauma resulting from the incident as a means to mitigate harm to its reputation and to recover the funds that it had given out to bob shield commences an investigation after some detective work shield gathers enough evidence to confidently name terry as the mugger shield agents then approach terry instructing him to pay the amount they had given to bob along with the expenses of the investigation terry refuses claiming he is innocent because shield competes on reputation as well as price it hears terry's case and cross references his testimony with the evidence it gathered earlier however despite terry's testimony shield still believes terry to be guilty in the case that terry has no di a coverage shield may contract with a third party arbiter to review the evidence and testimony of each party and come to its own verdict contrary to a legislative system there is no single law pertaining to terry's conduct anyone is free to enter the judiciary business and offer verdicts the types of standards such arbitrators and judges use are tempered by consumer preference if they are seen as out of touch with justice then this will have a negative impact on this particular arbitration agency's desirability and reputation terry would be encouraged to participate in such arbitration to make his voice publicly and explicitly heard so as to make the ruling more legitimate if terry refuses to participate shield may offer alternative arbitration agencies to handle the case in the hopes that terry would reconsider in the case that terry adamantly refuses to go to any arbitration shield may proceed with arbitration without him and he would be tried in absentia shield is willing to go through all this trouble to encourage terry's participation because it would bolster the legitimacy of any subsequent ruling on the case shield will also be incentivized to offer terry arbitration through agencies which have a reputation for impartiality fairness and expertise in the matter concerned for similar legitimacy considerations in the event the trusted arbitrator concludes that terry is not guilty shield will compensate him for his troubles associated with these false allegations it is this prospect of reputational damage and financial loss which incentivizes the dias not to accuse people of crimes without substantial corroborating evidence in the case that the arbiter rules that terry is guilty shield will proceed on insisting that terry pay up if terry is able but refuses then shield with its large established name and influence may contract with his employer to garnish his future wages with interest until terry's debt is satisfied if terry is able to pay but earns no outside income then shield may confiscate his property and auction it off as a means to satisfy his debts and the cost of the auction if terry is unable to pay then shield may have him work at a securitized camp until his restitution is paid off to avoid reputational damages and accusations of inhumane conduct shield will have the incentive to ensure that such camps meet certain safety standards if shield neglects to ensure that terry is sent to a safe camp then its competitors humanitarian organizations or other third party evaluators would be happy to expose shield as a cruel or negligent dia this would then result in a loss of legitimacy and therefore business for shield thus it is the prospect of these consequences that will compel shield to ensure terry is indeed sent to a humane and safe work camp of course at any time throughout this process terry may have a third party pay off his debts to shield in whole and relieve him of his work camp duty in addition it needn't be shield that runs the work camp they may delegate it to subcontractors the work camp selected by shield will also be tempered by the reputational and economic considerations listed above these same considerations would equally apply to the firms which manage the work camps deterring them from employing draconian measures or refusing to maintain a safe environment to demonstrate the safety of the environment and the humane treatment of its inhabitants the work camps would likely welcome regular and random third party audits of their facilities and practices if the work camp passes the inspection it may then be certified by this third party auditor as a humane and safe environment this certification is only valuable in so far as the agency granting it withstands bribery or other forms of foul play thus any attempts for the work camp agents to pay off the auditors will likely be futile in fact any act intended to bribe the auditors would probably earn the camp an automatic failing grade finally regardless of whether or not terry pays off his debt shield will pass his information along to a criminal records bureau which will document his criminal actions on an archived record this sort of practice occurs in las vegas between different casinos they may blacklist a person caught cheating and spread word to other casinos so as to create a reciprocal relationship wherein the other casinos will act in kind to continue this profitable and cooperative relationship so too and for the same reasons the various dias will want to share with each other information regarding risky individuals so that they may be able to more effectively gauge security risks and require commensurate payment for their insurance the criminal records bureaus will distinguish themselves from one another on their ability to verify the validity of criminal verdicts against individuals in an impartial manner the less scrutiny such a records bureau would use against such verdicts the less credible its records would become thus such bureaus will likely review the investigative and judicial proceedings used on a particular person against their own standards prior to making the requested changes to this person's record an additional benefit of this process is that it grants credibility to both the dias and the arbitration agencies as passing such an audit further legitimizes these institutions and their practices the criminal records also serve the purposes of enabling the dias to more accurately determine premiums for new clients and whether they should even provide a prospective client with coverage at all people who are prone to criminal activity are more likely to be engaged in violent disputes with others costing the di a more resources to ensure than peaceful people moreover many residential or commercial areas may choose to not allow a person with a violent criminal past on their premises at all if applied generally or universally it would leave this person limited to roaming more dangerous or undeveloped areas causing his di a coverage to become ever more expensive of course such areas would not want to be overly discriminatory namely commercial areas for these people are after all potential consumers suppliers or supporters for economic reasons perhaps they may invite hire or trade with former criminals to the extent they demonstrate value and or have participated in some form of reputable rehabilitation participating in such voluntary rehabilitation may also prompt other dias to offer recovering criminals lower premiums as well the preceding scenario is an example of social and economic pressure each of which serves as powerful deterrence to criminal and unsavory behavior back to our scenario with bob and terry assume that terry does have di a coverage in this case terry may notify his di a hammer defense that shield is demanding restitution for a falsely accused crime mugging bob at this point hammer defense may confer with shield and its findings as well as conduct an investigation of its own into the matter if upon reviewing the evidence of its own investigation and cross referencing it with evidence gathered by shield it determines that terry is indeed guilty then hammer defense will compel its client to pay or drop his coverage should terry refuse and subsequently lose coverage then his protection would be limited to what he can physically provide himself and what his resources can directly purchase if however hammer defense comes to the conclusion that terry is not guilty or that there is insufficient evidence to prove his guilt it will likely share its findings with shield after reviewing contrary evidence if shield remains unconvinced what is needed is arbitration both parties will each agree upon a third party and be bound to its decision as interagency disputes may occur frequently there will tend to emerge a habit of multiple di a's agreeing in advance by contract who will mediate or arbitrate which disputes suppose however that the arbitration agency used decides terry is guilty and despite industry arrangements years of goodwill and most importantly contractual obligations hammer defense reneges on its agreement and refuses to abide by the arbitration ruling what then will violence be used no most likely not instead shield along with the arbitration agency will threaten to publicize hammer defense's welching nature if it continues to be non-compliant if hammer defense refuses to abide by the ruling even still shield and the arbitration agency could execute their threat causing hammer defense to lose credibility and by extension business and power the simpler situation to observe would be if Bob and Terry were each clients of the same di a prior to gaining coverage each client would likely agree to abide by the rulings of a given arbitration agency to be used in the case a criminal dispute arises between himself and another person covered by the same agency alternatively for the sake of saving costs for itself and the consumer the di a may offer its clients the option of allowing it to make the ruling itself as opposed to outsourcing to a third party arbitrator in their coverage agreements the clients may also sign off on which arbitration agencies will be used should one enter into a dispute with a client of a separate di a in a society populated by competing insurance and arbitration agencies the laws to which any given person is subject will essentially be the standards used by the reviewing arbitration agency when rendering a verdict for this reason it is in the di a's best interest to choose agencies whose standards are desirable to its clients some people for instance may never want to be subject to capital punishment of course such individuals may not be able to live under the exact set of laws he would like because di a's would still have to come to agreeable terms with each other in order to remain viable however the customer would undoubtedly have a much larger influence on choosing the governing principles he prefers than under a legislative system a client of di a x may be under a different set of laws than a client of di a y due to the different preferences for law desired by customers of di a x and di a y respectively it is the preferences which guide the various di a's to contract with those arbitration agencies that in turn produce the law that is most aligned with their customers preferences perhaps customers of di a x would be willing to pay more for their coverage if di a x can ensure them that they will never face the death penalty by only contracting with those arbitration agencies that refuse to impose it supposing this no death stipulation is di a x's largest concern it will be willing to expend many resources to assure its customers they will never face the death penalty when negotiating with other di a's regarding the arbitration agencies to be used in resolving disputes between their respective clients an alternative to expending resources to secure favorable arbitration agencies may be for di a x to compromise on other legal areas that are less significant to its interests but are more significant to di a y or di a z the reason different people may live under different laws is that their respective di a's will be bargaining with each other on behalf of different sets of consumer preferences the arbitration agency used to settle the disputes between customers of di a y and di a z may differ from the arbitration agency used to settle such disputes between customers of di a y and di a x once more this would be due to the fact that differences in their respective customer preferences for law will have caused them to ordain different arbitration agencies to settle disputes between their own clientele and others additionally the di a's will want to adopt policies which are most economically able to prevent conflict to ensure the greatest amount of profit thus promoting the principles of peace and respect for private property will be very important a society flourishing in peace and productivity will encourage two profitable effects one higher productivity implies there is simply more value but insurance and defense agencies to defend growing their coverage and two peace and prosperity implies fewer people are resorting to criminal and aggressive behavior as such any arbitration agency which frequently rules counter to the norm of private property would likely be run out of business there would be no legitimate defense agency willing to abide by terms contrary to respect for private property those norms which contradict that of private property only serve to generate conflict thus the market's pursuit for an efficient and equitable legal system will likely produce one which is consistent with private property and the non-aggression principle it is no coincidence then that the most efficient legal system will be the one that is most just advantages of the private provision of law and order in contemporary society people are instructed and trained not to attempt to defend themselves but to rely on state-provided monopoly defense agencies conversely in freed markets self-defense practices will not only be permitted but encouraged after all the better one may defend himself the less risk he bears as such clients who can demonstrate that they have the means and ability to defend themselves perhaps through some form of certification process will likely be able to secure lower premiums from their dias furthermore in a comparatively better armed society there would be far less crime as the cost of engaging in criminal behavior would be relatively higher than in our current environment where weapon ownership is significantly abridged competition is another obvious benefit of such a system quote first competition among police insurers and arbitrators for paying clients would bring about a tendency toward a continuous fall in the price of protection per insured value thus rendering protection increasingly more affordable whereas under monopolistic statist conditions the price of protection will steadily rise and become increasingly unaffordable a multiplicity of private defense firms is beneficial as they will compete not only on price but also on the basis of the quality of their services what constitutes quality may be comprised of some of the following factors emergency response times rigor of third-party auditing diplomatic acumen crime prevention investigative and executive prowess contractual relations with reputable and desirable judicial arbitration agencies etc through competition an efficient division of labor would abound and tend to weed out inefficient security firms and arbitration agencies freeing up land labor and capital to be used by more efficient agencies of this industry or any other it is this process which allows these services to evolve according to the ever-changing desires of the consumer and development of technology this economization produces a sort of spontaneous order that no central planner could ever hope to emulate because these services will be privately provided on the marketplace a pricing mechanism will manifest that enables entrepreneurs to rationally calculate ever more optimal allocations of resources losses imply that resources are being combined in value-destroying ways and vice versa with profits the advantage of having access to such a pricing mechanism is that it yields a much more productive output of service and quality quote in a system of freely competing protection agencies all arbitrariness of allocation all over and under production would disappear protection would be accorded the relative importance that it has in the eyes of voluntarily paying consumers and no person group or region would receive protection at the expense of any other one each and every one would receive protection in accordance with his own payments end quote the incentive structure of dias is also quite different from state agents in that the members of a reputable insurance firm have a vested financial interest in preventing crime apprehending criminals and recovering stolen loot if a dia is unable to prevent a crime or to apprehend the criminal responsible for a given crime then it will have to bear the total cost of restitution to its affected client resulting in financial loss and reputational damage such a private law system would have a larger piece promoting effect than its state administered counterpart this is largely due to the fact that private institutions are not able to externalize the high costs of aggression onto its consumers in the same way the state can private businesses are typical economic actors they and consumers alike are governed by the law of demand higher prices for security services to finance increased aggression translates into fewer sales as consumers begin to purchase said services elsewhere in contrast no matter how high the cost of law and security becomes under state rule its corner on the marketplace is largely unaffected since it has the legal authority to force its citizens to pay while at the same time artificially suppressing competition with threats of brutality and imprisonment conversely a private institution would have to worry about the loss of business resulting from the increased expenditures and reputational damage associated with its aggressive conduct along with legal liability an alternative concern for dias would be the prospect of their clients engaging in provocative behavior or vigilanteism such behavior would likely be discouraged as it tends to be messy costly and more out of line with justice than other more civilized means quote every insurer must restrict the actions of his clients so as to exclude all aggression and provocation on their part that is any insurance against social disasters such as crime must be contingent on the insured submitting themselves to specified norms of civilized non-aggressive conduct further due to the same reasons and financial concerns insurers will tend to require that their clients abstain from all forms of vigilante justice except perhaps under quite extraordinary circumstances for vigilante justice even if justified invariably causes uncertainty and provokes possible third-party intervention by obliging their clients instead to submit to regular publicized procedures whenever they think they have been victimized these disturbances and associated costs can be largely avoided end quote additionally in some cases dias may only be able to cover aggression in certain pre-approved geographical areas for similar reasons the premiums offered may also be largely affected by the geographical area in which the client may wish to be covered if this client is violated outside of these covered areas then the insurance company would not be obligated to reimburse him for his injuries thus many commercial or residential areas will attempt to meet di a approved standards of safety and civility so as to encourage tourism and the immigration of high net worth individuals should one lose his di a coverage due to his engagement in aggressive behavior then his social status will be greatly damaged criminal record bureaus may track the conduct of such individuals and provide their information upon request to interested parties such as credit agencies or prospective employers these interested individuals may also include property owners in residential or commercial areas to whom such information will likely have a substantial effect on the decision of whether or not to let a person enter their property of course these employers or property owners may overlook past criminal behavior if the individual in question can demonstrate the completion of some form of rehabilitation as previously mentioned a common concern with a private law system lies with the idea that the rich will end up purchasing unjust legal favor by bribing arbitration agencies or dias this practice is certainly common today it is clear that wealthier individuals convicted of the same crime tend to be dealt less severe punishment than their less wealthy counterparts in contemporary state run legal systems worse yet the state holds a monopoly on the provision of law and order it has no competitors and does not fear extinction the otherwise tempering prospects of losing market share to one's competitors is absent unsurprisingly the state also claims the authority to arbitrate any and all conflicts involving its own agents or agencies which yields a clear conflict of interest that would never pass in a private law system it is a lawless institution as it ultimately never submits itself to the decision of a neutral third party however it is still worth addressing the possibility of foul play occurring in a private law system it is the preservation of reputation and legal status that deters dia agents from acquiescing to bribes or any other form of foul play in the execution of their services for as soon as it is discovered that a dia agents committed a serious injustice the dia as a whole will be vulnerable to losing significant credibility and business in the event that said agents commit an injustice the slighted individual could publicize the transgression perhaps to various watchdog agencies or even criminal records bureaus that perform regular audits on such firms next if foul play has been indicated by the investigation of these disinterested third parties then the competitors of this dubious firm would see to it that such behavior was widely marketed along with whatever publications the watchdog agencies produce if a given dia refuses a request to undergo an audit by a credible watchdog agency or criminal records bureau then such evasive behavior would also likely be publicized in a similar manner resulting in the denigration of this dubious firm's reputation and business a firm's credibility in the private law industry is paramount to its viability in a truly free market the same such considerations will likewise deter foul play on the part of arbitration agencies with alternative competitive markets in defense and judicial services prohibitions on all types of victimless crimes will disappear today many billions of dollars are spent on the drug war which is responsible for untold levels of violence however the ownership production distribution or consumption of drugs does not entail a violation against property or persons likewise for gambling and prostitution as such very few people would likely be interested in paying for protection against such activities quote lastly it is worthwhile pointing out that while states as tax funded agencies can and do engage in the large-scale prosecution of victimless crimes such as illegal drug use prostitution or gambling these crimes would tend to be of little or no concern within a system of freely funded protection agencies protection against such crimes would require higher insurance premiums but since these crimes unlike genuine crimes against persons and property do not create victims very few people would be willing to spend money on such protection end quote the legalization of such activities would also render a crippling blow to violent organized crime syndicates as they tend to be the greatest source of revenue for these institutions this loss in revenue will result in a corresponding loss of power and influence previously enjoyed by these criminal organizations in a free market no single protection agency holds all the cards power is decentralized amongst those who provide protection it is unlikely that any single agency will succeed in submitting his competitors and customers to its arbitrary will customers for instance can demand ample assurances and checks on their power this could include having the DIA subject itself to third-party auditing and the like Robert Murphy adds some relevant commentary quote the private companies providing legal services would have far less power under free market anarchy than the government currently possesses most obvious there would be no power to tax or to monopolize service if a particular insurance company were reluctant to pay legitimate claims this would become quickly known and people would take this into account when dealing with clients of this disreputable firm the fear that under free market anarchy private individuals would replace politicians overlooks the true causes of state mischief unlike feudal monarchs democratic rulers don't actually own the resources including human that they control furthermore the duration of their rule and hence control of these resources is very uncertain for these reasons politicians and other government employees do not exercise much care in maintaining the market value of the property in their jurisdiction shareholders of a private company however have every interest in choosing personnel and policies to maximize the profitability of the firm all the horrors of the state onerous taxation police brutality total war are not only monstrous but they're also grossly inefficient it would never be profitable for anarchist insurance and legal firms to mimic the policies set by governments end quote as third party protection and arbitration agencies gain popularity relative to state agencies they will be noticeable civilizing effects as the price of protection collapses criminals will find honorable work as more awarding to their ends than committing aggression time preferences will lower as individuals hire competent security and resolution agencies and abandon brutal and petty municipal police departments hopper elaborates quote as a result of the constant cooperation of various insurers and arbitrators then a tendency toward the unification of property and contract law and the harmonization of the rules of procedure evidence and conflict resolution would be set in motion thus in buying protection insurance every insurer and insured becomes a participant in an integrated system of conflict avoidance and peacekeeping every single conflict and damage claim regardless of where and by or against whom would fall under the jurisdiction of one or more specific insurance agencies and would be handled either by an individual insurer's domestic law or by the international or universal law provisions and procedures agreed upon by everyone in advance hence instead of permanent conflict injustice and legal insecurity as under the present status conditions in a private law society peace justice and legal security would hold sway end quote crime unfortunately will always exist and it is not the purpose of this argument to prove that implementing a private law system will convert all men to saints and angels rather it is intended to demonstrate that such a system is preferable to state provided justice this argument for a private law system only takes for granted that mankind is inherently self interested that people prefer to get the most amount of gain for the least amount of effort and it takes the seemingly negative characteristics and aligns them with the welfare of society this of course does not mean one must not have charitable inclinations for free market anarchy to function properly or even that the profits sought must be of a monetary nature it simply means this given that human beings purposefully use means to achieve ends a free and open market in law will be the most conducive in satisfying the greatest number of desires to the greatest degree the beauty of the free market is that this practical end is achieved precisely by adhering to the libertarian principles of justice


Hello viewers, I welcome you all for this today's session and analysis of Stopping Side Distance on Plain Ground. I am Ashok Kumar, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Valchand Institute of Technology, Solapur. The learning outcome of the today's session at the end of the lecture students will be able to analyze and calculate the stopping side distance on, stopping side distance on plain ground. Before we go into the analysis, let us understand what is stopping side distance. It is the minimum side distance available on a highway at any spot having a sufficient length to enable the driver to stop the vehicle travelling at a design speed safely without any collision with any other obstruction. So here you can take the three cases to understand the stopping side distance. It is just distance available for any driver in front of him to take proper action before meeting any object or any vehicle without having any collision. So considering this particular location where the vehicle negotiating on horizontal curve, here you can see that the sight line is restricted by the corner of the obstruction. Because of the obstruction, the sight line of the both drivers got reduced. So now what happened over here, the sight line is restricted and because of that, the distance between these two vehicles are going to be lesser. So by the point, there might have been an accident because of the shorter distance and driver unable to take any action in this first instant. Coming into the vertical curve here, the vehicle which is coming on the summit curve should be able to see the opposite vehicle well in advance or it may be any object or any pedestrian is causing anything that should be seen well in advance. Over here also because of the topography of this summit curve, if the topography kept very vertical, so in this case, the distance between the object and the driver will be very, very shorter. So that will again, they reduces the sight distance. In the third case, you can understand the vehicle negotiating on the main road and one vehicle coming on the crossroad. And here we can see the both the vehicles should see each other that is the vehicle from the main road also should see the vehicle coming from the crossroad. The both line, this is the sight line of the both the driver, this sight line is obstructed due to the corner obstructions of like any the building or any advertisement board. Because of this obstruction at the corner of the intersection, the sight line has restricted the both the driver and because of that, both are unable to see over each other. So might be they are coming very closer over here at the intersection, then they were able to see the both the vehicles. So by the time the distance left out in front of the driver will be very, very shorter. So for any designing the whether it may be horizontal curve or vertical curve or intersection, you must ensure yourself there is an along the alignment, you should have a proper sight distance so that the the distance available in front of the driver is sufficient to take a proper action as well as he perceives the any opposite vehicle or any pedestrian is crossing or animal is crossing whatever. So the distance should be sufficient for him to take an action. Now with this background, let us understand the how we are going to find out these stopping sight distance. This stopping sight distance is the distance some of the lag distance and the braking distance. So adding the lag distance and braking distance, we can get the what is the stopping sight distance. First we will calculate the lag distance, then we will go for calculating the braking braking distance. So lag distance is whenever the vehicle coming at a particular speed and as soon as the driver perceives the any object over here. So there is an object is coming or there is a pedestrian is crossing a vehicle is coming at that. So now as soon as he perceives the object and whatever the time elapsed between the perceiving the object that is during the reaction time of the driver, whatever the driver takes the time to go into this traveling during the reaction time t. So that is a distance we call as a lag distance. So here it is a distance the vehicle travel during the reaction time t. So here the action is not taken just his thinking process whatever the distance traveled in the during the thinking process that we call as the distance over here that is a D1 distance or you can say that is the distance of the lag distance. So once he decides that the action to be taken from here after reaching to the distance D1 he will apply the brake or he takes the action. So after application of the brake the again the further vehicle will go for a skidding. So that the distance is called as a braking distance that is a D2. So your stopping side distance is equal to D1 plus D2 that is lag distance plus your braking distance. So lag distance we know that the vehicle is coming up with the a particular speed here we know that the V and the reaction time t we can get the what is the lag distance here. If it is in meter per second it is a speed multiplied by the reaction time t. Okay so now t is usually taken as per the suggestion of the IRC we take the t value as a 2.5 second that is the reaction time of the driver is 2.5 second and if you want to convert into kmph we have to convert that into meter per second into kmph that is dividing by 1000 again dividing by 1000 into dividing by 60 into 60 that is conversion of meter into kilometer and conversion of second into minute and minute into hours. So this is how we calculate the conversion of meter per second into kmph that is 1 by 3.6 or 0.278 just multiply the this value of Vt into 0.278 you will get the V value in kmph. So now the lag distance in where V in kmph it is 0.278 V into t here V is in kmph. Now you pass over here and try to answer this question the value of F decreases with increase in speed that is true or false and higher the speed higher will be the stopping side distance. Now you can think for a while and try to give the answer for this question. I hope you are able to give the answer for this question. The correct answer is the the value of F decreases with increase in speed because it is coming with a certain design speed. So during the if the speed is higher you need to have the F value will be decreases with the increase in the speed. Now we know that the for the higher the the speed you need to take more longer distance to stop the vehicle. So again it is a true in this case also. Now we will go for calculating the your braking distance that is after the application of the brake how we are going to calculate the your braking distance. So now it is the distance travelled by the vehicle after the application of the brake. So for a level road it is obtained equate this the work done in stopping the vehicle and the kinetic energy of the vehicle. So vehicle is coming up with a certain momentum now the the opposite vehicle the opposite the force which is applied now you equate the one which is coming in the direction and which is opposing the this the your moment you can equate these two forces you can get the what is the braking distance here. So now here the work done against the friction force. So here the the friction force in stopping the vehicle is F into L or WFL. So whatever the friction force is W and to F into L where the W is the weight of the vehicle and F is the longitudinal friction and L is the your the braking distance. And this the this momentum we know that it is the kinetic energy it is in this direction we got the kinetic energy and opposite of the kinetic energy is nothing but your friction force. Now you equate this kinetic energy and friction force to get then the distance of your L value. Here the kinetic energy is given as half m e square they were v in meter per second. Now this is your friction force and this is your kinetic energy equate this kinetic energy and friction force it is WFL into WV square by 2g here W will get cancelled on both the side and the remaining is L equal to v square by 2gf where f is nothing but your longitudinal coefficient of friction here v is in meter per second. So total s is the equal to lag distance plus braking distance and we know that the lag distance is v into t and braking distance is v square by 2gf where v in meter per second. Now you want to give the conversion of equation to meter per second into kmph we know that it is the conversion of multiplying by 0.278 you can get the conversion from meter per second into kmph. So now conversion of the this one the 2gf here how we are going to put that put the gul as 9.81 and multiply by 2 you can get the how I got this 254f this is the explanation over here that is multiply by 0.278 square here in the numerator you have to multiply 0.278 to convert into meter per second into your kmph. So this is 0.278 square divided by 2 into 9.81 put the g value as 9.81 that comes 0.03. So you can simplify further 1 by 0.03 it will get the value of 254f. Now the as per the codal provision you can take the depending upon the speed of the vehicle you can take the f value as 0.4, 0.38 for more than 80 kmph we take the f value as 0.35. Now we will solve the simple numerical over here it is the the two cars are approaching in opposite direction the speed of the two cars has 90 kmph and 60 kmph and the coefficient of longitudinal friction is given as 0.7 and the break efficiency is 50% in the both the case. So now because the break efficiency is 50% I have to multiply this 0.7 by 0.5 to get the the value of your f.  Now you calculate the your stopping side distance for car one that is vt plus v square by 2gf the both the values are given in kmph you have to convert into meter per second first. So dividing by 3.6 or multiplying by 0.278 whatever you can do it but here I got dividing by 3.6 the value for car one is 25 meter per second and car two is the 16.67 meter per second. Now you put the the v1 that is for car one the side distance is 153.6 and for car two it is 82.2 meter. Now you to get the total side distance you have to add both sd1 of car one and sd1 of car two.  These are the references I have used for preparing this presentation. Thank you.


And this woman just started translating the whole teacher-teacher's website into Portuguese. And she had all these mind transformations, you know, she just was having all these huge transformations. And eventually she translated the entire website to Portuguese, came and visited me in the United States. We did a webcast to Portugal and to Brazil. My first Portuguese webcast and she made a... She worked with me to make a Yahoo group where we put all these teachings into Portuguese. And so these kind of things keep happening. It's like a backdrop for awakening where there's just a desire in a very voluntary way to send a message to different cultures on different continents. So I've traveled basically through four continents, but I know like the movie Watchers Guide to Enlightenment has been so helpful in English, that was translated to Spanish. And then recently I went to Spain and I had a lot of books, booklets, but they went really quick. People were just soaking it up because they wanted... A lot of these people in Spain wanted a way to go into their mind in a very quick way. And the movie Watchers Guide in Espanol was the thing. And now people have just finished translating one of the books, Healing and Mind, into Spanish. And so I met another man in Barcelona who, his lifelong dream is to start a publishing company. And I think the first book that he's going to publish is going to be Healing and Mind in Spanish. So it just cascades out over and over and over where all you do is you go for this experience yourself and then whatever words or expressions come from you, you know, people find helpful. And it's certainly nothing that I claim. I had no intention of writing a book. I had no intention of doing bunches of pages or no intention of doing all these travels. Really, this was not my plan at all, but it's just one thing. It led to the next and the next and then it's just gone on now for about 18 years. And it just, it feels like it's just taking off. Helen and I feel like we're kind of dating more and more in these real silent states. So it feels like a period of winding down when the world of travels is coming too. But everyone knows me when I wind down to start worlds of projects that seem to be going on around me. And the psychic, one time I was in Europe, he said, this is fascinating. She said, I'm not picking up any ego. She said, this was really fascinating for me. Usually I always have something to tell somebody in terms of the ego.  But she was just this point of light and stillness. And I said, oh that's kind of an interesting psychic reading. Instead of what's kind of happened to you in the future or what's coming next or whatever, it was a pinpoint stillness and a pinpoint of light. And I said, oh that's nice. But that, for me, it does feel like it's all involuntary. And that's what Jesus says in the Course. Jesus says, miracles are involuntary. They should not be under conscious control. It hasn't been in something that I've planned. But would you mind just giving us a little bit of the special relationships like this, the horrid relationships like this, and one person's life. If you would mind? Yes. The special relationship is the motive underneath that is giving to get. There's always an ulterior motive. There's always something looking for something back in return. Like I'm glad to give you this. I'm glad to do this for you and so on and so forth. But I do expect this in return. And the whole relationship is giving to give. I mean that you just, that's your motive. Just like a flower gives off a fragrance that doesn't tell the wind, take the fragrance over there, to that cow over there, or to that horse. There's just this sense of emanating, of just radiating, just sending off without any sense of control, without any sense of trying to make something happen, just this pure sense of opinion. Special relationship has, there are demands associated with it. So we can say that the whole relationship is really tuning into the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit never demands and never commands. So you can see where the gentleness is coming from. Never commands and never demands. Imagine how wonderful all your relationships would be if you were never commanding and demanding. You know, that's more of that sense of live and let live, graciousness, gratitude. You know, there's not the strings attached. Like, you know, look what I've done for you. What have you done for me lately? What stuff is out? It's also, I would say, when you are giving, you are getting from a sense of fullness. Like, the giving comes from within you, comes from the source within you. It's really not giving in terms of the way the world sees giving, either.   Put your name on the deed. Divide its ownership. So, in that sense of giving, as the world sees giving, there's always a sense of loss. Or there's a sense of lessening or dividing. Whereas giving in terms of the spirit, it just is a win-win for everyone. It's an increase. You feel like an abundance, an increase through the giving. And Jesus says, ideas are strengthened as they're given away. So, anytime you find yourself in the spirit of pouring through you and expressing these wonderful ideas and also the attitude, it's not just the words, then you're actually strengthening it. You're increasing it in awareness through the giving. But there's no sense that the division or loss. So, those are some of the most dramatic differences between specialness and holiness. Specialness also would involve the ego's uses of the body. And so, holiness would involve the Holy Spirit's uses of the body. So, the Holy Spirit only uses the body as a means of communication. Anytime you use the body for anything other than communication, anytime you perceive it as anything other than a communication device, you are misperceiving it and you are just strengthening that misperception in your mind. So, some examples, for example, competition. Competition is quite a common thing in this world. Whether we see a competition going on between cultures or countries, competitions such as the Olympics or soccer competitions, tennis competitions, sailing competitions, any kind of competition is motivated by the ego. Christ or God or we can say unified awareness doesn't even know what competition is. It doesn't even know that there are sides to be in competition. There are no parts competing. Typically, let's say we were sent to my rugby or Australian rules football or something like that where soccer athletes seem to get bumps and bruises, broken bones or torn ligaments or those kinds of things. Again, on the thorn level, it looks like when two bodies collide and you get a broken bone or a torn ligament, it seems like it's a pretty simple cause-and-effect relationship. The collision between the bodies causes the injury. But remember, nothing is as it seems in this world. It's the mind that believes in the ego, that believes in the competition which generates the guilt and then the guilt is projected out onto the body.


Hello, we're back. This is the Education Committee in the Vermont House of Representatives on Tuesday, March 9 that we are taking up H106 our bill on community schools, draft 8.2. And we're going to do a walkthrough and any markup and see if we're ready to vote. So, Okay, you have the floor. Okay. All right, so we bring up this bill. Here we go. Okay, so for the record, Jim Damary, let's console we're walking through draft 8.2 of your committee amendment to H106. So, walk the level and the bill. There are a few changes here to highlight as we go. So findings are enhanced a bit by citations to source material. So that's the change changes that are here from last time so we have like references to the National Center for Education stats, giving information. And then we have a number of further citations in here as we go but I won't read through these findings I think we've been through them a number of times changes of a few words here. There are dreams instead of his or dreams coordination here and very few changes from you've seen before so let me get through these unless you've got questions about them. The findings a bit so. What's that. We've seen the findings a bit so yeah, yeah. The purpose of course is important to support a demonstration grant program for the implementation of community school programs that provide students with equitable access to high quality education. The grant program. The definition of a community school coordinator which is key here. And so, again, it's a four or part time staff member serving in a school or school district or SU with an elsewhere school. And it's responsible for the identification implementation in coordination of a community school program. So again to the operational and reporting structure of the employer. And then we have have a definition of a community school program is the four pillars we've talked about a number of times so we'll go through them in detail. So integrate student supports expanded and rich learning time and opportunities. And we change this make clear that it's a may not shall in terms of what it can include. And then active family and community engagement. Again we make clear that it's a, it's a may shall. In terms of what they can do. And then collaborative leadership and practices. Which I have minimum have these factors here with the system and supports and their coordinate coordinator and rep of families, and then may include a number of things here on the applicant is either a school district, or an SU with an elsewhere school and elsewhere school is a school that has assumed by were at least 40% of students are eligible for a free or reduced price lunch, or has been identified for comprehensive or equity support intervention, or other, or, otherwise identified by the state as a need of additional support. Then we've got the grant. The grant program is up to 110,000. For three years, for each output, eligible applicant. And that might be used to hire a community school coordinator to develop and implement a community school program, or I design a community school coordinator from existing personnel. And I meant work already being formed to develop and implement a community school program. And then grant administration so the secretary will minister the program. I developed the application to some of the grant mounts by grant funding. Each of three years 222324. And curious about that I'm going to pause right there for a minute and just ask whether we need to say 21 2223. Yes. Yeah, this has been here for a while. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Okay, and then again, second to your grant funding can be denied or reduced if there's been insufficient progress toward developing and implementing the program. The agency will inform and provide technical support to us use. And the use of funding is again to hire the coordinator or to designate a coordinator from existing personnel. And I've met the work being performed already. And if they hire a coordinate coordinator, then in the first year of funding, the coordinator will conduct the needs and assets assessment of the school. And action plan, and during the second 30 years of funding, they will implement that action plan. And at the end of each of the three years of grant funding. The, the evaluation by a we. And then on or before separate 15th of 2325, the agency shall report to you and the governor on the impact of the program. And that will be made publicly available. I see a raised hand. James. Thank you. Jim, I think those report back dates need to change when we shift the dates, both above and below. I think we were intending to hear from folks after the first year, and after the final year. Okay, yeah, I think that would be 2021 and 23. I think it was 22, right? 22. And then 24. 24.  And then the preparation is is 1.529 million. From federal funds. That covers the three years. And these days have to change to 21, 22 and 23. So we got three areas here we have to update changes. We have to take care of. And that said, the fact of the day is on passage. Questions. Comments. I'm a son of James. So I just wanted to. To clarify, or I guess explain to folks that the shift in the dates is our attempt and this will have to go on over to approach, but the shift in the dates is our attempt to make sure that we capture federal funds to fund all three years of the grant program. So that none of this falls on to the ed fund. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Cookeley. Thank you, Madame chair. Thanks for the explanation. My concern is after the three years, it will go to the Ed fund. And, and particularly not knowing how many communities will actually, or how many districts and supervisory unions will be applying for this program is a great concern to me. May I respond, or? Great, so Representative Coopley, thank you. I know that's been a concern of yours. How I'm thinking about this is as sort of an extraordinary opportunity to use one time federal funds to fund a program that as it's currently written in the bill ends in three years. So we will have the chance to fund, I think we envision it as 10 pilot or demonstration programs across the state. When those pilot programs are done three years from now, we'll have a report back where the legislature of that time will have a report back from AOE to see how those programs fared and what they learned. And I think that it would be a future legislature, in my opinion, that would decide whether or not the program has value and would continue. If it is gonna continue, I'm not necessarily certain that it would fall onto the Ed fund. Some of the schools that liked the program and enjoyed the program, I suppose could continue it in their budget if they wanted to, but that's not mandatory. So to me that sort of the unique opportunity of this program is that we have the opportunity to tap into federal funds to give 10 or 12 schools a chance to try a three-year program that has a specific endpoint. So it doesn't bind future legislatures to continue funding the program and nothing about this indicates that it simply rolls into the Ed fund budget. And you remember Representative Brady. Thank you, Teriwep. I was just gonna add that fully understand those concerns and we had good discussion about them too in the small working group meetings and as a school board member, understand them very well. I think that the use of federal funds is critical and I also am hopeful that we're gonna have a pretty interesting report in three years about what's gone on, about the partnerships and about the sort of folks who have been engaged in this and that in many ways there are cost savings or there are new opportunities coming into communities because of this, that in the end actually are more efficient economically. And I will say super pie in the sky, first-time naivete here, that we might be talking more about general fund. I think of Doug Racine's testimony that I thought was quite compelling but a lot of the work of the community schools is not strictly education. It's human services work, it's poverty work, it's things that run the gamut and maybe it forces a larger conversation about that and general funds and whose understanding it's all still the same coffers but I do think that there's a potential that if this goes well, we could be having some different conversations in a couple of years. So it allows them, it gives them some money to be able to have that conversation. It's not necessarily setting up the program yet but they might say, wow, there are all these C21 after school funds that we could use. Wow, we have some Medicaid dollars, maybe we could be using that for something. It's not actually implementing the program. No, it could be. Representative James. Yeah, I'd love to hear from Colin on this since it's something we talked about and that he may be able to shed a little bit more light on but one of the things that I found interesting too was in our testimony from the folks at the Learning Policy Institute who work with community schools all over the country. I remember her saying that many community schools as they get up and running, develop additional funding streams. So in addition to developing programs that can tap into federal funds like 21 C for after school, they develop funding relationships with community partners. They start developing programs that might be grant funded. They get businesses in town to start getting engaged and donating or serving as partners. And so they develop these additional revenue streams that sort of have that sustainability in mind. And if I were a community schools coordinator who are hired under this program, having read the bill and knowing that this is a three-year program with a discrete endpoint, I would certainly be putting a lot of time and effort and thought into thinking about long-term sustainability and trying to tap into those outside funding streams. I mean, I'd be spending a lot of time on that and it's my assumption that other schools will be too because I think it's really built into the model. I think one of the things that folks will first start doing is looking at how other schools do it and around the country, other schools look out for federal, private, philanthropic, government and business support for these kinds of programs. Representative Williams. I thought I took my hand down. The reason I had it up, pretty much, Representative James kind of went there. I have expressed that I'm excited about this bill. I also have my concerns for my district and how I feel they want me to vote. Wouldn't it be nice? And I know it's a pipe dream that we could have this bill that at the end of the three years, it doesn't tap into the education fund. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee and that's where I have to hold the reins back a little bit, sadly. That's, of course, a community decision that your community would be deciding that. Right, and I've had conversations with my community. So I kind of know. Well, I hear you. Yeah. All right, thank you. Okay. Maybe we could hear something from the field, superintendent, teachers, does you have any thoughts on how this would go? I see Connor Robinson. Yes, thanks, Chair Webb. And thanks for the committee's work on this. I think one of the things that you all heard from national organizations that work on this is that there is a significant return on investment. I think it was in New Mexico, sort of a seven to one investment that you saw in this context. I think the other thing to remember is that our schools are already providing significant support to students and families. And that, you know, when we're really looking to address this, what we're talking about is looking for opportunities for efficiency. So I'm gonna have to pause there. I apologize. You might hear some of my co-worker in the background providing some commentary. We love that. We love that in our committee. Representative Williams. Is that? No, okay. Let's see. Feel free to come back to, Jane Nichols from Principles. Your principles would be looking at this. What is their response? Would you say? I think they're supportive of the general concept. I do think down the road, there is the worry about Ed fund piece. And that maybe there should be some type of a categorical aid or this should come from more on the AHS side. Because much of this is mental health type related. But I think the idea of trying to do this through one-time money certainly makes sense as a star. Again, I look at this as almost like a, I guess we don't wanna use the word pilot anymore, right? Kathleen, can't remember what it was, demonstration project or something. Demonstration grant. Demonstration grant. So I'm generally in support of it conceptually. I just, I may change my mind three years from now if it's gonna impact budgets and we have to look at other, as they're programming they get cut or whatever. But if we can find a way to fund it down the road, I think we're gonna have to move more and more in this way as a society anyway. And we have since the 1970s, right? You know, there's less nuclear families, there's less church involvement for kids and programs like that. So schools are doing much and much more of that type of stuff. So, you know, with doctors and dentists and mental health program. And I think that's gonna continue. I think that's just the way it's gonna be. Representative Austin. Yes, I just, okay, just wanted to say that I feel like an order for a student to be able to access instruction.  And I feel like it's very hard having worked in a school to see parents struggle to get their children these services. They're either working, they don't have transportation. And I've always thought how wonderful it would be if in a school, parents could access a mental health worker or tech support to get services or dental care or healthcare. Because I think it would help their children be more present for instruction. So I'm really supportive of this. I think it will address a lot of needs of families who are working hard, but really just don't have the time to help their children access the opportunities that other children do have, you know, other children have more access to opportunities. And I think this would equalize things for children. We are sending some federal funds back. We're gonna be hearing a bit about federal funds on Thursday that are available. Colin, did you have something more to say? Colin Robinson? I'll attempt to add some other comments and I do apologize. So my other points, and I think you heard this in the testimony from the folks from Wanooski, is that they really built out a model that drew in resources from other sources. And I think one of the other promises of this is that we know that schools are already working to try and support students and families in all the ways that you've talked about. And the point I was trying to make it before I had to hop off, was I think there actually could be, we could potentially find some efficiency in this model. Whereas right now, there could be a bit of a scatter shot approach to figuring out how to support students and families. And when you have one individual whose sole focus and mission is to try and build around those supports, with that can come opportunities for efficiency and opportunities for creative partnerships that haven't been explored before that ultimately bear significant fruit in to represent Boston's points, students being able to access their learning, which ultimately gets to all the outcomes that your committee has spent so much time focusing on as well. Thank you. Jeff Francis, Superintendents. Hi, is my audio okay? Yes. When we first testified on this bill, we indicated that we thought it would be taken up in the second half of the biennium. I've come around in terms of my thinking to the fact that there may be no better time than right now. And I think that the concerns that have been raised about sustainability have validity. But I would also point out that with the variability that we have in our education delivery system in Vermont, a demonstration project about how to provide education more holistically on a community to community basis will have a lot of value. So that's the first thing that I would say. I also think that the fiscal implications are going to be pretty well understood in terms of cost and benefit from the early days of this initiation. And this grant program funds a person presumably or existing staff who will focus on the approach that is identified in the bill. But districts presumably are gonna start working with partners immediately and expanding services immediately. So I don't think that there's a cliff at the end of this program. I think that the districts that provide the demonstrations and turn into this model are gonna have a lot of experience over three years with regard to how to be successful in the model. That's what a demonstration project is. I would also say that with the amount of money that's going to be provided by the grant which is roughly equivalent to one staff person. And this is not something that I like to have to say but with declines in enrollment in some schools in Vermont, you don't reduce the need for the kinds of approaches that this demonstration project will support but there is going to be flexibility around how you deploy your personnel. So we right now in Vermont have the lowest adult to student ratio in the country. And with enrollment still declining there is gonna be an opportunity for monetary savings as districts learn about the efficacy of the type of approach that is supported by this demonstration project. So even though our associations were compelled to talk about the fact that it's a grant program that ends after three years, I also from my vantage point at the superintendent's association understand that districts are gonna have flexibility with regard to their own funding models. So I think that as a demonstration project with the funds that you presume to be available with the importance as a society of wrapping ourselves and our schools around kids and communities, this is actually a very exciting initiative and one that I'll be watching to make sure to understand how it works. And I think that if you end up funding say 10 districts in an initiative like this, then I think that they'll, can you still hear me? Yes. Okay. I think that there will be 40 other districts watching what happens with these 10 because I think that they'll wanna see what the successes are, what they can learn. So for the investment you're gonna make and the enthusiasm you're gonna generate, I think this is something that the general assembly would be well advised to move forward with. Representative Brady. I just wanna add real briefly to that point, Jeff. I think it hopefully is also gonna create some excitement and awareness among organizations, services on how to better get into the schools to deliver. It might push us along for some of those from that side, not just the schools bringing them in, but those coming in and seeing like, oh wow, we can actually be more efficient or we can reach more families, we can reach more parents this way. So it may push some nonprofits, some of the service agencies, et cetera. I agree with that entirely. How many more houses ready to go with after school? Okay. Any changes anybody needs to the spell at this point to support it? Then I will entertain a motion to accept 106. When the changes, but I'll move it. Some of, okay, Representative Astus move. There are a couple of changes in this. It'll be 9.1, 9.1. It's 9.1. Okay. Thank you. Second. Second. Thank you. That was Jay Hooper, correct? Yeah. I actually don't even think I need a second, but why not, right? We don't technically need one, but it's fun to have, we just, you know. Thank you for the support. Emphasize the process. So discussion, any further discussion? The clerk shall commence to call it all. Representative Harrison. I vote yes. Representative Austin. Sorry, yes. Representative Brady. Yes. Representative Brown. Yes. Representative Conlon. Yes. Representative Coopley. There he is. No. Representative Hooper. Yes. Representative James. Yes. Representative Toof. No. Representative Williams. I wish it were an easy answer, but based on my heart and based on what I just heard from the professionals and hoping that I'm here in three years to see how this turns out. Because, you know, I do not want to raise taxes for my people. I'm gonna vote yes. That is, oh, sorry, Chair Webb. Yes. All right, that is nine, two, zero. All right. Amazing work committee. Representative Williams, I feel very lucky to have you on our committee. Your voice. I'm incredibly fortunate. Your voice is important. So helpful to the small meetings in the process of this. And it's been a really great learning experience for me and just by partisanship and community representation. And so, yeah, I have to wholeheartedly second that and so appreciate it. Thank you. So we have just moved three bills. Representative James, that will be yours. Got it. You're the lead. I will put out the construction bill because it's a committee bill. So my name will go on that. And Representative Austin, I think I'm going to start the literacy bill and we'll find places for people in that. Wow. Amazing work committee. We'll see what's gonna happen when it goes up to the money committees. Kate, question on that. That will require us to be following those bills up there as well and to be presenting it and testifying. Right. So we will, I'm gonna ask, Representative Harrison will eventually be the lead on that but the way the committee bill goes as it goes there, it gets a number as the chair, I do it, but when it comes to presenting it on the floor and when we get it out of the committees, Representative Harrison, that would be you and which Representative Coopley thought would be good and maybe Representative Conlon could just be back up too. And I'll work out the other ones. I think Representative Harrison, you might be able to just do that on your own. But let me actually think back inside my head and not outside here. And I'll sort that out. So I think with that, we can go off live.