|
|
#41
08-01-2007, 11:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I'm confused, but it seemed to me from the OP that laws weren't being randomly disregarded. [/ QUOTE ] By "whim," I didn't mean that the laws might be disregarded randomly or cavalierly, but rather that they might be disregarded unilaterally, in reference only to one's own beliefs and preferences. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words. [ QUOTE ] I thought that some individuals who were part of the State were sometimes acting in accordance with justice rather than with the letter of the law. This might pose some problems if we're saying that they are instead acting according to what they think is just (and, since they uphold the State, we might assume that they're generally wrong about what constitutes justice ), but if they're actually being just then I don't see how this could be bad, since they aren't acting out of sheer whim but rather in accordance with virtue. [/ QUOTE ] The reason it's bad is described in the OP: we don't always know what is just, and certainly government officials don't always know. If we give our blessing to disregard the law when we think it is just, then we will find that the law is sometimes disregarded when we think it is unjust. Perhaps more significantly, we would make it too easy for officials to break the law when they are acting whimsically, or corruptly. What virtues the state does have stem from living under the rule of law rather than the rule of man, so it's worth occasionally sacrificing some immediate utility (or some abstract notion of justice) in order to honor our preference for the former over the latter. That represents a competing (and, I think, compelling) practical and moral interest. 
|
|
#42
08-01-2007, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind, DROs and Arbitration will be profit based, not justice based. If profits happen to align with justice, fine, but the moment they don't, what do you suppose companies will follow. [/ QUOTE ] Under market conditions profits closely follow consumer demand. If justice isn't demanded by consumers then obviously there won't be a heck of a lot of it going around, we fully understand that the market is dependent on the individuals the comprise it. The reason that the market is a better solution is (as usual) the monopolistic actions of the state. What protection is there against an overzealous prosecutor? Best case you can get rid of him and put another in his place under the same structure. What happens when the structure it self is at fault, allowing to much power to certain individuals? As always under a state there are limited (or no) meaningful comparisons. All systems have some level of corruption, how do you figure out if the amount in your area can be feasible reduced, and in what ways?
|
|
#43
08-01-2007, 01:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
And are capable of paying the total costs of the risk, following successful litigation. No point in suing someone who has no money, as any lawyer will tell you! [/ QUOTE ] Then go onto the land, kill ht ecow, pay restitution, problem solved.
|
|
#44
08-01-2007, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And are capable of paying the total costs of the risk, following successful litigation. No point in suing someone who has no money, as any lawyer will tell you! [/ QUOTE ] Then go onto the land, kill ht ecow, pay restitution, problem solved. [/ QUOTE ] Yup, much more efficient than having pesky laws to protect the public. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]
|
|
#45
08-01-2007, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And are capable of paying the total costs of the risk, following successful litigation. No point in suing someone who has no money, as any lawyer will tell you! [/ QUOTE ] Then go onto the land, kill ht ecow, pay restitution, problem solved. [/ QUOTE ] Yup, much more efficient than having pesky laws to protect the public. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] It is the same concept as the state coming in and killing the cow with the caveat that those killing the cow don't get to make the rules about how much restitution (if any) to pay. Despite your unbacked assertions to the contrary (earlier in this thread) the market is far less susceptible to corruption for this, and other, reasons.
|
|
#46
08-01-2007, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And are capable of paying the total costs of the risk, following successful litigation. No point in suing someone who has no money, as any lawyer will tell you! [/ QUOTE ] Then go onto the land, kill ht ecow, pay restitution, problem solved. [/ QUOTE ] Yup, much more efficient than having pesky laws to protect the public. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] It is the same concept as the state coming in and killing the cow with the caveat that those killing the cow don't get to make the rules about how much restitution (if any) to pay. Despite your unbacked assertions to the contrary (earlier in this thread) the market is far less susceptible to corruption for this, and other, reasons. [/ QUOTE ] It depends on how you define "corruption". My definition is inequitable results in any interaction as a result of the undue influence of the more powerful. Perhaps in ACland that precludes there being any corruption by definition. In the real world, though my assertions are backed by a couple of thousand years of history. There are 4 primary influences in human interactions: Ethics (or call it morals, conscience, whatever) Laws (power granted by the community, usually based on ethics) Physical dominance (might makes right) Money (you can buy anything at the right price, including laws and physical dominance). What is more prone to undue influence, Money unfettered by law and enforcement, or Money that is subject to law and enforcement? For them to even be equal law and enforcement would have to be 100% buyable. An unfettered market will be dominated by money. If you dont think so, back it up.
|
|
#47
08-01-2007, 03:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
Laws (power granted by the community, usually based on ethics) [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What is more prone to undue influence, Money unfettered by law and enforcement, or Money that is subject to law and enforcement? [/ QUOTE ] You have started your argument by claiming that 1. there are no laws under the market 2. law and order itself is not influenced by money under a state. Point one is totally rebutted by the existence of common law which was simply the codification of customs used to arbitrate between groups in the absence of a centralized state. Point two has been rebutted by numerous studies, several of which have been linked in this forum over the past year, where it was discovered that conviction rates, fines, jail time, probation and other forms of punishment were had a much closer correlation to the socioeconomic or racial status of the defendant than to the circumstances of their criminal activity. Which perfectly matches your definition of corruption. [ QUOTE ] My definition is inequitable results in any interaction as a result of the undue influence of the more powerful [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#48
08-01-2007, 04:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
You have started your argument by claiming that 1. there are no laws under the market 2. law and order itself is not influenced by money under a state. [/ QUOTE ] He clearly did not claim #2: [ QUOTE ] Money (you can buy anything at the right price, including laws and physical dominance). [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#49
08-01-2007, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You can keep your cow but you are fully liable for any damage (read spreading TB) that it does up to and including taking away your fancy temple to pay the bills. We'll then see how sacred the cow really is. [/ QUOTE ] This works providing people are sane, rational, and good estimators of risk. [/ QUOTE ] And are capable of paying the total costs of the risk, following successful litigation. No point in suing someone who has no money, as any lawyer will tell you! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] This is another absolute failure of AC ideology. [/ QUOTE ] Its in no way unique to AC ideology.
|
|
#50
08-01-2007, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You have started your argument by claiming that 1. there are no laws under the market 2. law and order itself is not influenced by money under a state. [/ QUOTE ] He clearly did not claim #2: [ QUOTE ] Money (you can buy anything at the right price, including laws and physical dominance). [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Conceded.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
