Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You keep confusing a free market with government enabled capitalism.
Do you prefer an unfree market to a free market ?
if racism is bad, why hasn't the free market ended it?
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Do you prefer an unfree market to a free market ?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No. You do not like me and that's okay. I'll sleep fine with that knowledge, Prohibitionist.
I could see where racists might not like me though, since we have different view points.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
That's the only place where a person could receive justice.
In the absence of a free market is a coercively controlled market, which automatically removes ANY chance of justice, since the coercion is a foundational element of it and by it's presence has already negated justice.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I would prefer a fair market. However, no, I'm not confusing a free market with capitalism and all capitalism is made possible by gov't since privatization requires gov't enforcement. However, you're a capitalist, since you advocate privatization of economic infrastructure and resources. People who can not afford justice will not receive it in your free market capitalist utopia.
So now you've changed the question. Fine. I'll answer this one, then you answer mine.
The plaintiff in your scenario (the State Prosecutor) does not get to choose the Judge. Are you familiar with our legal system at all?
As far as what the State does when one party refuses to arbitrate, it depends on who is refusing. The prosecutor can drop charges if they don't feel confident in getting a conviction or they can file an arrest warrant if the defendant fails to appear in court.
It's no secret how this works. You could have just looked it up instead of talking in circles.
So how about answering my question now? If both parties must agree to the arbitrator, what do you do when one party refuses?
While racism is bad, it is not free. It usually requires an out-of-date hairstyle and other fashion markers familiar to one's contemporaries. This has tremendous social costs and can, therefore, not be ruled over by a free market.
A free market only works if you believe it does and work real hard to ignore the obvious.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I am intimately familiar with the empire's legal farce. Also the fact that the plaintiff (prosecutor) doesn't choose the individual judge
doesn't mean the plaintiff and the judge don't work for the same entity, because they do. They both work for the state. Your assertion that they are separate is a fallacy. Do you really want to argue THAT point or just concede it ?
A question for you - What recourse does the accused have if he has no choice in who will arbitrate in the present legal paradigm?
This is a partial answer to your question....I could go on, but you'll need to admit that in the present paradigm the accused has no real recourse when the state is BOTH the plaintiff and the judge / court / supposed neutral arbiter.
The following is an excerpt from The Market for Liberty....enjoy.
As in the case of contractual disputes, the threat of business ostracism would usually be enough pressure to get the dispute submitted to arbitration. But occasionally the accused might want to refuse arbitration; and he could be guilty, or he could be innocent. If an accused man were innocent, he would be very foolish to refuse to submit evidence of his innocence to representatives of the arbitration agency and, if necessary, defend himself at an arbitration hearing. Only by showing that his accuser was wrong could he protect his good reputation and avoid being saddled with a debt he didn't deserve. Also, if he could prove that he had been falsely accused, he would stand a very good chance of collecting damages from his accuser.
If, however, the accused man were guilty, he might refuse arbitration because he feared that the arbiters would rule against him. If the accused did refuse arbitration and the injured party had good grounds for his case, he could treat this recalcitrant disputant just as he would treat a man who had stolen something from him — he could demand repayment (for details of how he would go about this and how repayment would be made, see chapters 9 and 10).
That was your original question. And again, it's very simple. The prosecutor works for the state. BIG SURPRISE! There is nothing to 'concede', that's just how it is. The exception being something like family court. Or patent law. Civil matters. But when it comes to criminal, yes, they work for the state. Who else would they work for other than the tax payers? And you say you are familiar with this?
How about you just answer my simple question in your own words? I've answered yours multiple times now.
If both parties must agree to the mediator and one party refuses, what do you do?
To further demonstrate how superficial this so called justice system is..
What if somebody is going around murdering bums? Bums who have no family or friends who would notice they were missing. Perhaps there is no way of identifying the victim.
Who pays for the detetive work? Where does justice come from in this sort of situation?
Further, what if the family of known victims can't afford detective work to prove who the killer was?
Free market justice sure sounds sweet.
What if somebody is going around murdering bums? Bums who have no family or friends who would notice they were missing. Perhaps there is no way of identifying the victim.
Who pays for the detetive work? Where does justice come from in this sort of situation?
Further, what if the family of known victims can't afford detective work to prove who the killer was?
Free market justice sure sounds sweet.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
When you say that's "just how it is" regarding the prosecutor working for the state, then go on to say they work for the tax payer, you were half right, at least in in many instances. Thank you for conceding the point that in the present the plaintiff decides who the arbitrator will be.
Your second question was answered in my previous post.
No, and not even close.
I'm starting to question if you even understand English. Show me where a criminal prosecutor has the power to choose the judge. Show me where your previous post talks about justice for the bum/unidentified victim/poor victim scenarios. All I saw was some drivel about trying to sue people for failure to appear in court. Because, yeah. I'm sure they will agree to that arbitration as well.
You know what I said to myself when I saw I had an alert?
"I bet it's Rob, and whatever it is.. I bet it's not an answer." Of course, it's not much different than predicting the sky will be blue today.
mnbvcxza
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
They don't have to pick the judge. It doesn't matter, the judge is ALREADY part of the same "company" as the prosecutor.
Understand english? I scored the highest you possibly can on a scholastic TSWE test many years ago (translation of standard written english). That's roughly equivalent to an 800 on an SAT, thanks for bringing that up though.
Oh and the sky? It's overcast and gray today.
Yes, it's quite obvious you understand what you are talking about.
"They pick the judge!"
"They don't have to pick the judge!"
Are you going to tell us how the bum/unidentified victim/poor victim gets justice? What about those who refuse arbitration? Do you honestly believe that a murderer is going to agree to a trial?
If you can't explain/defend this shit at all, why do you continue to spam it?