Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
thenewgreen · 4601 days ago · link · · parent · post: What are the benefits of government that cannot be replicated?
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 ;-)
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..).
–
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?