Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Litigation
Message-ID: <872@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Jan-86 01:21:19 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.872
Posted: Thu Jan  2 01:21:19 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jan-86 00:50:56 EST
References: <955@mmintl.UUCP> <28200453@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 22

In article <28200453@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
> I suggested that laws allowing potential pollution victims to sue for
> damages would constitute *a* libertarian solution.  If someone can
> shoot this down, fine, if not, this is a *theorem of existence*.

How do "laws" get passed in a libertarian society?  What coerces
someone into responding to a lawsuit or paying judgements aginst him?

> Abolish their [lawyers] privileged status - let anyone who wants plead,
> judge and legislate, and free market will do the rest.

With the exception of criminal cases, we already have that.  Any pair of
litigants can select an arbiter (or any other system they want) and work
out their differences under any system of rules they want.

This doesn't happen much because usually one party is incapable of
compelling the other's notice.  Not because of "lawyers privileged status."
Arbitrartion between unions and employers is one example of where both sides
can compel attention; polluters and sufferers don't fit that criterion.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh