3 ms·

I'd encourage you to read a bit more on arbitration. The more people know, the less they tend to see it black-or-white. Arbitration is routinely used to place

I'd encourage you to read a bit more on arbitration. The more people know, the less they tend to see it black-or-white. Arbitration is routinely used to place contract parties at an unfair disadvantage in dispute resolution. It is also routinely used to avoid and compensate for various shortcomings of the publicly administered, publicly funded judicial system, which takes years to decide most anything, without the benefit of any experience in the area. Arbitration also plays a roll in international disputes, especially for business in countries without effective legal systems. If you're Russian in 1992, you're not going to attract billions in outside investment in reliance on your local legal system. If you'd prefer a high-level metaphor to start: It's perfectly possible to believe folks should have access to both public and private mail carriers. Perhaps, as in the US, certain kinds of mail service should only come from the government; that's up for debate. Maybe certain kinds of mail service shouldn't be offered at all, like mailing children or dangerous chemicals. Right now it's possible to litigate publicly (in court) and privately (arbitration). Consumer and other less-powerful parties can agree to arbitrate, but courts are very skeptical of such contracts. On the other hand, if you want to change what public law means for the public at large, you have to litigate publicly. Neither do we arbitrate criminal matters, though some plea bargain processes come close, engendering much controversy.

fl0wenol 11y ago
If you asked me 20 years ago when this article was written, and the practice less commonplace, I'd have been more optimistic and open minded about it. And I agree that contract disagreements between parties can be more easily settled through a 3rd party with concurrence of those involved. But this assumes that both parties have roughly equal resources and can't game the venue. Our increasing use of private law (including HOAs and similar types of agreements listed as examples) seems to have absorbed many of the drawbacks of the systems they supersede while not having that "pomp" that socially-ingrained Law with a capital 'L' has surrounding it; that which otherwise empowers the middle-managers of the practice to sometimes interpret the law in the favor of those with fewer resources. In private law it's the financial bottom line (who's paying for this service?), personal whims, groupthink-- forces unchecked because the practitioners or those coerced into it have no expectations it should be different. As far as I know, we have no public arbitration services that are paid for by taxes or charity for the benefit of those who choose to use it as an alternative to the state-based justice system.

fl0wenol 11y ago

If you asked me 20 years ago when this article was written, and the practice less commonplace, I'd have been more optimistic and open minded about it. And I agree that contract disagreements between parties can be more easily settled through a 3rd party with concurrence of those involved. But this assumes that both parties have roughly equal resources and can't game the venue. Our increasing use of private law (including HOAs and similar types of agreements listed as examples) seems to have absorbed many of the drawbacks of the systems they supersede while not having that "pomp" that socially-ingrained Law with a capital 'L' has surrounding it; that which otherwise empowers the middle-managers of the practice to sometimes interpret the law in the favor of those with fewer resources. In private law it's the financial bottom line (who's paying for this service?), personal whims, groupthink-- forces unchecked because the practitioners or those coerced into it have no expectations it should be different. As far as I know, we have no public arbitration services that are paid for by taxes or charity for the benefit of those who choose to use it as an alternative to the state-based justice system.