Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2024, 06:03:44 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Arbitration (Split from Corporal punishment)  (Read 826 times)
myrkul (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
November 29, 2012, 03:30:09 PM
 #1

I did manage to find a page called "restorative justice", but despite all the rhetoric and well-meaning criticism of the ways governments do things, details on implementation remain absent. Basic sanity-check questions remain unanswered:

a) how do you make sure the victim in a conflict is "mysteriously restored" to his position before the conflict?
It's called "restitution." If you're unfamiliar with the term, the definition should be found in any standard English dictionary.

b) how do you make sure the criminal in a conflict is mysteriously restored to a "state of integration with society"?
this is a little more tough, but typically, having to pay restitution will do that... debt is a powerful motivator.
What was the first word in both of those questions? How?? Your one-word answer fails to describe the means by which the alleged justice is to occur.
Having to pay restitution? Sounds coercive... The 'criminal' insists that he has done nothing wrong.
That's just the thing... by going to the arbitration, he agrees to be bound by the decision. If they say he's done wrong, then he needs to make it right. And how does he do this? By paying restitution. C'mon, man, it's not rocket science.

c) how do you correctly identify the victim vs. the criminal?
Can you not tell who swung first? It's just that simple.
It's A's word against B's word. So no, and neither can you without doing some investigating. What if the chain of events leading up to the conflict is never-ending? What if the conflict was caused by an honest misunderstanding, but now the 'victim' is being an ass?
Then you do some investigating. Just because there's no monopoly doesn't mean that detective work suddenly goes out the window. There's no such thing as an infinite chain of events leading up to the conflict. And if it was an honest misunderstanding, that will come out in the investigation, and get hashed out in arbitration. They may even end up dropping the case.

d) Presumably the victim would have to be the driving force for justice. Where does the victim get all his money and power from to stand up against the criminal?
In a practical system, most people would be insured against loss. The insurance company covers that loss, and then seeks damages. This is, of course, only one option.
Finally! The first baby-steps to coming up with something practical. Only most people would be insured? What about those who can't afford insurance? No justice for them? Your callous neglect of "the needy" in society seems immoral. Are you sure you really want such a horrible, hateful society that throws its most vulnerable members to the dogs?
The poorest family owns a color TV. If there is a market need for low-cost insurance, or simply low cost arbitration, it will be met. The market is all about seeing to the "needy."

e) What incentive does the criminal have to co-operate with this restorative justice ritual, rather than just intimidating or silencing the victim?
If he refuses, he is casting himself outside of the protection of the system - outlaw in the original and truest sense. Ask yourself: Would you trust Trendon Shavers with your money, now?
What, like "Survivor - Monkey Island" ? Because that's what your vision sounds like. WTF is this nonsense: "casting himself outside of the protection of the system" ?? What protection? What system? 'Casting' with a fishing line? Is there a lynch-mob involved as well?
Try to wrap your head around this: going to arbitration is what is preventing the lynch mob from seeking justice their own way. That is all the incentive the criminal needs. If he refuses, nobody would deal with someone who would do that - and that includes his defense agency, who no doubt had an arbitration clause in their contract with him. Put another way, if you don't go to court, the cops don't respond when you call 911.

f) What if the victim goes too far? How is this prevented or dealt with? When does the process end?
I believe that is the purpose of the Arbitrator, to decide upon a fair restitution.
And the arbitrator is just and fair because magic.
Why should any arbitrator even bother being fair if they're in it just for the money?
Because being fair is how they make money?

g) How is making the process private and profit-driven supposed to actually help? What are these "efficiency gains" they speak of?
How did McDonalds come to be the market giant it is today?
LoL! @ McJustice.
Seriously, your example is nonsensical. 1) Maccas don't attempt to sell justice. 2) Your dream of attempting to monetise justice seems extremely foolish. Justice can be 'just' because follows some rules set by society, regardless of the financial burden. Or it can be bought. Pick one.
Justice is a service, like any other. And giving that service to a monopoly - the same monopoly, I might add, as one of the parties to the conflict - is not a good way to see that both parties get justice. However, if you let market actors provide the justice, which market actors are selected by both of the parties involved, then justice is more likely to be served equally, rather than leaning heavily on the side of the monopoly.

h) In a profit-driven system, how do you prevent 'arbitrators' from milking the system, creating more crime, or prolonging proceedings? It is their business after all. If the crimes are too simple or there is just not enough of them, the arbitrators won't get enough money! The US is infamous for its bloated lawyer industry. Wouldn't that kind of parasitism just get worse?
Prolonging proceedings wouldn't help, since I don't know of any arbitrators who bill hourly...
Do you? Judge.me has a flat rate. If you know of any that bill hourly, I'd love to know of them. And even if they did, that would just raise "court costs," and those that did this would quickly become known as being more expensive, thus limiting their potential clientele.

i) Why should arbitrators compete against each other, when they can just form a cartel?
Because the one that breaks the cartel gets an immediate reward of more business. It's the same reason cartels have always fallen apart.
You seem to have some kind of rock-solid certainty, all based on airy-fairy fluff. This 'cartel' could form a (possibly very nasty) militant government, and that would spell a quick end for your AnCap utopia. Yet the breakaway faction would get "an immediate reward of more business"?? Riiight...
So, how is a "cartel" of arbitrators going to form a "militant government"? They're judges, FFS. They can't print money, so how are they going to pay their "army"? And don't you think the various protection agencies might take umbrage at them trying to extort their customers? No, trying to form a government in an AnCap society seems like an elaborate and expensive way to commit suicide.

j) What if neither side has any money? What incentive do arbitrators have in getting involved?
Even the poorest family in the US has a color TV. If there is a market need for low-cost services, it will be provided.
McJustice again? As long as the criminal has more funds at their disposal than their victims, they will always get away with their crimes.
How does that work, exactly?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
I HATE TABLES I HATE TABLES I HA(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ TABLES I HATE TABLES I HATE TABLES
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711649024
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711649024

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711649024
Reply with quote  #2

1711649024
Report to moderator
1711649024
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711649024

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711649024
Reply with quote  #2

1711649024
Report to moderator
1711649024
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711649024

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711649024
Reply with quote  #2

1711649024
Report to moderator
blablahblah
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 775
Merit: 1000


View Profile
November 29, 2012, 04:16:12 PM
 #2

I did manage to find a page called "restorative justice", but despite all the rhetoric and well-meaning criticism of the ways governments do things, details on implementation remain absent. Basic sanity-check questions remain unanswered:

a) how do you make sure the victim in a conflict is "mysteriously restored" to his position before the conflict?
It's called "restitution." If you're unfamiliar with the term, the definition should be found in any standard English dictionary.

b) how do you make sure the criminal in a conflict is mysteriously restored to a "state of integration with society"?
this is a little more tough, but typically, having to pay restitution will do that... debt is a powerful motivator.
What was the first word in both of those questions? How?? Your one-word answer fails to describe the means by which the alleged justice is to occur.
Having to pay restitution? Sounds coercive... The 'criminal' insists that he has done nothing wrong.
That's just the thing... by going to the arbitration, he agrees to be bound by the decision. If they say he's done wrong, then he needs to make it right. And how does he do this? By paying restitution. C'mon, man, it's not rocket science.

What's the equivalent of a court summons? Oh, there isn't any?
Therefore the alleged criminal can just say "get lost, I'm busy. I don't have to participate in your kangaroo court".
Then what? The self-described victim conducts a show trial in-absentia, and of course finds the alleged criminal guilty?

Alternatively, the alleged criminal might 'decide' to co-operate. However, the threat of nasty consequences if he refuses to co-operate with the Voodoo shenanigans sounds coercive. His decision to participate was made under duress.

What if the alleged criminal initially agrees to the Voodoo, but then changes his mind and doesn't want to bound by the decision? Who 'binds' him?

d) Presumably the victim would have to be the driving force for justice. Where does the victim get all his money and power from to stand up against the criminal?
In a practical system, most people would be insured against loss. The insurance company covers that loss, and then seeks damages. This is, of course, only one option.
Finally! The first baby-steps to coming up with something practical. Only most people would be insured? What about those who can't afford insurance? No justice for them? Your callous neglect of "the needy" in society seems immoral. Are you sure you really want such a horrible, hateful society that throws its most vulnerable members to the dogs?
The poorest family owns a color TV. If there is a market need for low-cost insurance, or simply low cost arbitration, it will be met. The market is all about seeing to the "needy."
Your answers keep relying on this "voluntary arbitration" garbage like it's some kind of panacea. What if someone's 10-dollar-a-month 'arbitrator' is pitted against Toni Soprano's goons?

myrkul (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
November 29, 2012, 04:44:23 PM
 #3

I did manage to find a page called "restorative justice", but despite all the rhetoric and well-meaning criticism of the ways governments do things, details on implementation remain absent. Basic sanity-check questions remain unanswered:

a) how do you make sure the victim in a conflict is "mysteriously restored" to his position before the conflict?
It's called "restitution." If you're unfamiliar with the term, the definition should be found in any standard English dictionary.

b) how do you make sure the criminal in a conflict is mysteriously restored to a "state of integration with society"?
this is a little more tough, but typically, having to pay restitution will do that... debt is a powerful motivator.
What was the first word in both of those questions? How?? Your one-word answer fails to describe the means by which the alleged justice is to occur.
Having to pay restitution? Sounds coercive... The 'criminal' insists that he has done nothing wrong.
That's just the thing... by going to the arbitration, he agrees to be bound by the decision. If they say he's done wrong, then he needs to make it right. And how does he do this? By paying restitution. C'mon, man, it's not rocket science.

What's the equivalent of a court summons? Oh, there isn't any?
Therefore the alleged criminal can just say "get lost, I'm busy. I don't have to participate in your kangaroo court".
Then what? The self-described victim conducts a show trial in-absentia, and of course finds the alleged criminal guilty?
Not showing up to an arbitration that he agreed to - whether explicitly or as part of his defense agency contract - would be breach of contract. Breaching a contract shows you to be untrustworthy. What follows from that - the breaking of all other contracts with him - is his own doing. By refusing to participate in the justice system, he's shown he wants no part in it. And he is accommodated. There is no show trial in absentia, there is no trial. He has chosen his consequences, there's no need for a trial.

Alternatively, the alleged criminal might 'decide' to co-operate. However, the threat of nasty consequences if he refuses to co-operate with the Voodoo shenanigans sounds coercive. His decision to participate was made under duress.
It's not coercion to refuse service to a poor risk. It's not coercion to expect people to do what they agreed to.

What if the alleged criminal initially agrees to the Voodoo, but then changes his mind and doesn't want to bound by the decision? Who 'binds' him?
"Voodoo?" I don't see any "Voodoo." However, if he changes his mind, he'll be in breach of contract - with all the attendant consequences of that. Perhaps if you weren't so enamored of Monopoly, you'd see that all the criticisms you are using apply much more accurately to the State court system.

d) Presumably the victim would have to be the driving force for justice. Where does the victim get all his money and power from to stand up against the criminal?
In a practical system, most people would be insured against loss. The insurance company covers that loss, and then seeks damages. This is, of course, only one option.
Finally! The first baby-steps to coming up with something practical. Only most people would be insured? What about those who can't afford insurance? No justice for them? Your callous neglect of "the needy" in society seems immoral. Are you sure you really want such a horrible, hateful society that throws its most vulnerable members to the dogs?
The poorest family owns a color TV. If there is a market need for low-cost insurance, or simply low cost arbitration, it will be met. The market is all about seeing to the "needy."
Your answers keep relying on this "voluntary arbitration" garbage like it's some kind of panacea. What if someone's 10-dollar-a-month 'arbitrator' is pitted against Toni Soprano's goons?
Who?
Oh, a fake mobster?
Let's assume you mean a real mafiosi. I think maybe you have the concept of "Arbitrator" mixed up with "lawyer." An Arbitrator is not a lawyer, it's more accurately a private judge. Since both parties have to agree - either ad hoc, or (usually well) before-hand - on the judge they'll use, I don't see what a Mafiosi would do to influence that, or the judge's decision - except perhaps apply coercion, which would of course result in a response from the protection agency. I don't think the Mafiosi wants that, or the publicity that would come with it, do you?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007



View Profile
November 29, 2012, 10:11:38 PM
 #4

This seems like such a silly point to argue about to me.  If there is anything that is well established about ancap theories, it's the viability of private arbitration as a justice system.  It happens all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Court_of_International_Arbitration

This one developed specificly because there was no such thing as a government established court for international disputes, because there was no such thing as an international government. 

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007



View Profile
November 29, 2012, 11:13:37 PM
 #5

The example is irrelevant and does not advance AnCap's case at all. According to the Wikipedia link it sounds like the court's purpose is to mediate commercial disputes between companies that trade with each other. That has nothing to do with the crime/social justice/morality sphere.

It's nonsensical to copy the idea of commercial mediation and to try to apply it to moral/social/ethical issues that have no price or market value.

/thread.

Yes, this is a commecial arbitration court, but the concept of private arbitration has long been shown viable.  It was used extensively during the middle ages in Europe, after the fall of the Roman Empire (and the legitimacy of the justice system went with it).  Contrary to popular belief (is this popular?) the serfs didn't go marching to the lord of the manor when they had a dispute amonst themselves, nor was it anything like a Thunder Dome.  Each village had a respected elder who was known for considering each side of a dispute, and rendering a ruling that both sides could live with.  Most of the time, minor disputes between individuals are the result of misundertandings and prejudices of perspectives, and an unbiased third party can see the errors of each claimant's perspective and manage them.  Sometimes they could not, and the result was a ruling that one party couldn't abide, and a feud was the only recourse.  Sometimes.

This kind of history is detailed pretty well in the book Whatever Happened to Justice? by Rich Maybury.  It's an excellent primer on the topic of natural law and private justice systems.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!