Animal cruelty and child molestation in AC land

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. And if your reputation is crap, and you try using force, you will get destroyed. But yes, if an evil genious somehow gathered 90% of the wealth, we would be screwed.

[Skidoo]

So when gangsters extort protection money from a local merchant, they get away with it because they've built up such a great reputation over the years?

An equivalent situation would apply to self-appointed "judicial" firms.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
So when gangsters extort protection money from a local merchant, they get away with it because they've built up such a great reputation over the years?



[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between the mafia and the government: SIZE.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
So when gangsters extort protection money from a local merchant, they get away with it because they've built up such a great reputation over the years?

An equivalent situation would apply to self-appointed "judicial" firms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gangsters often bribe the government officials. How powerful do you think the mafia really is?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So when gangsters extort protection money from a local merchant, they get away with it because they've built up such a great reputation over the years?



[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between the mafia and the government: SIZE.

[/ QUOTE ]

The mob generally provides stuff that people want that government seeks to deny them. Also, the government kills a lot more people, with a higher percentage of the victims being innocents.

[ShakeZula06]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Utopian and has never existed.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So when gangsters extort protection money from a local merchant, they get away with it because they've built up such a great reputation over the years?



[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between the mafia and the government: SIZE.

[/ QUOTE ]

The mob generally provides stuff that people want that government seeks to deny them. Also, the government kills a lot more people, with a higher percentage of the victims being innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand corrected!

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure which theory of AC-arbitration you're talking about. I know that under one theory, if your neighbor (or whoever) thinks you're abusing your children, they'd go to your house and take them (or lure them out and snatch them, or whatever). And then it'd be up to you to go to an arbitrator and get a judgment telling them to give your kids back. If you got the judgment, and the neighbors laughed at it, I suppose you'd be up the creek.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with the arbitrator. If someone thought they could just come to my house and take my children, because they thought I was a child molester, I'd consider it an act of war, and I'd go after them.

When I wrote the bit you quoted, I was thinking of a system where there the neighbor had to go to court before he took the children.

But I realize there's a large number of different theories about how AC justice would work, and that whether defense-friendly (or "innocent until proven guilty" types") would have any business would depend on whether the defendant had any say in the matter.

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone will laugh at it. Why would a child molestor waste his money getting a judgement that is worth nothing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why anybody would bother with judgments or courts at all in an anarcho-state. But if they did bother with them, and there was a "free market" in judges, it seems obvious that defendants would "hire" defendant-friendly judges, and plaintiffs would hire those who were favorable toward them.

[ QUOTE ]
If a private arbitrator's only clients are child molestors, how will they ever make money? They will quickly be driven out of business.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the part that you're missing in this, is that you think what litigants want is "justice," and that therefore the most "just" judges would win out in a free market. But what litigants want is to win their case, and what you're going to find is that defendants will think certain judges are most fair, and plaintiffs will think the same of an entirely different group. To give you one example - nobody ever hired a lawyer because he was "fair." People hire lawyers because they think he will help them win their case.

That's part of the reason you can hire your lawyer, but you can't hire your judge.

[ 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?

The state does not PREVENT child molestations. It punishes those responsibe in the ones it finds out about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fewer people commit crimes because of the danger of getting arrested, tried, and convicted.

If you don't agree, I'd point out that there's more (for example) child prostitution in places where there's either no government, or the government is ineffective.

I'd also point out that (to take another example) no internet poker sites operate out of the US.

If you still don't agree, I'd point out that fewer people buy and sell cocaine in the US, because they don't want to go to prison.

If you still don't agree, I guess we'll have to agree not to disagree about that.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why anybody would bother with judgments or courts at all in an anarcho-state. But if they did bother with them, and there was a "free market" in judges, it seems obvious that defendants would "hire" defendant-friendly judges, and plaintiffs would hire those who were favorable toward them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not obvious at all.

I had a dispute with a cleaning service firm. This cleaning service firm is a member of the BBB - the firm pays the BBB, not me. I filed a complaint with the BBB - a "customer" of the firm - and they have the complaint in their file, for anyone to see. When we were unable to settle the dispute, the BBB set up private arbitration. The BBB-selected arbitrator ruled in my favor. The firm could have gone out and gotten their own arbitrator/judgement mill to sell them a favorable judgement, but they didn't. Why not?

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
The firm could have gone out and gotten their own arbitrator/judgement mill to sell them a favorable judgement, but they didn't. Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two different ways to answer this question. The first is to point out that when people go to arbitration, they do it because they don't want to go to court.

I want to be clear about this - I have nothing against arbitration. I also have nothing against pre-trial negotiations. But the reason why people settle out of court - and why they agree to arbitration - is because they know that if they don't, the issue will be decided by a judge, and that the judge's decision will be binding, and that they might get less (or lose more) than they would by negotiating, or through arbitration.

In other words, it's the fact that there is a trial, and a verdict, at the end of the line that creates the incentive for people to settle, and to agree to arbitration in the first place.

The other way to answer it is to ask a different question: why is it that (for example) Pennzoil v. Texaco was not settled by the Better Business Bureau? Why did Bush go to the Supreme Court in Bush v. Palm Beach Co., rather than to an arbitrator?

The Better Business Bureau is fine if you're having a dispute with your cleaning lady. It's not so great if you're trying to decide a serious issue, or if (for example) you're charged with a crime.