Affluenza

[Derek McGowan]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/12/16/is-affluenza-contagious/

If we are able to transition into a objectivist style society, with government limited to courts who settle contract disputes, how do we prevent the judges from becoming the "new" politicians, ie the one's with the power thus the one's whom the "lobbyists" go after with trips and gifts.

Perhaps a separate Internal Affairs department who themselves would have the power to remove judges?

[Selene]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/12/16/is-affluenza-contagious/

If we are able to transition into a objectivist style society, with government limited to courts who settle contract disputes, how do we prevent the judges from becoming the "new" politicians, ie the one's with the power thus the one's whom the "lobbyists" go after with trips and gifts.

Perhaps a separate Internal Affairs department who themselves would have the power to remove judges?

And we all know how trustworthy Internal Affairs Divisions are right?

[jts]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/12/16/is-affluenza-contagious/

If we are able to transition into a objectivist style society, with government limited to courts who settle contract disputes, how do we prevent the judges from becoming the "new" politicians, ie the one's with the power thus the one's whom the "lobbyists" go after with trips and gifts.

Why must judges be government? Maybe the 2 sides could decide on a judge that they both trust. The judges would compete against other judges for trustworthiness.

But it is not necessary to invent a utopia in advance. First put the philosophy in place and then the utopia (if it is possible) will evolve more wonderful than anyone's imagination.

[Derek McGowan]

compete with other judges for trustworthiness? There are judges now that lawyers hope to get because they have shown certain lenience in particular types of cases, if individuals can choose their judge then why wouldn't those judges start to acquire more and more status and power as a reward for specific judgments?

[Selene]

compete with other judges for trustworthiness? There are judges now that lawyers hope to get because they have shown certain lenience in particular types of cases, if individuals can choose their judge then why wouldn't those judges start to acquire more and more status and power as a reward for specific judgments?

Guys, this already exists and it works.

The American Arbitration Association functions quite well.

The AAA was founded in 1926 by the merger of the Arbitration Society of America and the Arbitration Foundation to provided dispute resolution and avoid Civil Court proceedings.^[1]

Many contracts include an arbitration clause naming the AAA as the organization that will administer arbitration between the parties. The AAA does not itself arbitrate disputes, but provides administrative support to arbitrations before a single arbitrator or a panel of three arbitrators. The arbitrators are chosen in accordance with the parties' agreement or, if the parties do not agree otherwise, in accordance with the AAA rules. Under its rules, the AAA may appoint an arbitrator in some circumstances, for example, where the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator or a party fails to exercise its right to appoint an arbitrator.

The AAA role in the dispute resolution process is to administer cases, from filing to closing. The AAA provides administrative services in the U.S., as well as abroad through its International Centre for Dispute Resolution® (ICDR). The AAA's and ICDR's administrative services include assisting in the appointment of mediators and arbitrators, setting hearings, and providing users with information on dispute resolution options, including settlement through mediation. Ultimately, the AAA aims to move cases through arbitration or mediation in a fair and impartial manner until completion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Arbitration_Association

[Robert Baratheon]

Guys, this already exists and it works.

The American Arbitration Association functions quite well.

I respectfully disagree - there are major problems with arbitration.

Arbitrators are agreed upon (either directly or indirectly through a process of elimination) by the parties based on how favorably each side believes the arbitrator will rule. The sides look up earlier decisions of the arbitrator or published statistics and eliminate anyone they feel is likely to rule against them. This appears to be making the process more "objective," but in reality it favors arbitrators who rule down the middle ("split the baby") all of the time without regard for principle. The reality of the judicial system is that most cases aren't close on the merits and don't call for a middle solution. A truly impartial judge is free to dismiss frivolous claims or rule wholly for one side or the other, but an arbitrator who depends upon repeat business is forced to reach an unnatural compromise position or face the inevitable reality of never being selected again. This is how public unions are routinely awarded raises their citites cannot afford through arbitration - the city brings an offer of 0% on the basis they are broke, the unions ask for the moon, and the arbitrator comes down in the middle with a 3-10% raise. In the employment context, arbitration results in employees who can't be fired, even for egregious infractions, because the middle position is always reinstatement with some minor penalty or loss of backpay.

[Selene]

Guys, this already exists and it works.

The American Arbitration Association functions quite well.

I respectfully disagree - there are major problems with arbitration.

Arbitrators are agreed upon (either directly or indirectly through a process of elimination) by the parties based on how favorably each side believes the arbitrator will rule. The sides look up earlier decisions of the arbitrator or published statistics and eliminate anyone they feel is likely to rule against them. This appears to be making the process more "objective," but in reality it favors arbitrators who rule down the middle ("split the baby") all of the time without regard for principle. The reality of the judicial system is that most cases aren't close on the merits and don't call for a middle solution. A truly impartial judge is free to dismiss frivolous claims or rule wholly for one side or the other, but an arbitrator who depends upon repeat business is forced to reach an unnatural compromise position or face the inevitable reality of never being selected again. This is how public unions are routinely awarded raises their citites cannot afford through arbitration - the city brings an offer of 0% on the basis they are broke, the unions ask for the moon, and the arbitrator comes down in the middle with a 3-10% raise. In the employment context, arbitration results in employees who can't be fired, even for egregious infractions, because the middle position is always reinstatement with some minor penalty or loss of backpay.

No kidding Bob.

Kinda like picking a jury with peremptory challenges.

Ever picked one?

Additionally, what is the relative cost of litigation versus arbitration?

Or, between litigation and mediation?

There are case that should be litigated.

A...

[Robert Baratheon]

Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge advocate of alternative dispute resolution methods, especially mediation (even though it takes money from the lawyers - imagine that!) Litigation is a huge financial burden on all parties, and the courts are full of cases that could be better resolved privately. Most people have no idea what they are getting themselves into, especially in employment-related cases. I'm not against arbitration in all cases, but the way it is usually structured to operate in the United States is very problematic.

[Derek McGowan]

My issue Selene is based on the link I provided. Arbitration is fine in a business dispute, but what about in a criminal court, like when a 16 year old kills four and injures 9 by running through a crowd with his truck (see link) In this case, the judgment could possibly be sending someone to jail for the rest of their life. Do we want to have the power to pick judges then? Do we want judges who are influenced by a party's money. Is there anyone who isn't corruptible in such a position?

[Selene]

My issue Selene is based on the link I provided. Arbitration is fine in a business dispute, but what about in a criminal court, like when a 16 year old kills four and injures 9 by running through a crowd with his truck (see link) In this case, the judgment could possibly be sending someone to jail for the rest of their life. Do we want to have the power to pick judges then? Do we want judges who are influenced by a party's money. Is there anyone who isn't corruptible in such a position?

Derek:

I thought this would be raised and I feel that this is a difficult issue for an ethical and moral society that you posit.

George Smith has articulated this more clearly that I could express. He is a member. I wold prefer you asked him.

A...

[Darrell Hougen]

I question the contention that wealthy people generally get off easy. If anything, they are often made an example of. I couldn't find the article I was looking for, that gave some statistics, but here is an example that goes in the opposite direction: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20070611_spilbor.html

Darrell

[Samson Corwell]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/12/16/is-affluenza-contagious/

If we are able to transition into a objectivist style society, with government limited to courts who settle contract disputes, how do we prevent the judges from becoming the "new" politicians, ie the one's with the power thus the one's whom the "lobbyists" go after with trips and gifts.

Perhaps a separate Internal Affairs department who themselves would have the power to remove judges?

Kritarchy just isn't a good model for government. The judicial branch interprets the law, the legislative branch makes the law, and the executive branch executes the law. That's Montesquieu's tripartite model of government and makes sense. Contract law is also only one part of the law.

[jts]

The judicial branch interprets the law, the legislative branch makes the law, and the executive branch executes the law.

Does the law ever get unmade? Maybe there should be a branch that unmakes the law. There are too many laws.

[Samson Corwell]

The judicial branch interprets the law, the legislative branch makes the law, and the executive branch executes the law.

Does the law ever get unmade? Maybe there should be a branch that unmakes the law. There are too many laws.

You know, I've actually seen proposals for something just like that.

[Selene]

The judicial branch interprets the law, the legislative branch makes the law, and the executive branch executes the law.

Does the law ever get unmade? Maybe there should be a branch that unmakes the law. There are too many laws.

You know, I've actually seen proposals for something just like that.

Heinlien goes into that area extensively in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress...wherein they discuss a percentage of voting citizens that could "de-enact" a law.

Not sure if it was 20, or, 30%.

A...

[BaalChatzaf]

The judicial branch interprets the law, the legislative branch makes the law, and the executive branch executes the law.

Does the law ever get unmade? Maybe there should be a branch that unmakes the law. There are too many laws.

You know, I've actually seen proposals for something just like that.

Heinlien goes into that area extensively in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress...wherein they discuss a percentage of voting citizens that could "de-enact" a law.

Not sure if it was 20, or, 30%.

A...

In some ways, Heinlein was on the same track as Rand.