From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 18:22:52 MDT
Rafal Smigrodzki writes:
> ### ....Of course, the effectiveness of the legal system is
> impaired by the fact that the state owns and operates
> courts, instead allowing private courts to operate and
> compete.
Interesting concept but how would it work?. Would it
require both parties voluntarily agreeing to acknowledge
the jurisdiction of the private court in some sort of contract
that the 'regular judiciary' would be duty bound to respect
in the absence of any excellent reason not too?
This looks a bit to me like a clause in a contract to seek to
get a problem mediated independently (and faster and less
expensively if possible) before going, failing that, to the courts.
> So you have slow, expensive courts bound by
> statutes and regulations, but this is just another argument for
> the free market.
I don't see how the free market can be given unfettered free
range without destroying itself. Like a fire that doesn't stay
in the fireplace, but burns the house down.
Seem to me that some of the problems of globalise arise
because the free market is expected to work without the
rule of law being established first. The free market may allow
slavery, human rights abuses (safe work environment etc) and
the removal of the forms of institution that give societies order
if it is not checked to some extent. Imo anyway, I'd be
interested to see how an alternative view might run.
Regards,
Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 18:29:45 MDT