3 ms·

How would that even work? Like, why would I find a private court's ruling binding over me, and if there was some way to force that ruling to become binding … th

How would that even work? Like, why would I find a private court's ruling binding over me, and if there was some way to force that ruling to become binding … that's what we call "the government".

handrous 5y ago
The plan seems to hinge on people and companies caring very much about reputational harm. I'll... leave judging the soundness of that plan as an exercise for the reader.
- dsr_ 5y ago
  It may have seemed more reasonable in 1973 than it would in, say, 2019.
- wyager 5y ago
  It has approximately nothing to do with reputational harm. The plausible end result of violating the law is either that you have to accept the result of arbitration or you end up getting shot - essentially the same as today, except you have a lot more flexibility in picking arbitration rules.
  - handrous 5y ago
    The Machinery of Freedom's system doesn't rely on firms' and individuals' strong wish to avoid reputational harm? Because that exact mechanism is mentioned repeatedly as the enforcement mechanism of arbitration, absent government. It may not be the only factor cited, but it's a lot of it.
    - wyager 5y ago
      No, the chief proposed enforcement mechanism for violating arbitration agreements is that if you do, no one is going to stop people from shooting you and taking your stuff. I.e. you become an outlaw.
      - handrous 5y ago
        Well, the book's text is available online. I suppose anyone can go figure out for themselves whether reputation (beyond just the extreme form of "people kill you because you're so unpopular") is a significant part of what it supposes would keep people and businesses in line, absent government.
        wyager 5y ago
        It has nothing to do with people killing you because you’re unpopular; it’s to do with the fact that if you seriously violate arbitration agreements it becomes too expensive to buy protection.
        handrous 5y ago
        > no one is going to stop people from shooting you and taking your stuff. I.e. you become an outlaw. [edit, also:] > The plausible end result of violating the law is either that you have to accept the result of arbitration or you end up getting shot
        krapp 5y ago
        That seems like the monopoly on violence with... more actual violence.
dsr_ 5y ago
Contracts! You would contract with a particular for-profit legislative system the same way you contract with an insurance company and a police company and a war-defense company. The insurance company would have contracts with investigative companies and retributive force companies. When you get into a dispute with your neighbor over whether they are allowed to build a wall that might cross on to your property, you contact your court company and your insurance company. The court company sends someone to talk to your neighbor and get details of their jurisprudence subscription. If they subscribe to the same courts, excellent! They have jurisdiction and can decide whether this is a minor violation of the contract (see rules on respecting property lines) or a major violation. Violations can be punished by corrective action or fines equivalent to the costs of such. If the neighbor uses a different court system, perhaps they have a treaty-contract with your court system. In that case the treaty-contract will supply the rules. Oh, but maybe there isn't a treaty-contract. The court companies might take this opportunity to negotiate one. Or, they might notify their insurance companies that they have a conflict. Maybe their insurance companies have a mutual non-aggression contract, in which case they might force the court companies to negotiate a treaty-contract or lose insurance coverage. See? Utopia!
wyager 5y ago
Read the book. The cost of defecting from an arbitration agreement would be very high (i.e. you would be at serious physical risk). You're arguing against a strawman you made up.

How would that even work? Like, why would I find a private court's ruling binding over me, and if there was some way to force that ruling to become binding … that's what we call "the government".

handrous 5y ago

The plan seems to hinge on people and companies caring very much about reputational harm. I'll... leave judging the soundness of that plan as an exercise for the reader.

dsr_ 5y ago
It may have seemed more reasonable in 1973 than it would in, say, 2019.
wyager 5y ago
It has approximately nothing to do with reputational harm. The plausible end result of violating the law is either that you have to accept the result of arbitration or you end up getting shot - essentially the same as today, except you have a lot more flexibility in picking arbitration rules.
- handrous 5y ago
  The Machinery of Freedom's system doesn't rely on firms' and individuals' strong wish to avoid reputational harm? Because that exact mechanism is mentioned repeatedly as the enforcement mechanism of arbitration, absent government. It may not be the only factor cited, but it's a lot of it.
  - wyager 5y ago
    No, the chief proposed enforcement mechanism for violating arbitration agreements is that if you do, no one is going to stop people from shooting you and taking your stuff. I.e. you become an outlaw.
    - handrous 5y ago
      Well, the book's text is available online. I suppose anyone can go figure out for themselves whether reputation (beyond just the extreme form of "people kill you because you're so unpopular") is a significant part of what it supposes would keep people and businesses in line, absent government.
      - wyager 5y ago
        It has nothing to do with people killing you because you’re unpopular; it’s to do with the fact that if you seriously violate arbitration agreements it becomes too expensive to buy protection.
        handrous 5y ago
        > no one is going to stop people from shooting you and taking your stuff. I.e. you become an outlaw. [edit, also:] > The plausible end result of violating the law is either that you have to accept the result of arbitration or you end up getting shot
        krapp 5y ago
        That seems like the monopoly on violence with... more actual violence.

dsr_ 5y ago

Contracts! You would contract with a particular for-profit legislative system the same way you contract with an insurance company and a police company and a war-defense company. The insurance company would have contracts with investigative companies and retributive force companies. When you get into a dispute with your neighbor over whether they are allowed to build a wall that might cross on to your property, you contact your court company and your insurance company. The court company sends someone to talk to your neighbor and get details of their jurisprudence subscription. If they subscribe to the same courts, excellent! They have jurisdiction and can decide whether this is a minor violation of the contract (see rules on respecting property lines) or a major violation. Violations can be punished by corrective action or fines equivalent to the costs of such. If the neighbor uses a different court system, perhaps they have a treaty-contract with your court system. In that case the treaty-contract will supply the rules. Oh, but maybe there isn't a treaty-contract. The court companies might take this opportunity to negotiate one. Or, they might notify their insurance companies that they have a conflict. Maybe their insurance companies have a mutual non-aggression contract, in which case they might force the court companies to negotiate a treaty-contract or lose insurance coverage. See? Utopia!

wyager 5y ago

Read the book. The cost of defecting from an arbitration agreement would be very high (i.e. you would be at serious physical risk). You're arguing against a strawman you made up.