In a message dated 2/6/00 1:52:14 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jonkc@worldnet.att.net writes:
> The best jury is no jury and no judge either, better to have an arbitrator.
> If the arbitrator receives no salary but is paid by the case, and if he's
> picked by both sides then it's in his financial interest to be as just as
> possible. If he favored one side over another, or made brutal or stupid
> decisions he would not be picked again and would need to look for a
> new line of work. Unlike present day judges and juries, justice would
> have a net positive survival value for the arbitrator. Justice is no
different
> than anything else, if you want to maximize something make it a
> commodity and sell it on the open market.
cool. but how do you get the two sides to agree on an arbitrator? have
something like a pool of arbitrators to choose from, with the two sides
picking their order of preference; the arbitrator with the highest common
rating being the one picked?
sayke, v2.3.05
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:31 MDT