3 ms·

> People will not have the option "not to pay", because the law says those people have to be put in jail, and the jail is private I think you misunderstand the

by snitko 13y ago

> People will not have the option "not to pay", because the law says those people have to be put in jail, and the jail is private I think you misunderstand the idea. The only system in which you have to pay is when you have a government collecting taxes. If you don't pay, you're gonna get in trouble. By contrast, in a polylegal system with no central body issuing laws, people choose law firms with the set of laws they like the most, voluntarily. If at some point they dislike how a firm does its business and protects its customers interests he may switch to a different firm (how conflicts are resolved between customers of two different firms is a more interesting question, which for the sake of brevity I'm gonna leave out for now). My objective as a customer is to be safe, not treat prisoners like shit and make money off them. Thus, if I don't like how my law firm treats prisoners, I stop paying immediately. Note: I don't need to vote or convince anyone it's a bad thing, I simply stop financing bad things. > Yes, so the "good people" in conservative states, say, might also say: "Why pay to keep in prison all these people? Exactly. Then don't go to conservative states and don't become a client of such a conservative law firm. These laws may be brutal, but if some group of people voluntarily decides to live by them, not forcing me to live by them too, why should I be against it?

coldtea 13y ago
>By contrast, in a polylegal system with no central body issuing laws, people choose law firms with the set of laws the like the most voluntarily. If at some point they dislike how a firm does its business and protects its customers interests he may switch to a different firm (how conflicts are resolved between customers of two different firms is a more interesting question, which for the sake of brevity I'm gonna leave out for now). The whole "how conflicts are resolved between customers of two different firms" is the core idea behind law enforcement! If the same rules do not apply to all (and you opt for rules from the law issuing body you want based on your preferences) then there's now "law" among citizens. Oh, and those "private law --issuing-- firms"? They would also have to have the means to enforce that law. So even if some poor black or latino population could not afford to pay them, a rich white majority will very much afford. Would they be able to enforce those laws to the non participating poor? The problem is that you try to mix to things that are not compatible, absolute individual choice (at the consumer level even) and law. Law is that which is above individual choice, for it is a trans-individual (social) agreement, and that's the only way it can make sense. This whole notion is ill-thought. It's not like the government is the problem with prisons. That's the "all I have is the liberal hammer, all problems are governmental nails" notion. For one, the US has the highest incarceration rate of the western world (or the world, period). That's a problem not due to government. All the other countries have government made laws too. Most don't even allow private prisons at all. Others countries have so nice prisons that you could spend your vacations there -- and even less crime than the US does, while maintaining a highly competitive economy and even more equality (so less poor people and more vibrant middle class). E.g skandinavian states. So government is not at all incompatible with a perfectly good legal and prison system. If anything, it's the contrary. >Then don't go to conservative states and don't become a client of such a conservative law firm. These laws may be brutal, but if some group of people voluntarily decides to live by them, not forcing me to leave by them to, why should I be against it? For a lot of people their home state, and where they have their roots, home, family, property etc means a lot to them. You propose they jump state just so the racist majority (or the richer racist minority) can have the prison system it likes? Wasn't the civil war partly about putting an end to this crap?
- snitko 13y ago
  If you would like to understand this question and accept the possibility that your assumptions and conlusions might be wrong, I suggest you start with this article "Law As A Private Good" http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Law_as_a_private_good/Law_as_a_private_good.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Law_as_a_private_good... by David D. Friedman (he's an economist AND a law professor).
  - slavak 13y ago
    That is an outright horrifying idea. What Friedman is suggesting in this article is basically applying the model of inter-state diplomacy to criminal law. That is an inherently unfair and inequality-promoting system. Happen to be a poor man who opposed the death penalty? Too bad. The rich guys' law corp. is pressuring your law corp. to accept it in cases of inter-corporation conflicts, and - while your firm is very much against it - they represent lower-class people and simply can't afford to purchase the anti-tank weapons they'd need to survive a war with the other corp. (Did I mention the other guys have tanks? Of course they do; they have the liquid funds and it's a sound investment.) And what about this idea that inter-corporation conflicts are to be resolved by arbitration or ad-hoc negotiations? That spits in the face of the very basic concept of law where you're supposed to know if something you're doing is illegal or not. Would you really want to live in a world where anything you do can get you thrown in jail at any time because the corporation representing you decided it's cheaper to settle? I sure wouldn't.
    - snitko 13y ago
      It's horrifying until you realize that all the same things you fear actually happen today, except that the entity doing those things is a monopoly which is less accountable and more hostile to the public than any corporation ever could be. When you dislike something a government does, you can't just stop paying and hire another government - you have to wait n number of years and then vote hoping the next candidate is going to keep his promises (and they never do). When you dislike something a corporation does, you can stop paying it (recent successful example related to the current thread: godaddy and SOPA).
gpcz 13y ago
Sicily inadvertently created the conditions where a "polylegal system" took form in the 1810s during its transition from feudalism to capitalism. As government-sponsored police forces were sparse, private police forces formed that would protect from bandits and enforce contracts (src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Mafia#Post-feudal_Sicily https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Mafia#Post-feudal_Sic... ). I think history pretty much shows what resulted from this.

by snitko 13y ago

coldtea 13y ago

>By contrast, in a polylegal system with no central body issuing laws, people choose law firms with the set of laws the like the most voluntarily. If at some point they dislike how a firm does its business and protects its customers interests he may switch to a different firm (how conflicts are resolved between customers of two different firms is a more interesting question, which for the sake of brevity I'm gonna leave out for now). The whole "how conflicts are resolved between customers of two different firms" is the core idea behind law enforcement! If the same rules do not apply to all (and you opt for rules from the law issuing body you want based on your preferences) then there's now "law" among citizens. Oh, and those "private law --issuing-- firms"? They would also have to have the means to enforce that law. So even if some poor black or latino population could not afford to pay them, a rich white majority will very much afford. Would they be able to enforce those laws to the non participating poor? The problem is that you try to mix to things that are not compatible, absolute individual choice (at the consumer level even) and law. Law is that which is above individual choice, for it is a trans-individual (social) agreement, and that's the only way it can make sense. This whole notion is ill-thought. It's not like the government is the problem with prisons. That's the "all I have is the liberal hammer, all problems are governmental nails" notion. For one, the US has the highest incarceration rate of the western world (or the world, period). That's a problem not due to government. All the other countries have government made laws too. Most don't even allow private prisons at all. Others countries have so nice prisons that you could spend your vacations there -- and even less crime than the US does, while maintaining a highly competitive economy and even more equality (so less poor people and more vibrant middle class). E.g skandinavian states. So government is not at all incompatible with a perfectly good legal and prison system. If anything, it's the contrary. >Then don't go to conservative states and don't become a client of such a conservative law firm. These laws may be brutal, but if some group of people voluntarily decides to live by them, not forcing me to leave by them to, why should I be against it? For a lot of people their home state, and where they have their roots, home, family, property etc means a lot to them. You propose they jump state just so the racist majority (or the richer racist minority) can have the prison system it likes? Wasn't the civil war partly about putting an end to this crap?

snitko 13y ago
If you would like to understand this question and accept the possibility that your assumptions and conlusions might be wrong, I suggest you start with this article "Law As A Private Good" http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Law_as_a_private_good/Law_as_a_private_good.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Law_as_a_private_good... by David D. Friedman (he's an economist AND a law professor).
- slavak 13y ago
  That is an outright horrifying idea. What Friedman is suggesting in this article is basically applying the model of inter-state diplomacy to criminal law. That is an inherently unfair and inequality-promoting system. Happen to be a poor man who opposed the death penalty? Too bad. The rich guys' law corp. is pressuring your law corp. to accept it in cases of inter-corporation conflicts, and - while your firm is very much against it - they represent lower-class people and simply can't afford to purchase the anti-tank weapons they'd need to survive a war with the other corp. (Did I mention the other guys have tanks? Of course they do; they have the liquid funds and it's a sound investment.) And what about this idea that inter-corporation conflicts are to be resolved by arbitration or ad-hoc negotiations? That spits in the face of the very basic concept of law where you're supposed to know if something you're doing is illegal or not. Would you really want to live in a world where anything you do can get you thrown in jail at any time because the corporation representing you decided it's cheaper to settle? I sure wouldn't.
  - snitko 13y ago
    It's horrifying until you realize that all the same things you fear actually happen today, except that the entity doing those things is a monopoly which is less accountable and more hostile to the public than any corporation ever could be. When you dislike something a government does, you can't just stop paying and hire another government - you have to wait n number of years and then vote hoping the next candidate is going to keep his promises (and they never do). When you dislike something a corporation does, you can stop paying it (recent successful example related to the current thread: godaddy and SOPA).

gpcz 13y ago

Sicily inadvertently created the conditions where a "polylegal system" took form in the 1810s during its transition from feudalism to capitalism. As government-sponsored police forces were sparse, private police forces formed that would protect from bandits and enforce contracts (src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Mafia#Post-feudal_Sicily https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Mafia#Post-feudal_Sic... ). I think history pretty much shows what resulted from this.