Topic: Arbitration (Split from Corporal punishment) (Read 843 times)

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.

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. 

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.

It's not coercion to refuse service to a poor risk. It's not coercion to expect people to do what they agreed to.

"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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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."

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.

Because being fair is how they make money?

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.

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.

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.

How does that work, exactly?