Property and water rights?

[vhawk01]

[ 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?


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

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the difference would be that it is wrong, although perhaps impossible to stop in practice, under an AC philosophy. It isn't even wrong under democracy, even in the U.S.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh. Well, if YOU know of arbitrators like that, surely others must know of them. Hopefully, you'll spread the word. After that happens, I can't imagine anyone going to such an arbitrator, at least not if they want a fair decision.

Should take care of that pretty quickly, if people are really interested in fair decisions. If they aren't, then whats the problem?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh. Well, if YOU know of arbitrators like that, surely others must know of them. Hopefully, you'll spread the word. After that happens, I can't imagine anyone going to such an arbitrator, at least not if they want a fair decision.

Should take care of that pretty quickly, if people are really interested in fair decisions. If they aren't, then whats the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont seem to understand. It is problem endemic and intrinsic to any professional arbitration system, not a problem with individual arbitrators.

edit: And what makes you think both parties in a dispute want a fair resolution? The party that has the merits on its side wants a fair decision, the other party wants a decision in their favor, no matter what the merits are.

It is the flip side of the flaw of the AC solution of DROs for criminal prosecutions. Deep pockets will prevail in many of those cases where the merits don't warrant it, because many DROs will care more about being hired again by the deeper pockets than they are about the integrity of their decisions. By definition market based "justice" favors those who have more influence in the markets.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh. Well, if YOU know of arbitrators like that, surely others must know of them. Hopefully, you'll spread the word. After that happens, I can't imagine anyone going to such an arbitrator, at least not if they want a fair decision.

Should take care of that pretty quickly, if people are really interested in fair decisions. If they aren't, then whats the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont seem to understand. It is problem endemic and intrinsic to any professional arbitration system, not a problem with individual arbitrators.

edit: And what makes you think both parties in a dispute want a fair resolution? The party that has the merits on its side wants a fair decision, the other party wants a decision in their favor, no matter what the merits are.

It is the flip side of the flaw of the AC solution of DROs for criminal prosecutions. Deep pockets will prevail in many of those cases where the merits don't warrant it, because many DROs will care more about being hired again by the deeper pockets than they are about the integrity of their decisions. By definition market based "justice" favors those who have more influence in the markets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely do NOT think both sides want a fair resolution, I think NEITHER side wants a fair resolution, they want whatever benefits them. The problem isn't 'endemic to arbitration' it is a feature of an arbitration system set up to cater to the desires of a customer base that does NOT want fair decisions.

And is thus not a problem.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh. Well, if YOU know of arbitrators like that, surely others must know of them. Hopefully, you'll spread the word. After that happens, I can't imagine anyone going to such an arbitrator, at least not if they want a fair decision.

Should take care of that pretty quickly, if people are really interested in fair decisions. If they aren't, then whats the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont seem to understand. It is problem endemic and intrinsic to any professional arbitration system, not a problem with individual arbitrators.

edit: And what makes you think both parties in a dispute want a fair resolution? The party that has the merits on its side wants a fair decision, the other party wants a decision in their favor, no matter what the merits are.

It is the flip side of the flaw of the AC solution of DROs for criminal prosecutions. Deep pockets will prevail in many of those cases where the merits don't warrant it, because many DROs will care more about being hired again by the deeper pockets than they are about the integrity of their decisions. By definition market based "justice" favors those who have more influence in the markets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely do NOT think both sides want a fair resolution, I think NEITHER side wants a fair resolution, they want whatever benefits them. The problem isn't 'endemic to arbitration' it is a feature of an arbitration system set up to cater to the desires of a customer base that does NOT want fair decisions.

And is thus not a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

And not wanting fair decisions (unless the merits are clearly on your side) is endemic to human nature, as is maximizing the profitability of ones efforts. Thus it is an insurmountable problem of any system that can easily be influenced. Market based justice cannot be relied on for fairness.

[Brainwalter]

[ 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?


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

[/ QUOTE ]

I do believe in AC it would take a lot more than a 50%+1 majority. Just how much is up for debate obviously. And I think the problem "if a sufficient X% of people want to oppress Y% they will" is possibly one of those problems only a utopia can solve, like "some people will try to steal from other people." Ultimately no matter what the system we have to rely on self-evident cultural values of fairness, but fortunately history shows they tend to win out when there is honest debate and free exchange of ideas.

also, what vhawk said.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?


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

[/ QUOTE ]

I do believe in AC it would take a lot more than a 50%+1 majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it would. These sort of "gotchas" always ignore something very important. The absolute *numbers* of people who prefer X or Y or Z don't really matter so much outside of a state. The *strength* of those people's preferences is much more important.

Under a democratic system, the strength of preference is irrelevant. You either vote for or against something. it doesn't cost anything, either monitarily, or in opportunity to express some other preference, since you can check a bunch of other boxes to oppress minorities, or launch missiles "for free".

How many people "oppose gay marriage"? Apparently, a lot of them. But how strong is that preference? How many care enough about it that they would actually fund activities to prevent such voluntary contracts *out of their own pocket*? Instead, they just check a box and make other people pay for it.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?


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

[/ QUOTE ]

I do believe in AC it would take a lot more than a 50%+1 majority.

[/ QUOTE ]
The absolute *numbers* of people who prefer X or Y or Z don't really matter so much outside of a state. The *strength* of those people's preferences is much more important.

[/ QUOTE ]
...and even more important is the strength of the preference-holder; a tyrant is a minority opinion backed by firepower. Which is great, because in ACland, anybody with a little knowledge can build their own ebola-bomb, so the chances of such tyrrany are coming to pass are minimal. Of course, the chances of an ebola outbreak may be a smidge higher, but hey man, bleeding from the eyes or not, at least we'll be free.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
How many people "oppose gay marriage"? Apparently, a lot of them. But how strong is that preference? How many care enough about it that they would actually fund activities to prevent such voluntary contracts *out of their own pocket*? Instead, they just check a box and make other people pay for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, what if the vast majority of people preferred a world in which they could exercise these preferences cheaply? And, they preferred this world so much that they were willing to to fund it out of their own pocket?

[BCPVP]

Lol. First, states have already weaponized germs and chemicals (like ours at one point). Second, the existance of a state doesn't preclude people from knowing how to build an "ebola bomb". So yeah, not very good arguments against a free society.