Animal cruelty and child molestation in AC land

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
The big picture (for the tldr-ers) is that ACists must either describe some half-assed system of justice, which winds up looking like a very poorly- and arbitrarily-run state; or they must admit pedophiles and sadists would be given free reign.

Since they prefer to do neither, they post head-shots of OJ, instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Linus, I have a hard time you just don't understand the words that are in front of you.

You claim that an arbitrator that supports child molestors will get clients- child molestors. But what good is their judgement? Everyone will laugh at it. Why would a child molestor waste his money getting a judgement that is worth nothing? If a private arbitrator's only clients are child molestors, how will they ever make money? They will quickly be driven out of business.

I can get a PhD in physics from a clown college diploma mill for $100. Yet people still go to Harvard paying big bucks for their diploma. Why is this?

The state does not PREVENT child molestations. It punishes those responsibe in the ones it finds out about. This is not really any different, so this "big hole" you found really isn't one.

But hey, if you declare yourself the victor in any debate, you might as well continue that pattern.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
You claim that an arbitrator that supports child molestors will get clients- child molestors. But what good is their judgement?

[/ QUOTE ]

Their judgement is valued according to the same standard as anyone else's: the ability to compel compliance.

[ QUOTE ]
I can get a PhD in physics from a clown college diploma mill for $100. Yet people still go to Harvard paying big bucks for their diploma. Why is this?

[/ QUOTE ]

These are apples and oranges. A diploma acts like a guarantee of value on which to enter voluntary transactions. On the other hand, a "judgement" from a private arbitration firm represents an involuntary claim against someone who may or may not be under contractual obligation to honor it.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You claim that an arbitrator that supports child molestors will get clients- child molestors. But what good is their judgement?

[/ QUOTE ]

Their judgement is valued according to the same standard as anyone else's: the ability to compel compliance.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Sounds like you have something here.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I can get a PhD in physics from a clown college diploma mill for $100. Yet people still go to Harvard paying big bucks for their diploma. Why is this?

[/ QUOTE ]

These are apples and oranges. A diploma acts like a guarantee of value on which to enter voluntary transactions. On the other hand, a "judgement" from a private arbitration firm represents an involuntary claim against someone who may or may not be under contractual obligation to honor it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't really demonstrate why they are different. If as you admit, a judgement is only worth anything if it gets enforced. The reputation of a defense company that enforces judgements by child molestors will be extremely low. They will have very few customers. People will be willing to stand up to them. They will lose any conflicts they enter. So an arbitrator that finds in their favor will routinely produce a judgement worth nothing.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't really demonstrate why they are different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure I did. A diploma is part of a voluntary transaction, whereas a judgement is involuntary.

[ QUOTE ]
The reputation of a defense company that enforces judgements by child molestors will be extremely low.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, reputation is one component. There are others as well, such as financial backing and force of arms, both of which can be increased on an ad hoc basis for a wealthy client.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You didn't really demonstrate why they are different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure I did. A diploma is part of a voluntary transaction, whereas a judgement is involuntary.



[/ QUOTE ]

But you didn't explain why this is relevent. Of course they are different in *some* regards.


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The reputation of a defense company that enforces judgements by child molestors will be extremely low.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, reputation is one component. There are others as well, such as financial backing and force of arms, both of which can be employed on an ad hoc basis for a wealthy client.

[/ QUOTE ]

How wealthy of a client would be needed to stop the rest of society? Probably much wealthier than the ones who get away with it today:

[img]http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_RqsdPBVGQHIAi1SjzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NDgyNWN 0BHNlYwNwcm9m/SIG=12pqa8usv/EXP=1175883165/**http%3A//www.ba.no/multimedia/archive/00108/Michael_Jackson_108752a.jpg[/img]

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
But you didn't explain why this is relevent. Of course they are different in *some* regards.

[/ QUOTE ]

A judgment has to be mandatory to be useful. Your reputation argument uses comparisons to voluntary transactions, which is a discrepancy on an important point.

[ QUOTE ]
How wealthy of a client would be needed to stop the rest of society?

[/ QUOTE ]

The client would not have to take on the rest of society. This would be the case if society had organized itself a lawful government, but AC doesn't have one.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you didn't explain why this is relevent. Of course they are different in *some* regards.

[/ QUOTE ]

A judgment has to be mandatory to be useful. Your reputation argument uses comparisons to voluntary transactions, which is a discrepancy on an important point.



[/ QUOTE ]
I at least see how you are confused. Basically it comes down to this- a company that enforces judgements needs resources. It can get these through either taking them by force or voluntary transactions. To take them by force, I need a lot of resources (to at least get anything sizeable). I also will likely not get them without a force. I believe you have tried to make the argument before that seizing things by force is very profitable. I think this is much less likely to be true. If I enforce a judgement that is clearly biased or unfair, I could easily be sued and have my assets seized by stronger defense orgnizations.


[ QUOTE ]
How wealthy of a client would be needed to stop the rest of society?

[/ QUOTE ]

The client would not have to take on the rest of society. This would be the case if society had organized itself a lawful government, but AC doesn't have one.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

But if a society is against child molesting, you pretty much would have to be able to stop them. A society tolerant of child molestors clearly wouldn't do much.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Here’s the central problem for ACists: when it comes to defending the defenseless, ACists must either:

A.) Admit that it won’t happen, or
B.) Describe how it’ll be prevented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does this obligation come from? Your personal whim?

And it has been described. The solution will emerge from the market. People want the defenseless defended (as evidenced by your obvious concern about this issue) so there *is* a demand for such services. Your objection has been met. Unless you mean that you want to know *what* the solution will be. In which case, you should consider the following:

Here’s the central problem for evolutionists: when it comes to the emergence of new species, evolutionists must either:

A.) Admit that it won’t happen, or
B.) Describe what species will emerge.

I also refer you to these previous threads:

LINK

LINK

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's to stop the most powerful businessmen from deciding that things will be infinitely more profitable if they enforce their will on the people. Will "neutral arbiters" stop the system from being overthrown? I just don't see how AC sustains itself or how it is remotely practical.

As a Libertarian, I agree with the general contention that the state oversteps its bounds and is overly powerful throughout the world, but in order to prevent a new state from arising and enforcing a totalitarian regime, it is necessary for at least some minimal level of government. How else will the system be stable?


[/ QUOTE ]

To play the Devil's Advocate, what is to stop a powerful businessman from doing the same when a 'minimal government' is in place?

[/ QUOTE ]

The lawful government of the people acting as a check on the power of private of wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is so special about this, as compared to this:

The people acting as a check on the power of private of wealth.

and in any event, the problem as I see it is the 'lawful government' not wealth.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, the richest 2 people in the world, and both americans are giving away their vast fortunes to charity. This is the reality. If they were building tanks and agressing against others I would accept your point as valid.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe you have tried to make the argument before that seizing things by force is very profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

In many situations throughout history it has been, though not always.

[ QUOTE ]
If I enforce a judgement that is clearly biased or unfair, I could easily be sued and have my assets seized by stronger defense orgnizations.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just made my point for me. Reputation is important all else being equal. Ultimately though the decisive factor would be force, strategically speaking.