"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. If
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. 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?
> 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
blessing.
> > 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.
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 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:39:28 MDT