Samantha Atkins wrote:
> "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> > Lets say your policy with your PPL states 'no death penalty for murder'. Mine
> > mandates it for murder. Every PPL contract mandates no initiation of force. You
> > kill me. My PPL arrests you, and because you breached your 'no initiation of
> > force' clause in your contract, your PPL is not obligated to prevent your
> > execution, although they are obligated to determine if you actually initiated
> > force against me unprovoked, or were defending yourself against my initiation,
> > or whether your actions were the result of accident or negligence. They thus
> > provide your defense in arbitration with prosecutors from my PPL. Arbitrators
> > would be independent of both parties. Prosecution would pay for the trial,
> > subject to recovery from the convicted if a conviction results.
> There are several problems here. Like, why my PPL should automatically
> drop me just because I am accused of a crime but not yet convicted.
Did you read anything I wrote? Did I not say "they are obligated to determine if you
actually initiated force against me unprovoked, or were defending yourself against my
initiation, or whether your actions were the result of accident or negligence"? Your
PPL would provide your defense in arbitration, to determine your guilt or innocence.
> convicted I should be governed by the rules of my PPL, not yours.
> Otherwise my PPL contract is really, "we won't execute you for murder
> but we will disown you once we're sure you did it." This is not a PPL
> with any real closure.
You don't get to choose what punishment you could potentially get. If such were
available, then criminals could buy policies of total immunity from prosecution, and
do what they wanted. Nobody else would permit such a PPL policy to exist. Your PPL
policy dictates what punishments you want to see for crimes against YOU, not commited
by you. Thats why PPL providers are called PPAs, its called Private Protection Agency,
not Private Accomplice Agency. No PPL would want to be charged as an accomplice with a
criminal, so any PPL policy would dictate breach of contract if the individual is
found to be guilty of comitting a crime after a duly ajudicated arbitration trial.
> Also, who determines the rules of evidence and
> courtroom proceedings? Your PPL? Mine? Neither? Both? How does this
> work? What sets of rules or organization govern the arbitrators?
Common Law is an excellent basis for such a system. It developed in such a way that it
lends itself quite nicely to operating on a private basis, independent of government
oversight or control. It and the UCC are commonly used in arbitration already in the
insurance industry as well as in other existing PPL systems.
> > Private law is nothing new. 99% of legal action between the USPS and the postal
> > unions are in fact done on a private basis with arbitrators already. According
> > to my postal union friends, it costs about 1/4 as much as going the public court
> > route, they do have a body of precedent of past arbitration to work from (I
> > designed a judgement search database for one of the regional union arbitration
> > reps), and so long as the union does its job to take care of its members, the
> > system works quite well.
> Within some limits determined by the overall legal system. Private law
> (like the way IRS cases used to be run) is certainly not an unmitigated
The IRS tax courts are not privately produced law, they are a pirate
extraconstitutional synidcate. Little more than a legalized mob, and since the IRS is
a government agency, and they run the tax courts (the tax courts are not independent
or part of the Judicial branch of the government, they are part of the executive
branch of government).
> > > Arguing from analogy does nothing to address the point raised.
> > > Predictability of a reasonable degree is quite relevant if you want a
> > > generally sane and peaceful society where conflicts do not become armed
> > > conflicts too often. Calling names is even weaker than using
> > > inapplicable analogies.
> > Well, tell me this: Why do you think centralized control is so godawful
> > important? It should be pretty emminently accepted by now that centralizing
> > control of anything tends to cause more abuse and violation of trust than
> > decentralization. My analogy holds, because there is little difference between
> > socialized law, socialized medicine, socialized employment, or socialized
> > anything. You ought to be smart enough to see that.
> First, who said I do think it is so important (godawful or otherwise)?
> I think overarching agreements that covered all parties are very
> important to peaceful and dependable cooperative actions and recourse
> when agreements are not met. Generally, interaction and trade is
> simplified between parties having in common a set of governing
> principles and remedies. If there are more autonomous groups involved
> then negotiations between members of those groups must gross a divide
> where there are relatively few such commonalities. It tends towards
> making interaction between individuals of two differently governed
> (contracted law and enforcement) parties more complex somewhat
> analagously to internationa versus domestic law.
There are plenty of privately administered governing prinicples or remedies. The
Uniform Building Code, Electrical Code, Machanical Code, as well as the Uniform
Commercial Code are all examples of this, and the government has absolutely nothing to
do with creating them. These, and hundreds of other examples are conveniently ignored,
and their histories of peaceful administration, with no police actions, no wars, and
no repression, are also conveniently ignored by those who pooh pooh concepts of
libertarian governance. We already know that these things work, its just that there
are still many areas of governance where the control freaks and mind manipulators
still control things, and continually propagandize bullshit reasons why they should
remain in charge, typically along the lines that they know better than the people what
is good for them.
> You are to be smart enough to stop telling me that I ought to be smart
> enough to think like you about this matter. Why are you using
> bullying/shaming type techniques?
> - samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:14 MDT