"Under such a system wouldn't the richest people be able to act with complete impunity? IE I'm a multi billionaire, so I can kill all the hobos I want because the cost of doing so is something I can easily cover (IE I can easily pay off the insurance company for whatever damages they seek) "
No. This has been gone over any number of times. Can you pay off the arbitrator enough to recompense him for the wages he could expect to earn for the rest of his natural life, because that's what he will lose when his judgements become valueless in the market. Also, since he would then be liable to legal action himself, he has no guarantee he would be able to keep whatever it is you paid him.
If you just reject these out of hand, I will again ask, how is this different under a state? Do you think multi-billionaires could not get away with murder under a state monopoly justice system, where the judges are virtually invulnerable? OJ Simpson? He didn't even kill hobos. He killed people with friends and families. Robert Blake? Not to mention the hundreds of millions of murders perptrated by states on their own citizens in the 20th century alone. Where is their justice? What courts do they have recourse to?
Find a criticism of free market justice systems that actually differentiates them from state monopoloy justice systems in the monopoly's favor and you might have a leg to stand on.
All of this is external to the fact that the majority of conflict resolution, arbitration and adjudication actually already occurs in the private sector because of the enormous costs and time involved in attempting to use state monopoly systems, not to mention the often perverse and unjust results thereof.
Edited by Borodog (03/29/07 04:20 PM)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment