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: <874@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 4-Jan-86 18:31:52 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.874
Posted: Sat Jan  4 18:31:52 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jan-86 20:47:58 EST
References: <955@mmintl.UUCP> <4340042@csd2.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 24

In article <4340042@csd2.UUCP> sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes:
> >/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) /  1:21 am  Jan  2, 1986 */
> 
> >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.
> 
> What does "compelling the other's notice" mean?  Is this legal jargon?

No, it's not legal jargon, it's English.  :-)  Very simply, if one doesn't
force people to listen to you, you're not going to have any attention paid
to your complaints.  For example, if I'm a big, bad libertarian polluter,
why should I listen to your whining complaints, courts, etc.?  Why can't
I just ignore you and save myself money?  Whereas if I'm an employer,
and my employees have a right to strike, then they can force my notice by
threatening economic damage to my interests due to work stoppage.
-- 

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