3 ms·

> Virtually every case where consumer protection is useful is covered by existing laws and shouldn't require anything... ...except a lawyer, more money and a n

• derefr 7y ago
  Yes, that’s the failing. Ideally, justice should be cheaper in both time and monetary costs. I don’t know of any state that has ever tried to optimize for a low-overhead justice system “in the small” (e.g. many, more efficient, more convenient small-claims courts; or the introduction of another triage layer of “medium-claims” courts, where most all civil contractual disputes would land) which is an interesting fact all by itself. Speedy+cheap justice goes somewhat hand-in-hand with things like red-tape reduction, in that both are attempts to “oil the wheels” of the state apparatus—yet you’d never hear the same people (e.g. libertarians) espouse both.
  • waqf 7y ago
    Aren't small-claims courts precisely an attempt to optimize for a low-overhead justice system in the small? Doubtless you feel they don't succeed or don't go far enough, but it seems odd to claim that nobody's tried.
  • repolfx 7y ago
    That's what cryptocurrencies allow, since Bitcoin. People can pick a dispute mediator who gets involved and can reverse the transaction only if there's a dispute. It's all done with OP_CHECKMULTISIG. The mediator is not an escrow service and can't steal the money. So you end up with a competitive market of tiny "courts".
  • dragonwriter 7y ago
    > I don’t know of any state that has ever tried to optimize for a low-overhead justice system “in the small” Both small-claims courts themselves and rules giving effect to binding arbitration agreements are attempts to do that, as are many specialized, domain-specific administrative forums.