Property and water rights?

[CallMeIshmael]

Before I respond: I actually dont know a great deal about how judges/courts work in AC land, so if you could quickly give me a run down / gimme a link that would be great.

Specifically, how we choose a judge, what happens if we cant agree, etc.

[Brainwalter]

Sure I'll do my best. Dispute resolution/justice/arbitration in AC would be provided, like many other services, by private, competitive businesses. Keep in mind that I cannot predict market outcomes in advance and so the remainder is not complete, nor is it something I advocate in the sense of wanting to "implement" it, rather this is my speculation on how the market could possibly provide that service. Like someone in 1990 theorizing about what possibilities the internet offered.

So some people go into arbitration business and open their doors as a court. Their customers are people with some sort of dispute who want it resolved fairly and agree to abide by the court's decision. This means the court's business depends on their reputation for rendering fair judgments. Those that don't may find it difficult to attract customers to their kangaroo court.

How do we choose? depends on the nature of our dispute. If we have a contract with each other, we ought to have designated an arbirtrator in advance or not entered a contract. If we don't have that we have to find one we can both agree on. Failing that, a few things might happen: A coase theorem type solution (you won't go to court? Will you get off my lawn for $10?), a violent conflict, or option c: One or both of us goes to court alone to seek a judgment. If we get one from a reputable court then we may be able to enforce that judgment against the other party without fearing reprisal from his security forces. e.g. you get a judgment barring me from trespassing, you remove me from your property, I come back with my police company, you show them the judgment, and they tell me I'm out of luck, they won't back me up against a reputable judgment because they have a reputation too.

Maybe not the best quick description, there are others in the archives if you want to look for them.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure I'll do my best. Dispute resolution/justice/arbitration in AC would be provided, like many other services, by private, competitive businesses. Keep in mind that I cannot predict market outcomes in advance and so the remainder is not complete, nor is it something I advocate in the sense of wanting to "implement" it, rather this is my speculation on how the market could possibly provide that service. Like someone in 1990 theorizing about what possibilities the internet offered.

So some people go into arbitration business and open their doors as a court. Their customers are people with some sort of dispute who want it resolved fairly and agree to abide by the court's decision. This means the court's business depends on their reputation for rendering fair judgments. Those that don't may find it difficult to attract customers to their kangaroo court.

How do we choose? depends on the nature of our dispute. If we have a contract with each other, we ought to have designated an arbirtrator in advance or not entered a contract. If we don't have that we have to find one we can both agree on. Failing that, a few things might happen: A coase theorem type solution (you won't go to court? Will you get off my lawn for $10?), a violent conflict, or option c: One or both of us goes to court alone to seek a judgment. If we get one from a reputable court then we may be able to enforce that judgment against the other party without fearing reprisal from his security forces. e.g. you get a judgment barring me from trespassing, you remove me from your property, I come back with my police company, you show them the judgment, and they tell me I'm out of luck, they won't back me up against a reputable judgment because they have a reputation too.

Maybe not the best quick description, there are others in the archives if you want to look for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very good summation of what I've gathered about AC.

The cliffs version would be: If you and the agrieved person entered into a contract, then the contract will almost certainly stipulate what "House of Arbitration" the matter will be heard in.

My issues have always been with authority without the existance of a contract (i.e. the ol' "He's on my lawn so I shot him" issue).

Cody

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is the concept so difficult that you can't describe in a paragraph or two?

[/ QUOTE ]
Partly. And if the concept has already been fleshed out by others, it's nice to be able to link it instead of rehashing it and perhaps scrambling some of the message in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've always disliked this line of thinking. If the arguments were persuasive enough to convince you, you ought to remember them well enough to be able to summarize them without mangling them, and if not, you shouldn't link them in the first place.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Now I'm not sure I understand the question. Of course she is "allowed" to agree. Based on your knowledge of AC, what mechanism could exist to not allow her to?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt know of a mechanism, but I had always assumed that there was something that somehow prevented certain rights from ever being questioned.


If a large majority of people feel black people dont deserve rights (such a large majority that it would certainly be economically favourable for the courts to hold this opinion), can courts just decide that black people dont deserve rights?

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now I'm not sure I understand the question. Of course she is "allowed" to agree. Based on your knowledge of AC, what mechanism could exist to not allow her to?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt know of a mechanism, but I had always assumed that there was something that somehow prevented certain rights from ever being questioned.


If a large majority of people feel black people dont deserve rights (such a large majority that it would certainly be economically favourable for the courts to hold this opinion), can courts just decide that black people dont deserve rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Theoretically possible, in the same sense that if everyone in America decides black people don't deserve rights then they can vote to implement that. If everyone else in society decides they don't recognize black people's rights then they probably won't have de facto rights under any system, except a very autocratic one with a sympathetic (to blacks) ruler. What system do you know of that doesn't have this problem?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is the concept so difficult that you can't describe in a paragraph or two?

[/ QUOTE ]
Partly. And if the concept has already been fleshed out by others, it's nice to be able to link it instead of rehashing it and perhaps scrambling some of the message in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've always disliked this line of thinking. If the arguments were persuasive enough to convince you, you ought to remember them well enough to be able to summarize them without mangling them, and if not, you shouldn't link them in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
Meh, sometimes I'm too lazy to go through all of that when a few links would do. I don't do this too often and the links I gave aren't all that long.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically possible, in the same sense that if everyone in America decides black people don't deserve rights then they can vote to implement that. If everyone else in society decides they don't recognize black people's rights then they probably won't have de facto rights under any system, except a very autocratic one with a sympathetic (to blacks) ruler. What system do you know of that doesn't have this problem?

[/ QUOTE ]


So, just to clarify: in AC land, the majority has the ability to take away the rights of the minority?


Isnt this one of the biggest complaints ACist make about a democracy?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically possible, in the same sense that if everyone in America decides black people don't deserve rights then they can vote to implement that. If everyone else in society decides they don't recognize black people's rights then they probably won't have de facto rights under any system, except a very autocratic one with a sympathetic (to blacks) ruler. What system do you know of that doesn't have this problem?

[/ QUOTE ]


So, just to clarify: in AC land, the majority has the ability to take away the rights of the minority?

[/ QUOTE ]
The majority has the "ability" to try to do this in any society.

[ QUOTE ]
Isnt this one of the biggest complaints ACist make about a democracy?

[/ QUOTE ]
The complaint is that people can (and have) use the state to externalize the cost of doing such things themselves.

[Copernicus]

"So some people go into arbitration business and open their doors as a court. Their customers are people with some sort of dispute who want it resolved fairly and agree to abide by the court's decision. This means the court's business depends on their reputation for rendering fair judgments."

Once again, this is not correct and its proven in arbitration hearings every day of the week. An arbitrators business does not depend on rendering FAIR judgements, it depends on rendering judgements that are balanced between groups of complainants, regardless of the merits of individual cases.

I've seen arbitrators decisions that twisted them into pretzels trying to justify a ruling in favor of a unions position, because his last 3 decisions were in favor of employers, and if he doesnt maintain balance he's off the short list of one side or the other.