From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 19:09:32 MDT
--- Brett Paatsch <paatschb@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> 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?
Actually, most law here in the US today is practiced this way.
Arbitration is the primary means for parties to minimize their legal
costs. Even in cases where state courts have handed down verdicts, if
the parties arbitrate a separate settlement, the state verdict can be
set aside. The state judicial system, optimally, should only ajudicate
cases where parties can't or won't go through arbitration. It should
only be a safety net, like social security, unemployment security, and
other social safety nets, and should not be freely accessible for those
with means to pay for private adjudication.
>
> > 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.
How, exactly, would it destroy itself?
>
> 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.
A free market would not allow slavery, ipso facto. If workers are not
free to leave employment, they are not in a free market. It is,
however, the responsibility of employees to determine their own best
long term rational self interest. In areas where exploitation of
ignorance is possible by capital, collective bargaining via unions is a
legitimate and libertarian means of raising up the awareness of the
proletariat so that they can act as self-responsible individuals.
It is rather obvious that those in our economy left most ignorant are
those educated by the state apparatus. Whether this be at the hands of
mercantilists looking to exploit or socialists looking to launch
revolution (probably a bit of both), it is also rather obvious that
even in the area of education, free markets produce the highest quality
products and have the happiest workers.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
Pro-tech freedom discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 19:18:42 MDT