20 ms·

The government can barely keep a port open or bomb a proper target, and we want to give them control over what is true and what isn't?

Teever 5y ago
Would you advocate for the privatization of the entire justice system?
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  At least where I live, private arbitration is well appreciated: much faster, cheaper and reliable than the judicial system. So, yes, here I'd advocate most of the judicial system to be privatized.
  - rectang 5y ago
    Where I live (USA), private arbitration is definitely preferred by many corporations who require it, and despised by the people who are forced into it. See for example, "The Problem of Sexual Harassment and Forced Arbitration": https://www.correiaputh.com/news/problem-sexual-harassment-forced-arbitration/ https://www.correiaputh.com/news/problem-sexual-harassment-f...
    - drdaeman 5y ago
      It's not an issue with private arbitration per se, it's an issue of being practically forced into it under unreasonable terms with no alternative options.
      - rectang 5y ago
        The fact that you can't do that with the public courts but you can with private arbitration makes it an issue with private arbitration. Parties with fewer resources are at a huge disadvantage in either system, but there are degrees of disadvantage. It is misleading to examine the outcome of arbitration once the rules are "agreed" to without taking into account that the process of setting the rules strongly influences said outcome.
        drdaeman 5y ago
        If private arbitration is not forced upon you, then there is no problem. Thus, it's not a private arbitration issue, it's forced and unappealable private arbitration issue, which is a different matter (not the thing itself but how this thing is applied)
  - hellbannedguy 5y ago
    In the USA, it's often unfair. Companies pay the arbitrators salary. I have a $60,000 credit card judgment on me. (29,000 x 10% yearly) I had no say in the mediation. Just guilty on all accounts. I'm Judgment proof right now, but I need to do a chapter 7 in Santa Rosa. I really hate giving a lawyer $3000 for a simple uncomplicated chapter 7, but don't have the balls to do it myself. I just remembered the credit card company that really irritated me. It was Columbia Credit something. They screwed over thousands of people. Some people had their identy stolen, but got on sympathy. The arbitrators (Usually retired alcoholic lawyers) rubber stamped everything. Consumers fought back, but lost. A judge ruled all judgements were valid.
- sushsjsuauahab 5y ago
  That depends-- have you ever had something stolen from you, which you then reported to police, after which nothing happened?
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    Sure, but that isn't the question. Do you prefer mandatory arbitration to being able to use the public court system? That's a privatized justice system.
    - sushsjsuauahab 5y ago
      Considering that most cases of theft don't end up in public courts? Yes I'd be happy to go to mandatory arbitration.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      Mandatory arbitration is only mandatory by way of the public court system.
      - SahAssar 5y ago
        Mandatory arbitration is mandatory in the sense that it takes the normal justice system away, if as the parent posits the normal justice system does not exist then everything becomes "Mandatory arbitration", right?
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Mandatory arbitration is mandatory in the sense that it takes the normal justice system away No, it is mandatory in the sense that parties will be obliged by the normal justice system to submit to the specified process and will be held bound by the results by the normal justice system (with narrow exceptions.) > if as the parent posits the normal justice system does not exist then everything becomes "Mandatory arbitration", right? No, if the normal justice system does not exist, there is nothing holding anyone to a particular pre-specified arbitration process or enforcing the results of that process.
- Natsu 5y ago
  > Would you advocate for the privatization of the entire justice system? What if that meant that people could fire their police department and replace it with a different one if they didn't like the way it operated?
  - aniforprez 5y ago
    IS that in any way feasible or realistic? I don't ever see this even being possible considering the police department is not only going to have more resources, it is in their vested interest to stay in power and are only going to be more aggressive. This seems like a terrible idea
    - Natsu 5y ago
      > IS that in any way feasible or realistic? That would depend on exactly how things were set up, but we do it with politicians who have all the same bad incentives to keep power.
  - Teever 5y ago
    Do you have any examples of societies where this is possible through a privatization mechanism?
    - jokethrowaway 5y ago
      Not modern ones, but medieval Iceland worked: https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-government https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-gover...
    - tjalfi 5y ago
      David Friedman's Legal Systems Very Different From Our Own has a chapter on the Icelandic legal system.
  - anandrew 5y ago
    And how would they collectively decide whether to fire the police or not? Maybe via.. voting?
- Bombthecat 5y ago
  Judge dredd would be proud!
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  It's a resounding yes from me. Even law making and law enforcing please. Governments are incompetent by definition and hold too much power. I'd rather have a N local corporations competing against each other and not being able to extract money from everyone's profit - compared to a massive monopoly governing and profiting off millions of people.
vkou 5y ago
The government already has that control for one of the most important bits of 'truth', its called a land registry.
- sushsjsuauahab 5y ago
  Which itself is underpinned by a complex web of private title insurance companies and real estate lawyers who have to waste time and money attempting to convince a judge of what reality really is.

Teever 5y ago

Would you advocate for the privatization of the entire justice system?

rmbyrro 5y ago
At least where I live, private arbitration is well appreciated: much faster, cheaper and reliable than the judicial system. So, yes, here I'd advocate most of the judicial system to be privatized.
- rectang 5y ago
  Where I live (USA), private arbitration is definitely preferred by many corporations who require it, and despised by the people who are forced into it. See for example, "The Problem of Sexual Harassment and Forced Arbitration": https://www.correiaputh.com/news/problem-sexual-harassment-forced-arbitration/ https://www.correiaputh.com/news/problem-sexual-harassment-f...
  - drdaeman 5y ago
    It's not an issue with private arbitration per se, it's an issue of being practically forced into it under unreasonable terms with no alternative options.
    - rectang 5y ago
      The fact that you can't do that with the public courts but you can with private arbitration makes it an issue with private arbitration. Parties with fewer resources are at a huge disadvantage in either system, but there are degrees of disadvantage. It is misleading to examine the outcome of arbitration once the rules are "agreed" to without taking into account that the process of setting the rules strongly influences said outcome.
      - drdaeman 5y ago
        If private arbitration is not forced upon you, then there is no problem. Thus, it's not a private arbitration issue, it's forced and unappealable private arbitration issue, which is a different matter (not the thing itself but how this thing is applied)
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  In the USA, it's often unfair. Companies pay the arbitrators salary. I have a $60,000 credit card judgment on me. (29,000 x 10% yearly) I had no say in the mediation. Just guilty on all accounts. I'm Judgment proof right now, but I need to do a chapter 7 in Santa Rosa. I really hate giving a lawyer $3000 for a simple uncomplicated chapter 7, but don't have the balls to do it myself. I just remembered the credit card company that really irritated me. It was Columbia Credit something. They screwed over thousands of people. Some people had their identy stolen, but got on sympathy. The arbitrators (Usually retired alcoholic lawyers) rubber stamped everything. Consumers fought back, but lost. A judge ruled all judgements were valid.
sushsjsuauahab 5y ago
That depends-- have you ever had something stolen from you, which you then reported to police, after which nothing happened?
- lostcolony 5y ago
  Sure, but that isn't the question. Do you prefer mandatory arbitration to being able to use the public court system? That's a privatized justice system.
  - sushsjsuauahab 5y ago
    Considering that most cases of theft don't end up in public courts? Yes I'd be happy to go to mandatory arbitration.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    Mandatory arbitration is only mandatory by way of the public court system.
    - SahAssar 5y ago
      Mandatory arbitration is mandatory in the sense that it takes the normal justice system away, if as the parent posits the normal justice system does not exist then everything becomes "Mandatory arbitration", right?
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Mandatory arbitration is mandatory in the sense that it takes the normal justice system away No, it is mandatory in the sense that parties will be obliged by the normal justice system to submit to the specified process and will be held bound by the results by the normal justice system (with narrow exceptions.) > if as the parent posits the normal justice system does not exist then everything becomes "Mandatory arbitration", right? No, if the normal justice system does not exist, there is nothing holding anyone to a particular pre-specified arbitration process or enforcing the results of that process.
Natsu 5y ago
> Would you advocate for the privatization of the entire justice system? What if that meant that people could fire their police department and replace it with a different one if they didn't like the way it operated?
- aniforprez 5y ago
  IS that in any way feasible or realistic? I don't ever see this even being possible considering the police department is not only going to have more resources, it is in their vested interest to stay in power and are only going to be more aggressive. This seems like a terrible idea
  - Natsu 5y ago
    > IS that in any way feasible or realistic? That would depend on exactly how things were set up, but we do it with politicians who have all the same bad incentives to keep power.
- Teever 5y ago
  Do you have any examples of societies where this is possible through a privatization mechanism?
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    Not modern ones, but medieval Iceland worked: https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-government https://mises.org/library/medieval-iceland-and-absence-gover...
  - tjalfi 5y ago
    David Friedman's Legal Systems Very Different From Our Own has a chapter on the Icelandic legal system.
- anandrew 5y ago
  And how would they collectively decide whether to fire the police or not? Maybe via.. voting?
Bombthecat 5y ago
Judge dredd would be proud!
jokethrowaway 5y ago
It's a resounding yes from me. Even law making and law enforcing please. Governments are incompetent by definition and hold too much power. I'd rather have a N local corporations competing against each other and not being able to extract money from everyone's profit - compared to a massive monopoly governing and profiting off millions of people.

vkou 5y ago

The government already has that control for one of the most important bits of 'truth', its called a land registry.

sushsjsuauahab 5y ago
Which itself is underpinned by a complex web of private title insurance companies and real estate lawyers who have to waste time and money attempting to convince a judge of what reality really is.