"Arbitration, itself, doesn't seem to be the issue, only the crooked nature of its currant incentives." I'm curious how you have come to this conclusion, becau

"Arbitration, itself, doesn't seem to be the issue, only the crooked nature of its currant incentives." I'm curious how you have come to this conclusion, because your first statement seems wrong at face value to me, in that as a basic principle of at least American ideology, Justice is a public affair in that public officials held to a higher standard should preside. I don't think the private arbitration should be outlawed, but I certainly think the full ramifications and explanation of the jurisdictional issues would be explained to those participating. My question would be about the opposite: are there any situations where someone who disagrees with private courts like this gets forced into using that system? How does the move from civil to private work, or do cases like this never touch the civil court and go straight there? In that case, it seems like a lack of backbone from the party to say "no, I'm taking this to civil court".