9 ms·

'Private litigation' is my new favorite oxymoron. Litigation cannot exist without your so-called 'conflict resolvers'.

by clavalle 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago
I love how lawyers suddenly become libertarian heroes in this particular debate.
baddox 14y ago
That is false, and I don't understand why you think conflict resolution works better when it is violent and compulsory.
- clavalle 14y ago
  Declaring it false does not make it so. Violence is always a specter (a potential action) in any conflict between people. The question is; How do we minimize the role of violence in coming to resolutions to conflicts? I think the rules we've evolved to answer that question of the course of human history have done a decent job. Do you have a different set of rules that you think would better optimize this minimization problem? I'd love to hear it.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
    > I'd love to hear it. And sadly you are dealing with a Libertarian and you will.
    - baddox 14y ago
      Yes, because "Libertarians" (improperly capitalized) are the only people who express their ideas to other people. Good point.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
        > because libertarians are the only people who express their ideas to other people. Express them like this? yeah. Well, libertarians and Jehovah's witnesses.
        baddox 14y ago
        > Express them like this? On Hacker News comments? What in the world are you going on about?
        SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
        Topic drift is one thing and it's fine in internet discussions, but not turning everything to about an idée fixe
  - baddox 14y ago
    > Declaring it false does not make it so. Of course not. It was already false, long before I declared it so. > Violence is always a specter (a potential action) in any conflict between people. The question is; How do we minimize the role of violence in coming to resolutions to conflicts? I agree completely. > I think the rules we've evolved to answer that question of the course of human history have done a decent job. I disagree completely.
    - clavalle 14y ago
      >Of course not. It was already false, long before I declared it so. Show me how it is false. I am a very reasonable person who is prone to change his mind when presented with a solid argument. I am inviting you to make that argument.
      - baddox 14y ago
        How can I prove it, and why should the burden of proof be on me? The statement was that litigation cannot exist with government. I certainly think the burden of proof is on the personal claiming that something "cannot exist."
        rprasad 14y ago
        The statement was that litigation cannot exist with government. I certainly think the burden of proof is on the personal claiming that something "cannot exist." You are the one claiming that litigation can exist without government. Litigation has never, in all of recorded history thus far, existed without the backing of government. Thus, the burden of proof is on you.
        baddox 14y ago
        I guess I just don't understand why it's so hard to imagine in the first place. It's no harder to envision than, say, a yellow car with 5 wheels. Sure, in all of recorded history there may never have been one, but surely I don't have to make one or show you one to convince you that such a thing is possible. But anyway, Medieval Iceland is always cited as the closest thing to a nation-wide private legal system. Admittedly, it's not exactly the system I would prefer, because there are still some roles that are not open to competition. But it's fairly close, and it should be close enough to help you imagine such a system. If you can look at social arrangements smaller than entire nations, there is plenty of private (and voluntary) dispute resolution all around the globe. In fact, that method of conflict resolution is often chosen voluntary by both parties to avoid the inefficiencies or perceived unfairness of government.
- sophacles 14y ago
  How do I sue you if all you have to do is say "no thanks, not playing, fuck off"? Sure, some theoretical bs about how you're not playing the arbitration game may result in longer term loss of business etc, but isn't me hurting you (via badmouthing your business, causing others to refuse to enter agreement etc) for not compensating me via arbitration merely me enacting violence on you?
  - baddox 14y ago
    The simple answer is private insurance. More detailed answers can be found in all sorts of essays, books, and propositions regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law.
    - sophacles 14y ago
      So then the insurance company becomes the government. (Insurance companies will merge until there is a single one... if the history of companies is to be believed). Or the insurance company also just says "No I don't like you, and since there is no actual way for you to enforce me paying you out, I just won't". Again, if the insurance company decides not to pay, they are enacting bad things on someone and not honoring an agreement. Fortunately since they have lots of free money and no expenses (other than those required to manipulate perception -- cheap payouts etc), they can just have their newspaper buddies out-shout anyone else and not actually be harmed by bad practices.
      - baddox 14y ago
        > So then the insurance company becomes the government. Why? Retail stores don't become the government or merge into one. Neither do private security agencies. It's unlikely that any organization could "become the government" unless a vast portion of society accepts them as the sole legitimate purveyor of violence, which is precisely what I don't want to happen. > Or the insurance company also just says "No I don't like you, and since there is no actual way for you to enforce me paying you out, I just won't". Then what would you do? Personally, I would stop paying them (and probably switch to another insurance company), and I suspect a vast majority of their customers would do the same thing, and probably long before it got to the point where it "became the government." The only ways for a private insurance company in a free society to remain dominant while consistently not honoring their agreements would be if society as a whole didn't care about the agreements being honored (which seems unlikely), if they gather enough power to physically oppress an entire region (which also seems unlikely these days, since very few governments are even able or willing to pull that off), or if they convince society that they should be allowed to have a monopoly on violence. That last one is a pretty good definition of "becoming a government," and it's certainly possible, but the whole argument I'm making is that society should not recognize any organization as having a monopoly on violence.

'Private litigation' is my new favorite oxymoron. Litigation cannot exist without your so-called 'conflict resolvers'.

rayiner 14y ago

I love how lawyers suddenly become libertarian heroes in this particular debate.

baddox 14y ago

That is false, and I don't understand why you think conflict resolution works better when it is violent and compulsory.

clavalle 14y ago
Declaring it false does not make it so. Violence is always a specter (a potential action) in any conflict between people. The question is; How do we minimize the role of violence in coming to resolutions to conflicts? I think the rules we've evolved to answer that question of the course of human history have done a decent job. Do you have a different set of rules that you think would better optimize this minimization problem? I'd love to hear it.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  > I'd love to hear it. And sadly you are dealing with a Libertarian and you will.
  - baddox 14y ago
    Yes, because "Libertarians" (improperly capitalized) are the only people who express their ideas to other people. Good point.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
      > because libertarians are the only people who express their ideas to other people. Express them like this? yeah. Well, libertarians and Jehovah's witnesses.
      - baddox 14y ago
        > Express them like this? On Hacker News comments? What in the world are you going on about?
        SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
        Topic drift is one thing and it's fine in internet discussions, but not turning everything to about an idée fixe
- baddox 14y ago
  > Declaring it false does not make it so. Of course not. It was already false, long before I declared it so. > Violence is always a specter (a potential action) in any conflict between people. The question is; How do we minimize the role of violence in coming to resolutions to conflicts? I agree completely. > I think the rules we've evolved to answer that question of the course of human history have done a decent job. I disagree completely.
  - clavalle 14y ago
    >Of course not. It was already false, long before I declared it so. Show me how it is false. I am a very reasonable person who is prone to change his mind when presented with a solid argument. I am inviting you to make that argument.
    - baddox 14y ago
      How can I prove it, and why should the burden of proof be on me? The statement was that litigation cannot exist with government. I certainly think the burden of proof is on the personal claiming that something "cannot exist."
      - rprasad 14y ago
        The statement was that litigation cannot exist with government. I certainly think the burden of proof is on the personal claiming that something "cannot exist." You are the one claiming that litigation can exist without government. Litigation has never, in all of recorded history thus far, existed without the backing of government. Thus, the burden of proof is on you.
        baddox 14y ago
        I guess I just don't understand why it's so hard to imagine in the first place. It's no harder to envision than, say, a yellow car with 5 wheels. Sure, in all of recorded history there may never have been one, but surely I don't have to make one or show you one to convince you that such a thing is possible. But anyway, Medieval Iceland is always cited as the closest thing to a nation-wide private legal system. Admittedly, it's not exactly the system I would prefer, because there are still some roles that are not open to competition. But it's fairly close, and it should be close enough to help you imagine such a system. If you can look at social arrangements smaller than entire nations, there is plenty of private (and voluntary) dispute resolution all around the globe. In fact, that method of conflict resolution is often chosen voluntary by both parties to avoid the inefficiencies or perceived unfairness of government.
sophacles 14y ago
How do I sue you if all you have to do is say "no thanks, not playing, fuck off"? Sure, some theoretical bs about how you're not playing the arbitration game may result in longer term loss of business etc, but isn't me hurting you (via badmouthing your business, causing others to refuse to enter agreement etc) for not compensating me via arbitration merely me enacting violence on you?
- baddox 14y ago
  The simple answer is private insurance. More detailed answers can be found in all sorts of essays, books, and propositions regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law.
  - sophacles 14y ago
    So then the insurance company becomes the government. (Insurance companies will merge until there is a single one... if the history of companies is to be believed). Or the insurance company also just says "No I don't like you, and since there is no actual way for you to enforce me paying you out, I just won't". Again, if the insurance company decides not to pay, they are enacting bad things on someone and not honoring an agreement. Fortunately since they have lots of free money and no expenses (other than those required to manipulate perception -- cheap payouts etc), they can just have their newspaper buddies out-shout anyone else and not actually be harmed by bad practices.
    - baddox 14y ago
      > So then the insurance company becomes the government. Why? Retail stores don't become the government or merge into one. Neither do private security agencies. It's unlikely that any organization could "become the government" unless a vast portion of society accepts them as the sole legitimate purveyor of violence, which is precisely what I don't want to happen. > Or the insurance company also just says "No I don't like you, and since there is no actual way for you to enforce me paying you out, I just won't". Then what would you do? Personally, I would stop paying them (and probably switch to another insurance company), and I suspect a vast majority of their customers would do the same thing, and probably long before it got to the point where it "became the government." The only ways for a private insurance company in a free society to remain dominant while consistently not honoring their agreements would be if society as a whole didn't care about the agreements being honored (which seems unlikely), if they gather enough power to physically oppress an entire region (which also seems unlikely these days, since very few governments are even able or willing to pull that off), or if they convince society that they should be allowed to have a monopoly on violence. That last one is a pretty good definition of "becoming a government," and it's certainly possible, but the whole argument I'm making is that society should not recognize any organization as having a monopoly on violence.