timstarr2001 wrote: > --- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, Chris Edes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> timstarr2001 wrote: >> >>> --- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, Chris Edes <chrisedes@> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> timstarr2001 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> --- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, Chris Edes >>>>> > <chrisedes@>wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> timstarr2001 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> --- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, Chris Edes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> <chrisedes@>wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm just saying, the reason businesses don't have their own >>>>>>>>>> defense forces... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Many businesses do have their own security forces. Angola >>>>>>>>> requires all multinationals doing business in Angola to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> provide >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> their own security. Private security frequently does a >>>>>>>>> > better > >>>>>>>>> job at protecting its clients than the government does. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> Executive >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Outcomes did a much better job of protecting the people of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> Sierra >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Leone than did the government of Sierra Leone. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tim Starr >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Last I heard Executive Outcomes didn't do charity work. Who >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> will >>> >>> >>>>>>>> protect the natural rights of the poor? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Friedman points out the nifty solution to this problem >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> that >>> >>> >>>>>>> comes from medieval Iceland, which had all-private law- >>>>>>> enforcement: If X commits an offense against Y, and Y is too >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> weak/ >>> >>> >>>>>>> poor to prosecute X for the offense, then Y's claim against X >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> is a >>> >>> >>>>>>> legally transferable property right. Y can then sell the >>>>>>> > claim > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> to >>> >>> >>>>>>> Z, who presumably is strong/rich enough to enforce the >>>>>>> > claim. Y > >>>>>>> gets compensation for the offense, and X gets punished for the >>>>>>> offense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In a modern scenario, Z could enforce Y's claim against X >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> either on >>> >>> >>>>>>> a contingency basis, or pro bono. Law firms do pro bono work >>>>>>> already, plus there are also legal charities that do work for >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> those >>> >>> >>>>>>> who can't otherwise afford it. Law-enforcement firms could >>>>>>> > do > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> the >>> >>> >>>>>>> same. Such pro bono work would be good for estabilishing/ >>>>>>> maintaining the reputation in the marketplace of the firms as >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> good >>> >>> >>>>>>> at their jobs, thus serving as indirect advertising for more >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> paying >>> >>> >>>>>>> business. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> What kind of "contingency basis" can Z work on? Y doesn't >>>>>> > have > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> any >>> >>> >>>>>> money to pay Z. X sure as heck wont. If it's NOT pro bono, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> where >>> >>> >>>>>> is this money coming from? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Z will get it from X, the same way that successful plaintiffs >>>>> >>>>> >>> collect >>> >>> >>>>> judgements from their defendants today. (Or, in the case of >>>>> >>>>> >>> indigent >>> >>> >>>>> defendants, penal servitude could also be an option.) >>>>> >>>>> Tim Starr >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> A criminal court may levy a fine. But in contract disputes, the >>>> judge does not take a cut. >>>> >>>> >>> What does that have to do with anything? I'm not proposing that >>> judges take a cut, just plaintiffs/prosecutors. >>> >>> Tim Starr >>> >> You said "Z" would be compensated for his trouble, when helping "X" >> defend his rights against "Y". Z must serve as a judge of whether >> or not X's claim is valid. >> > > Nope. Z is a prosecutor/plaintiff, not a judge. > > Tim Starr
Then who judges? Someone must determine the party at fault. You can't just believe any claim, and then help someone enforce it. People will lie for personal advantage. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
