Not all situations are guaranteed to have a just and reasonable solution that meets that test.
I know. My local Quaker Meeting has split over the issue of known child sex offenders, with some wanting to extend dignity & respect to all God's children, and some insisting that the KCSO always always always be accompanied by a non-KCSO adult member. Quakers are normally very good at finding a third way; in this situation, that third way has not yet appeared. And, normally when the third way doesn't show, one side or the other agrees to "withdraw" their objection so that the whole Meeting can "move forward". That has also not happened, and it's not going to, as far as I can see. The KCSO in question remains in limbo, rarely comes to Meeting, and sticks close to the friendlier adults when he does.
It seems to me that the solution here lies with the KCSO himself. If
he proposed always being supervised, the one side would be satisfied, and the other side would have to grant him the dignity of accepting his voluntary self-restriction. If he does not have the creative wisdom & insight to see this himself, I don't know how to help him.
(I bring up Quakers because self-arbitration is what Quakers do.)
It's quite true that there is no guarantee of a good outcome. I keep saying that AnCap isn't a good system for people who need guarantees and other assertions of safety and security. Government makes promises of guarantees and security, but it can't deliver:
life isn't safe, and not even government can change that.
The Quaker Meeting above has been existing in this unresolved state of uncertainty for several years now.
As to the Africans in question, the farmers may indeed be sacrificing their future by spending their present (overfarming with chemicals, kind of thing). Self-arbitration would require both sides to go extra-hungry for a while; if they turned to an outside arbitrator, however, that outsider might be able to ask his people and their neighbors for emergency donations, just a year's worth or a season's worth, to get the crop rotation started. On second thought, even in self-arbitration the two sides could together appeal to outsiders for emergency help -- and I think they'd be more likely to get it if they showed how they were working together to solve rather than enforce.
No guarantees again. Not anywhere.
Interesting idea. It isn't at all a full solution, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.
Not at all a full solution. The next steps are better taken by the former contestants themselves, I think.
So rather than focus on who's right and who's wrong, who *deserves* to get things his way, you looked for ways for people to get along
Getting along, by definition, works. I'm a little disturbed by the quality of surprise I perceive (or imagine) in your tone; is it really that strange?