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!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!intelca!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Litigation
Message-ID: <878@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Jan-86 17:06:09 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.878
Posted: Tue Jan  7 17:06:09 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Jan-86 20:54:56 EST
References: <955@mmintl.UUCP> <28200515@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 69

In article <28200515@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
> [Mike Huybensz	...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh]
> >How do "laws" get passed in a libertarian society?  What coerces
> >someone into responding to a lawsuit or paying judgements aginst him?
> 
> A very good question. There is an extensive literature  on  that.
> Defining one scheme as *the* libertarian solution would be wrong.
> The way I see it, laws would be contractual obligations.
> Enforcement would be private.

Please tell us more about the way you see it.

Who do you contract with for laws?  Everybody you meet?  A private law
maker/judge/enforcer?

Why do you contract for laws?  Are you fair game for anyone otherwise?

What happens to someone who cannot afford to contract for laws?

> >> 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."
> 
> Well, actually it *does* happen much, and is called out-of-court
> settlement. And in *criminal* cases, there is plea-bargaining.
> 
> The basis for negotiation, in both  cases,  is  an  *anticipated*
> court decision. Because, under the present system, *that* is what
> defines the correlation of forces between the parties - the State
> being  the  force majeure.

From this I can draw two points:  1) That we already have MORE of the system
you want than I had considered.  So what more do you get from your changes?
2) Our state performs the function of compelling notice.  What would perform
the comparable function in a non-coercive fashion in your idea of a
libertarian "court"?  Not just of individuals, but of powerful organizations?

[30 or so lines on lawyers' and legislators' effects on complexity of law
ommitted.  I disagree, but want to argue something else.]

> >Arbitrartion between unions and employers is one example of where both sides
> >can compel attention; polluters and sufferers don't fit that criterion.
> 
> You are quite right that arbitration doesn't work  when  one  of
> the parties is powerless. This is a point that needed to be made.

Not generally powerless: powerless with respect to one party at one
particular time is all that is necessary.  So then how does an aggreived
but "powerless" party get satisfaction in your libertaria?

> Other relevant points are:
> - Moral power is a kind of power too, and often proves decisive.
> - No large group of people is powerless.
> In particular, pollution victims, if numerous, have both numbers  and
> moral  high  ground.  They  have *many* ways to compel attention.

Fine.  I'm Joe Miner And Smelter Owner, the major polluter of your valley.
My products are sold primarily outside the range I pollute.  Go ahead,
how are you gonna compell me?  I laugh at your "moral high ground", and
if you try to coerce me, I'll righteously set my rent-a-cops on you.
-- 

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