Republican National convetion

[Malachi]

What you imply in this comment is that any deviation from the views prevailing in “people’s posts” (presumably only the people with whom you agree?) is an error (as opposed to a real disagreement), and that no one would disagree with those views unless they hadn’t bothered to read them, as if they were self-evident, as if it’s impossible for someone to have both read and understood those posts AND still disagreed with them.

thats more or less true. Look up “apodictically certain.” bachelors are unmarried men.

In the post you call “factually incorrect” (which leads me to wonder if you know what a fact is), I was mocking this crazy dogmatic view that underlies your comment above.

you were misstating facts of reality. Please explain how the purchase of dispute resolution services is “zero-sum” because you cant, and it isnt, you are wrong.

And I need to stick to coherent discussion and avoid the snarky responses? LOL. I posted a serious comment about political theory, and you responded with…the trivial personal attack quoted above. Here, to sharpen your skills, read this.

you need to read more and post less, you have no excuse for thinking that dispute resolution services are exempt from human action. Your reading comprehension is so poor that you linked me to a thread I already read and posted in.

If you have something to say relevant to whatever topic is being debated, I’m all ears.

no, youre not. Thats why you ignore my posts, obviously.

If not, not. I’m not going to engage you in any more back and forth personal drama, for which you seem to have such a craving.

thats rich. If all you care about is the ideas, then why do you insist on equivocating? This necessarily obfuscates the discussion.

[Minarchist]

Please explain how the purchase of dispute resolution services is “zero-sum” because you cant, and it isnt, you are wrong.

As I already said:

It’s not a zero sum game in the sense that one person totally loses and the other person totally wins. There might well be a compromise of some sort. It is a zero sum game in the sense that 1 interpretation of the facts and 1 interpretation of the law by 1 DRO, will always prevail in every dispute - otherwise the dispute would never be settled. Which DRO occupies this dominant position depends on only one thing: its capacity for violence relative that of other DROs. So long as one DRO has a superior capacity for violence, it will remain dominant: i.e. have all its rulings enforced over the objections of other DROs.

you need to read more and post less, you have no excuse for thinking that dispute resolution services are exempt from human action

Show me where I stated or implied that dispute resolution services are “exempt from human action”? Also, explain what you mean by “exempt from human action.”

[Malachi]

It’s not a zero sum game in the sense that one person totally loses and the other person totally wins. There might well be a compromise of some sort. It is a zero sum game in the sense that 1 interpretation of the facts and 1 interpretation of the law by 1 DRO, will always prevail in every dispute - otherwise the dispute would never be settled.

thats positive sum. You pay for a product and you get it. All parties to the transaction get what they came for.

Which DRO occupies this dominant position depends on only one thing: its capacity for violence relative that of other DROs.

non sequitur

So long as one DRO has a superior capacity for violence, it will remain dominant: i.e. have all its rulings enforced over the objections of other DROs.

further non sequitur

Show me where I stated or implied that dispute resolution services are “exempt from human action”? Also, explain what you mean by “exempt from human action.”

voluntary human transactions cannot be zero-sum

[Minarchist]

Again:

It is a zero sum game in the sense that 1 interpretation of the facts and 1 interpretation of the law by 1 DRO will always prevail in every dispute - otherwise the dispute would never be settled

For any given dispute to be settled, one interpretation of the facts and the law must win (i.e. be enforced) and any others must lose (i.e. not be enforced). Hence it a zero-sum situation.

zero-sum: of, relating to, or a being a situation (as a game or relationship) in which a gain for one side entails a corresponding loss for the other side

This is inherent to all dispute resolution.

Moving on…

You called the following two comments of mine non sequiturs.

Which DRO occupies this dominant position depends on only one thing: its capacity for violence relative that of other DROs.

So long as one DRO has a superior capacity for violence, it will remain dominant: i.e. have all its rulings enforced over the objections of other DROs.

The second claim follows from the first, so I’ll focus on explaining the reasoning behind the first.

When a dispute arises between the client of one DRO and the client of another DRO, and each DRO rules in favor of its own client, how is the dispute settled? More specifically, how is it determined which interpretation of the facts and of the law prevails? There are two possibilities: (1) the DROs fight, and the stronger wins, and has its ruling enforced over the objections of the other DRO, or (2) one DRO concedes to the other and allows its client to be held to the ruling of the other DRO. Why would any DRO concede? After all, if they concede they are failing to provide the service for which their customers are paying. By conceding, they eliminate the only reason that anyone would buy their services at all. So why concede? Because the only alternative is to fight, and they believe they would lose the fight. Hence, the DRO which is stronger (or at least is perceived to be stronger) will be the dominant DRO: the one whose rulings will be enforced over the objections of others when disputes arise.

[Malachi]

Thats incorrect, dispute resolution can arrive at a single mutually satisfactory end.

[Minarchist]

Thats incorrect, dispute resolution can arrive at a single mutually satisfactory end.

The conclusion of a dispute might be mutually satisfactory, but a dispute cannot be settled unless a single interpretation of facts and law prevails. The defendant cannot be both guilty and innocent. He cannot have both done and not done what he was accused of doing. What he was accused or doing cannot both be a tort and not be a tort. That is the decisive element. The feelings of the parties concerned are irrelevant. What matters is that a single view of law and of fact prevails. Put another way, what matters is that a single DRO determines the facts and the law of the case.

…and, as I say in the post above, it isn’t just happenstance that one DRO makes the decisive ruling in a given case. It’s not as if one day it might be DRO X and another day DRO Y and then DRO Z. It will be the DRO that is perceived to have the greatest capacity for violence, and as long as that state of affairs continues, its dominance will continue.

[Malachi]

The conclusion of a dispute might be mutually satisfactory

Thank you

but a dispute cannot be settled unless a single interpretation of facts and law prevails.

incorrect, a dispute resolution only requires that parties to a dispute be satisfied. This does not require “a single interpretation of facts and law prevails”

The defendant cannot be both guilty and innocent.

irrelevant to the resoution of many disputes.

He cannot have both done and not done what he was accused of doing. What he was accused or doing cannot both be a tort and not be a tort. That is the decisive element.

are you feigning unawareness of no-fault settlements?

The feelings of the parties concerned are irrelevant.

entirely fallacious. If the parties to the dispute feel that there is a dispute, the dispute exists. If the parties to a dispute resolve that dispute in any way whatsoever, then that dispute no longer exists. The feelings of the parties to the dispute are the only thing that matter.

What matters is that a single view of law and of fact prevails.

this is relevant to your chosen political philosophy, however it is irrelevant to dispute resolution.

Put another way, what matters is that a single DRO determines the facts and the law of the case.

more ignorance. Oftentimes as many as three organizations might be involved.

…and, as I say in the post above, it isn’t just happenstance that one DRO makes the decisive ruling in a given case. It’s not as if one day it might be DRO X and another day DRO Y and then DRO Z. It will be the DRO that is perceived to have the greatest capacity for violence, and as long as that state of affairs continues, its dominance will continue.

So it doesnt have anything to do with which firm the parties decide to take the dispute to? The most violent form has to run around snatching up all the disputes? Wheres the profit?