Topic: With no taxes, what about firestations and garbage service? (Read 11384 times)

In the property world there is a long tradition of people refusing to pay until they are on the court steps.  The logic is that while you are suing, the bank may be threatening to foreclose on you so the guy being sued has the leverage to get a better deal from you than he originally agreed to.

Oh... Why did they settle if they knew the judge would likely give them the same judgement/settlement? Or are all your cases usually the type where the person settling would otherwise get severe punishments?

:|

Where the hell do you live? Even corrupt cesspools like mafia ridden Russia, Bulgaria, and southern Italy, and lawless places like Somalia value contracts highly and have severe penalties for breaking them.

Ah, you are a lawyer, then.

A copyright lawyer, no less.  No wonder you refuse to listen.  It's impossible to get a educated person to see the truth when his income is dependent upon him not seeing it.

Software and property.  I regularly have had people settle cases as we wait outside the judges' chambers.  And I'm sure you know that most people have the same experience. Litigation is a peaceful alternative to having to physically force people to pay up.

You're projecting.  What business are you in, again?

People cheat on contracts all the time and they do just fine.  That's why litigation is needed.

First of all, businesses are not stupid enough to cheat other businesses. If you cheat someone, no other business will ever deal with you, and you might as well close shop. If the issue is that Peter promised working gadgets to Paul by a certain date, and the gadgets came in a week late with a lot of them broken, after which Paul decided not to pay Peter, then either Paul can walk away from the settlement, and risk others not wanting to deal with him out of fear he won't pay them either, or they can both come together for a mutually agreed upon decision, such as Paul will pay Peter for the gadgets, and will older another full batch, but will pay 1/3rd the price for the new batch. Both companies get what they want in that case.

So Peter cheats Paul in a business deal.  Peter sues Paul to get his money back.  Paul refuses to attend court.  And Peter is told "And if Paul Apple or Samsung doesn't show up, there's not much the other party can do other than to never do business with them again."

That's an interesting twist on justice.

No it doesn't If Apple and Samsung are doing business, it would be mutually beneficial for them to continue to do business, so both have an incentive to get the issue settled. Summons is usually needed for things like tort (intentional or unintentional harm). And if Apple or Samsung doesn't show up, there's not much the other party can do other than to never do business with them again.

A court requires the ability to issue a summons so that if one party to the dispute is refusing to show up, he can be forcibly brought to court.  I don't think you are thinking of courts but of arbitration venues.

They are suing in a court of the country that issued the pattent, since that is a dispute. Had the issue been defective hardware from Samsung, or Apple not honoring a contract to pay for Samsung's hardware, Apple would've wanted to settle this is US court, Samsumng in Korean court, and both would likely end up settling in international court.
I'm not making this international court thing up. It's a real issue that businesses are trying to solve.

From what I see, multinationals sue in normal courts.  Check out apple and samsung.

I do believe I have mentioned the newly forming international law and arbitrage system, that is being created to shtat multinagiona corporations can settle disputes when the litigated actions did not take place in any specific country? Those laws and courts are existing outside of states and state laws, and are being created entirely voluntarily by businesses and corporations themselves. This is also why i've said before that trying to prove how a libertarian system is bad is pointless, since we are slowly moving to it on a global scale anyway, so might as well spend your time trying to figure out how it works and how to live with it.

No, I'm talking about how courts can exist without explicit state support, and can coexist with it.  Your incomplete knowledge of history notwithstanding, there are a couple dozen other examples of the same in human history.  The history of the tweleve tribes of Israel is another well documented case.  The history of the five tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy is another well documented case.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois#Government)  Neither of these actual historical examples consisted of a government (or even a definable state) as we would define one today.

(Iroquois political and diplomatic decisions are made on the local level, and are based on assessments of community consensus. A central government that develops policy and implements it for the people at large is not the Iroquois model of government.)

Yet both had semi-formal courts with judges, appointed by no one at all, unless you consider the Book of Judges to be authoritative in understanding and recording the will of God.  They came to exist, because people had real disputes, and in the absence of a formal resolution (and considering combat is not in the best interests of either party) would agree to seek out a third party trusted by both parties.  This is what is now known as arbitration and is a major part of what courts actually do for "society" or the "free market".  There is a natural human desire for "justice", and it can be seen in children not even old enough to talk.  If you feel that you have been wronged by your sibling, what do you do first?  Do you tell mommy, hit your sibling & take back your toy, or try to argue that you have been wronged?  Surely some will do each of these things, but both running to tell mommy and arguing with your sibling are examples that humans are born with an innate sense of property right, for if we were not then every dispute over a toy would invariablely lead to a fight.  It's this sense of, shall we call it "natural law", that leads a three year old to complain that the other kid took the toy out of his hands, as there is a natural expectation that everyone else should understand the basic law as well, even if they can't express it as such.  Neither courts, nor governments, make this stuff up.  At best, they discover it and encode it into their statutes.  But statutes that don't make sense to the common man are not laws, but simply the deliberate and discriminate use of force to favor one group of citizens over another.

He is talking about medieval history as proof that law can exist without a state. 

ExistED or exist? It still exists...

You have a problem reading.  The common law only existed in Royal courts.  The court it was created in was called the King's Bench. 

You have a real problem with observational evidence, don't you?  Are you a defense lawyer?

The second quoted section says you're wrong. Also, USA follows common law, and we don't have kings or royals (well, except me, but my title is meaningless here)