a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by thenewgreen
thenewgreen  ·  4601 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: What are the benefits of government that cannot be replicated?
I'm not sure I'd want to see the Judicial branch privatized. You might suggest that we could just form a citizens judiciary, but then pretty soon it turns right back in to a govt entity.




Laurelai  ·  4601 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I would advocate an arbitration team thats created temporarily to address specific issues and the dissolved once done.
thenewgreen  ·  4601 days ago  ·  link  ·  
...sort of like a group of randomly selected peers that would render judgment and then disband? Sounds familiar...

Also, who would form the teams, manage their assembling, the process etc... next thing you know you have bureaucracy, next thing you know a semblance of govt. It's unavoidable, you can call it something else but it's still a governing body.

Laurelai  ·  4601 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Except after its all done its completely dissolved, there are no judges holding seats for any real length of time. It would be a binding arbitration process that the participants consent to in advance. Once its over everyone involved goes back to their normal lives as it were.
thenewgreen  ·  4601 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Who would coordinate the gathering? Would a group of random people just gather for arbitrations sake out of thin air? It would take someone(s) to facilitate this, the rules involved etc. In short, someone would be governing the process. What you're arguing for is a different form of governance not the absence of it.

btw, this is a really nice discussion but my babysitter is pulling in the drive. I'll ponder it more as I sip at my bourbon ;-)

Laurelai  ·  4601 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Arbitration would come about as needed, say someone has been stealing from people in town and they believe person X is responsible. They would have a town meeting and agree to start the arbitration process to determine if person X is the one actually behind it or not, it would work in a similar fashion as a jury trial yes. But the "judge" would be a temporary position and only there to make sure that the agreed upon arbitration rules are followed and to keep the proceedings civilized. Guilt or innocence would be determined by the jury as well as any restitution. The accused would be able to opt out of the proceedings in most cases by accepting exile from the community (with obvious exceptions for things like rape and child molestation, serial murder ect..).
mk  ·  4600 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I think a problem with this is that appeals are an important part of the system, and you need a more permanent body to deal with that.

For example, say that someone feels they didn't get a fair trial; they had a complaint against a local business, but because the business was a very large employer in town, few were willing to fault the employer. This person might have good grounds for appeal, but who determines that? What about a minority that feels she was the victim of discrimination in the proceedings?

thundara  ·  4601 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Then you suffer from arbitrary and inconsistent laws for society. And how would you petition for a re-decision? When a group of people come together to enforce something, it's usually a mob, not a well-thought-out, slow, and rational justice model.
Laurelai  ·  4601 days ago  ·  link  ·  
we suffer from arbitrary and inconsistent laws already, the US is sliding into a police state
thundara  ·  4601 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Many of the laws themselves are terrible, sorry, I should have said that it is the system for enforcing them generally works. You have juror screening, fair time to present either sides, and even if the general populous may not agree, unless the jurors do find you guilty of your charges, beyond a reasonable doubt, you will walk free and even be given protection in the event that your life is under threat by friends of a crime victim.

Edit: I should say, I don't think it's flawless, just less terrible than all other presently proposed systems of government.

Laurelai  ·  4601 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Well thats where i think we see things differently , i think a stateless society is less terrible than the others.