why I am not "anarcho-capitalist"

[ama_gi]

@filc

What makes you think consumers would continue to subscribe to a rigged game?

Maybe they don’t know that it’s rigged?

Maybe when they signed the contract with their employer, they didn’t realize that Acme Law Corp was paid off by employers.

I repeat, the more jurors are on a case, and the more unpredictably they are assigned, the more difficult it is for money to influence the outcome.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Then you’re inconsistent. Why not resolve the contradiction?

@bloomj31

Because I think I stand to gain more from being inconsistent.

Then you have neither intellectual integrity nor honesty. And, despite what someone here claims, only the truly butthurt believe that telling someone such is a transparent concession of the point. You have clearly admitted that you don’t care about the truth and that you have no integrity. I’m waiting to see if that someone will see this and recant his idiotic position.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@bloomj31

Let me tell you something I’ve learned in just 23 years of life. Those with integrity are often ruined by those without it. We live in a disgusting world.

Yes, we do. But they key is to not give up your integrity. Be the master of your own mind.

[filc]

@ama gi

@filc

What makes you think consumers would continue to subscribe to a rigged game?

Maybe they don’t know that it’s rigged?

Maybe when they signed the contract with their employer, they didn’t realize that Acme Law Corp was paid off by employers.

I repeat, the more jurors are on a case, and the more unpredictably they are assigned, the more difficult it is for money to influence the outcome.

I’m not making a pretend notion that corruption won’t exist. My point is that it will be stifled by consumer sovereignty. It is not in a business’s best interest to do not what consumers want.

What you have outlined above is precisely the system we have today. So I am confused at whether your defending my case? Or makeing a huge error in defense of yours.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@bloomj31

Guys, your integrity is good. But look at what the Senate is doing. None of those men have integrity. AND YET, they’re making negotiations will all our money. Nelson sold out. Where is his punishment? How does he lose now? By losing an election?

Eventually he’ll die, as we all do. If nothing else, that will be the justice. Your questions belie a naive belief in Ultimate Justice.

[wilderness]

ama gi,

Could you please respond to this? if you don’t want that’s fine. maybe you skipped it on purpose.

I think this thread is to be focused on you, in a way, since you brought up the original post with questions and such to follow.

[ama_gi]

@Angurse

There isn’t any anarcho-capitalist commandment saying you need have such a thing. The plaintiff and defendant could just as easily take the case to the barber down the street.

But what happens when the crook doesn’t agree to take the case to anyone?

Is there going to be some legally binding contract he signed that says he has to go to trial? Of course not.

The plaintiff and defendant cannot resolve the matter between themselves. If they could, there wouldn’t be a dispute in the first place. That is why society has to set rules and establish courts of justice.

[Angurse]

@ama gi

society has to set rules and establish courts of justice.

Sure. But society hardly means state.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@bloomj31

Sure, you guys win from a philosophical point of view.

Yes, we do. That’s all we need to do.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@ama gi

I’d take direct democracy over an-cap any day. An-caps seem to think that it’s a good idea to have a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts with different law codes–and what could possibly go wrong?

@Knight_of_BAAWA

What could possibly go wrong with letting people vote on rights! It’s not like they could pass a law stating that blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. Oh wait–they could. It’s not like they could pass a law stating that jews could not own property. Oh wait–they could.

@ama gi

Not true.

Yes, it is true that they could do so. Why you refuse to believe such is not my problem. That you wish to create a red herring isn’t my problem either. Deal with the could.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@bloomj31

The flaw is not the system. It’s humans. We’re the problem.

So the solution is to put humans in charge? The solution is a human-run coercive monopoly?

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@ama gi

You don’t get it, do you? Whoever picks the judges and jurors gets to rig the game. That is why jurors should be picked at random (by lottery, or something).

What if I don’t consent to be a juror? What if no one does?

[nirgrahamUK]

@ama gi

That is why society has to set rules and establish courts of justice.

yes, but which ones ? which rules? which courts? a root choice is that of monopoly ones on the one hand or competitive ones subject to consumer sovereignty on the other?

… but this is old news to you ?

[ama_gi]

@wilderness

@ama gi

1 - Citizens arrest. If somebody commits a crime, you either arrest them yourself, or hire somebody else to do it.

Wouldn’t that be a logical, in other words, not impossible outcome of a no-state society?

Yes of course.

@wilderness

@ama gi

2 - I don’t care if you call it “public” or “private”. The idea is that if you commit a crime, you get dragged to the nearest courthouse, instead of haggling over multiple, competing courts.

And why wouldn’t that happen in a no-state society? Again logically, meaning it’s not impossible, that this may be the case.

If you have a myriad of competing arbiters, PDAs, insurance companies, etc., it seems inevitable that a lot of haggling would take place. Whereas If you have a legal right to a trial-by-jury at the nearest courthouse, it makes things a bit simpler.

@wilderness

“large” is arbritrary and vacuous in meaning. You gave a number but not a quality, meaning, and identity of who this ‘group’ is.

The idea is that the petitions would serve as guidelines for the courts.

For example, if one petition required the death penalty for certain crimes, and another petition with more signatures abolished the death penalty, the death penalty would become unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void.

The people are the legislature, and they make the laws.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Paid by whom? And wouldn’t the whom look a lot like a PDA? If not–how not?

@ama gi

Jurors would need to be paid by court costs, not some monthly or annual “subscription fee”.

Sounds like you’re just replacing a hired cook with a come-as-you-want restaurant. I see no fundamental market difference otherwise.

@ama gi

The costs should be split evenly between both sides.

Why?

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@ama gi

Of course I understand consumer sovereignty. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Which is exactly why I DON’T want everything to be judged by professional private arbiters.

Ok…but what is it that you’re arguing against here?

[ama_gi]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@ama gi

You don’t get it, do you? Whoever picks the judges and jurors gets to rig the game. That is why jurors should be picked at random (by lottery, or something).

What if I don’t consent to be a juror? What if no one does?

What if nobody consents to be an entrepreneur? What if nobody consents to be a worker, or an employer, or a retiree? huh? huh?

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

I’d like an answer to my question.

[Sphairon]

@ama gi

Is there going to be some legally binding contract he signed that says he has to go to trial? Of course not.

In my country, if you decide to buy something on credit and then refuse to pay, the seller will likely report you to an organization that specializes in assessing an individual’s creditworthiness. Scamming might work for you one or two times, then it’s over. Prepayment or cash for you.

So, if you decide to ride roughshod over people, institutions and standards on the free market, eventually, people will refuse to trade with you. After all, you appear to be dangerous to them. That’s a form of punishment that doesn’t require a contract you signed.

[nirgrahamUK]

@ama gi

What if nobody consents to be an entrepreneur? What if nobody consents to be a worker, or an employer, or a retiree? huh?

Then they are offered money (‘purchasing power’) this is an attempt to overcome their disutility of labour, and to effect their cooperation without recourse to violence.