4 ms·

Arbitration makes sense when you think about how costly the court system is. The problem is that the defendant gets to choose the arbiter, so its not a fair sys

Arbitration makes sense when you think about how costly the court system is. The problem is that the defendant gets to choose the arbiter, so its not a fair system. If the arbiter was neutral I think arbitration would generally be better than the traditional court system in many cases as its easier to use without legal representation.

SoftTalker 2y ago
> its easier to use without legal representation Not really. Any corporation will be represented in an arbitration by lawyers. The arbiter will likely be a lawyer. You will be bamboozled by their arguments and the best you can hope for is to make a reasonably clear statement of your claim and hope that the arbiter doesn't agree with some technical argument the other side has. And (I don't know if it always works this way) you will take turns speaking with the arbiter, you will not directly hear or be able to question/challenge what the the other party is saying.
jordanb 2y ago
The "defense" would argue that the arbitrator was mutually selected when the contract was signed, because the "plantiff" agreed to the contract terms. The fact that the contract was non-negotiable should have made it a "contract of adhesion" where the plaintiff is recognized to have little choice in the details and the courts should provide scrutiny to ensure that they were equitable. But the supreme court has decided that "contracts of adhesion" don't really exist because you always had the choice to not have a cell phone or internet service or a job.
fieldcny 2y ago
The court system is expensive because it’s the wrong mechanism to address this aspect of corporate and monopoly power, frankly all companies have gotten too large they aren’t efficient at any thing other than redistribution of the fruits of labor increasingly unfairly all the way up the organizational chart. The fact that no-one fails no matter the egregiousness of their actions or behaviors is absurd.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Well sadly, the mechanism made to disrupt such monopolies will probably be crippled in 6-12 months, maybe even sooner. We're definitely in a plutocracy .
  - account42 2y ago
    Because those mechanisms have been working so well for the past four years?
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Yep big companies basically have too much capital to fail. They own distribution channels they seek rent on. No one else can get ahead of them. A small company making a mistake will die. A large company will not even notice it.
pessimizer 2y ago
> Arbitration makes sense when you think about how costly the court system is. The court system isn't required to be trash. That's like how we made immigration so impossible that we just let people in illegally. It's a pretense. If official justice is so burdensome that we have to create extensive private legal systems, we should figure out a sane way to do things. People who have the power to make decisions prefer it this way.

SoftTalker 2y ago

> its easier to use without legal representation Not really. Any corporation will be represented in an arbitration by lawyers. The arbiter will likely be a lawyer. You will be bamboozled by their arguments and the best you can hope for is to make a reasonably clear statement of your claim and hope that the arbiter doesn't agree with some technical argument the other side has. And (I don't know if it always works this way) you will take turns speaking with the arbiter, you will not directly hear or be able to question/challenge what the the other party is saying.

jordanb 2y ago

The "defense" would argue that the arbitrator was mutually selected when the contract was signed, because the "plantiff" agreed to the contract terms. The fact that the contract was non-negotiable should have made it a "contract of adhesion" where the plaintiff is recognized to have little choice in the details and the courts should provide scrutiny to ensure that they were equitable. But the supreme court has decided that "contracts of adhesion" don't really exist because you always had the choice to not have a cell phone or internet service or a job.

fieldcny 2y ago

The court system is expensive because it’s the wrong mechanism to address this aspect of corporate and monopoly power, frankly all companies have gotten too large they aren’t efficient at any thing other than redistribution of the fruits of labor increasingly unfairly all the way up the organizational chart. The fact that no-one fails no matter the egregiousness of their actions or behaviors is absurd.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
Well sadly, the mechanism made to disrupt such monopolies will probably be crippled in 6-12 months, maybe even sooner. We're definitely in a plutocracy .
- account42 2y ago
  Because those mechanisms have been working so well for the past four years?
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Yep big companies basically have too much capital to fail. They own distribution channels they seek rent on. No one else can get ahead of them. A small company making a mistake will die. A large company will not even notice it.

pessimizer 2y ago

> Arbitration makes sense when you think about how costly the court system is. The court system isn't required to be trash. That's like how we made immigration so impossible that we just let people in illegally. It's a pretense. If official justice is so burdensome that we have to create extensive private legal systems, we should figure out a sane way to do things. People who have the power to make decisions prefer it this way.