SandySandfort on October 24, 2010, 02:03:00 pm
If a lawyer stands to lose personally, or will suffer in terms of his reputation if his client is guilty...

IF... First, please justify your ridiculous assumptions that these conditions would obtain. Then we can talk. Since the rest of your post is predicated on these two conditions being true, they fail if you cannot demonstrate how the lawyer (sic) "stands to lose personally." Failing that, jjust passing gas. In the real world, lawyers take on clients (serial murderers, pedophiles, Mafiosi, etc.) that should reflect negatively on their reputations. Au contraire mon frere. Instead, such clients enhance their reputations. You think the mouth-piece for the Mob cries about his bad reputation? He laughs all the way to the bank then cracks jokes about it at the country club.

I cannot think of any simpler way to explain that.

Your intellectual limitations are not the problem here. We get what you are saying. It's just that you have not done the head work to support it. If your assumption are not justified, your conclusions are just bare opinions.


J Thomas on October 24, 2010, 02:11:35 pm
Quote
In short, Bob the "Warden" is a lot more like a hotel manager than a warden. The only difference is that this manager is charged with the obligation of keeping tabs on his clients. If his clients are beaten or otherwise abused ( in a non-consensual manner ), they have recourse. They may have their own surveillance devices; this is not like Terra, where police consider the private use of surveillance devices to be a felony.

...no. But I'm the Warden. It not a "felony" but I can just say it's "Against prison rules" and confiscate them until they're found guilty or innocent.

That looks bad. Then say a prisoner claims you did something wrong -- rape, say. He isn't allowed to show his own surveillance evidence because you took it from him. You'll do better if your own surveillance has no gaps and people are convinced it isn't something you could tamper with.

If the custom is that you should let your "guests" have their own surveillance, but you refuse, it might easily cut down on your business. Anybody who's at all scared of you will choose a different jailer, provided they can afford it. But if you're the rock-bottom cheapest then this won't even be an issue for people who're too poor to have their own surveillance gear.

Quote
Quote
In both case the ''perpetual'' slavery you are decrying is impossible because both parties benefit if the debt is paid quickly.

Actually, the slave holder benefits from understating the value of the slaves work as much as possible so he can keep him on staff longer. Your argument is false.

Yes, the slave holder does better by setting his costs for your keep and your security high, and the value of your work low. The longer he can keep you at low pay the better off he is, assuming you're a good worker. On the other hand if there are many jailers who want workers, the arbitrator is likely to choose the high bidder rather than the low bidder.

So I think if there are many prisoners and many prisons that need prisoners to make their profits, competition will probably tend to keep the system honest. But if the community has one single prisoner and one single prison, then there's room for a lot of abuse and it might be caught by careful accountants or maybe not.

So the worse the system works as a whole -- the more criminals there are who get caught -- the better the system of competitive for-profit prisons should work. and vice versa.

Quote
If a lawyer stands to lose personally, or will suffer in terms of his reputation if his client is guilty, lawyers will be much less inclined to take clients who are thought to be guilty. This means that if you're likely thought to be guilty it will be harder to get a good laywer. This does not mean that you CAN'T, or that it never happens, just that it's a system that is not purely evidence based if being thought to be guilty pre-trial makes you more likely to be found guilty.

I cannot think of any simpler way to explain that.

Yes, but if I understand Terry Freeman's idea, if you are likely to be found innocent then it becomes hard to find a reputable arbitrator to take your case. So the very fact that it has gone to arbitration at all means the arbitrator has already looked at the plaintiff's case and thinks it's a good one. Defense lawyers will tend to lose cases, and if that damages their reputations they're probably used to it. If you want a defense lawyer without a bad reputation, maybe you should choose one without any experience. Or speak for yourself.

Quote
Quote
So I guess if you get into this situation, my most important observation is: It sucks to be you.

Yes, of course it does. But the fact remains that if there's no actual evidence against me (as there isn't in this scenario because I know I didn't really do it), I may end up paying a very large fee for the crime despite. In that situation, any court will be necessarily biased one way or the other and us both agreeing on a judge will be next to impossible.

It should be possible for your counselors to find some arbitrator that neither of them knows enough to predict.

If Bob thinks you stole from his shed, and he has surveillance equipment there, presumably he has pictures of somebody who looks kind of like you. Perhaps you could get surveillance pictures of you from other sources, plus pictures of other people who look kind of like you, and persuade people that the evidence is not damning.

But then, what if you are Jewish and the society is antisemic? Or you're arab and the society believes they're at war with arabs? Or you're black and they're racists who assume you're a criminal? In that case it will be hard for you to get a fair deal from that society no matter what the official rules are. You do better to go live somewhere else. In the meantime, it sucks to be you.

sams on October 24, 2010, 02:26:28 pm
Quote
First in the case of Petty criminals, like that girl who had a whole arc story on her. if the crime is petty, then the amount of stuff to be given back to the victim is by definition small ... so your concern about poor criminals being enslaved is nonsensical.

It is entirely possible to engage in nonviolent, small scale theft, where the total sum of money lost or goods damaged exceeds the criminals total net worth. Your argument is incorrect.

How many Petty Criminals currently cause damages greater than their potential 5 year income m8 ? I doubt it is enough to produce a potential underclass. You will need a lot of petty criminals creating nuclear meltdown will escaping to have one.

Quote
Quote
In both case the ''perpetual'' slavery you are decrying is impossible because both parties benefit if the debt is paid quickly.

Actually, the slave holder benefits from understating the value of the slaves work as much as possible so he can keep him on staff longer. Your argument is false.


Dude the productivity of the slaves in the American South and Brazil suggest that you are wrong, enslaving someone reduce his productivity. Having them longer on staff doesn't solve means that they will be even less productive.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2010, 02:42:59 pm by sams »

SandySandfort on October 24, 2010, 04:00:04 pm
If the custom is that you should let your "guests" have their own surveillance, but you refuse, it might easily cut down on your business. Anybody who's at all scared of you will choose a different jailer, provided they can afford it. But if you're the rock-bottom cheapest then this won't even be an issue for people who're too poor to have their own surveillance gear.

Bingo.

jamesd on October 24, 2010, 04:07:54 pm
It is entirely possible to engage in nonviolent, small scale theft, where the total sum of money lost or goods damaged exceeds the criminals total net worth. Your argument is incorrect.

In Singapore, they flog them.  Petty theft is very rare in Singapore.  You could also tattoo "thief" on the forehead, or brand them.

« Last Edit: October 24, 2010, 06:31:17 pm by jamesd »

macsnafu on October 25, 2010, 11:00:46 am
[
If a lawyer stands to lose personally, or will suffer in terms of his reputation if his client is guilty, lawyers will be much less inclined to take clients who are thought to be guilty. This means that if you're likely thought to be guilty it will be harder to get a good laywer. This does not mean that you CAN'T, or that it never happens, just that it's a system that is not purely evidence based if being thought to be guilty pre-trial makes you more likely to be found guilty.

This point bugs me about current society, but it may be relevant to your comment.  The purpose of the defense attorney is not get his client off at any cost, but to ensure that his client's rights aren't violated, and that the prosecution sufficiently proves its case.  Therefore, why should the lawyer's reputation be affected because his client is found guilty of the crime?
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

terry_freeman on October 25, 2010, 11:06:12 am
Quote
In short, Bob the "Warden" is a lot more like a hotel manager than a warden. The only difference is that this manager is charged with the obligation of keeping tabs on his clients. If his clients are beaten or otherwise abused ( in a non-consensual manner ), they have recourse. They may have their own surveillance devices; this is not like Terra, where police consider the private use of surveillance devices to be a felony.

...no. But I'm the Warden. It not a "felony" but I can just say it's "Against prison rules" and confiscate them until they're found guilty or innocent.

You REALLY don't get it. Would-be customers will not accept a warden with such insane rules. You can go pound salt and they will find a warden who will respect their rights.

If you remember nothing else about anarchy, remember this - nobody, repeat nobody, has the "right" or "privilege" to take away the rights of other people. This is a totally different kind of society than the fascism and privileges upon which statist judges, wardens, police, and legislators ordinarily rely for support.

There are no monopolies. Customers - including those accused of violating the rights of others - have choices. In an anarchic society, their right to reasonable treatment will be respected.

curthowland on October 25, 2010, 11:53:12 am
So, to draw a very basic example, if I beat up someone and nobody cares enough to stop me then I've just violated ZAP without any consequences.

Just like you can speed (break the law), pass hundreds or thousands of people who don't care enough to stop you, and therefore break the statute law without any consequences.

Human nature doesn't change because statutes are law or not.

In fact, your example could easily come to pass if the tradition of "outlawry" is recognized. For that matter, the survivor of the attack by the Terran space-navy shot and killed two human beings in cold blood, who were tied up sitting in chairs.

Quote
1) We can work it out between us peacefully.
2) We can pick a court, third party meditation, arbitrator, etc, and both agree we will abide by his ruling whatever it might be.
3) We can shoot at eachother.

3 is clearly not a functioning society,

Really? Not functioning? The how did "society" exist for thousands of years while dueling was recognized as a lawful private contract?

Quote
Now, I'll grant, most people will probably choose 1, but the fact remains that a court that is biased against those who are presumed guilty upon entering it is a court that people in a free society will be less likely to chose.

Your error is clear: The defendants agreed to have the case heard before that adjudicator. Without a "legal tender law" in courts, any court that had a reputation for "bias" like you state would quickly have no defendants agreeing to use it and the biased adjudicator would go out of business.

With competition there would also be specialization of adjudicators into fields of speciality, so the adjudicator could be reasonably expected to have skills in the field in which the crime occurred, as well as adjudicators cooperating with other adjudicators on more complex cases that deal with multiple specialties.

This is well handled by Roderick Long in his talk, "Answers to 10 objections to Anarchy":

http://mises.org/media/1250

KBCraig on October 27, 2010, 05:23:52 am
If you're put off by the EFT arbitration system, then you would be absolutely appalled at the actual legal system in place in America today.

It is the actual system where the only three options are slavery, fines, or death. Participants who don't care for those options are screwed -- they have no choice, even if they're the victims.

bjdotson on October 28, 2010, 09:11:43 am
A lot of posts in this thread refers to Merry as a lawyer. I don't believe that was her function. Remember that the miscreants were from somewhere else and they were not familiar with the way things work. Merry was asked to serve as a guide to help them through the process. People that had grown up in the system would not have needed that help (although I am sure that if they felt themselves unequal to the that task they could ask somebody for help).

I don't think she was the right person for the job since she herself was trying to act like a lawyer not a guide, thereby showing that she did not fully understand the system.

A guide was suggested to ensure fairness and this was a good idea, however Merry VOLUNTARILY assumed many obligations that she did not need to do.

Another thing left out of the discussion is the possibility that the miscreants could have friends to wire the restitution to them if found liable (a better word than guilty I think) and amount owed were stated.

Scott on October 28, 2010, 03:59:52 pm
Quote
If a lawyer stands to lose personally, or will suffer in terms of his reputation if his client is guilty, lawyers will be much less inclined to take clients who are thought to be guilty. This means that if you're likely thought to be guilty it will be harder to get a good laywer. This does not mean that you CAN'T, or that it never happens, just that it's a system that is not purely evidence based if being thought to be guilty pre-trial makes you more likely to be found guilty.

I think you mis-read what happened here. Merry went into the proceeding on the presumption that if her clients were found guilty she would lose nothing except her time. After guilt was established, she agreed voluntarily to post a bond for them to guarantee they would make restitution.

As far as reputation goes, lawyers/advocates represent guilty clients all the time -- in which case they perform the function of mitigating the punishment/restitution passed against their clients.

dough560 on November 07, 2010, 01:27:50 am
As I remember, Merry was identified as Terran Lawyer who had recently immigrated to the belt, who had agreed to represent the perps as their advocate.

Advocate or lawyer, the job is the same.  Insure the perps receive representation or guidance during the legal proceeding. The perps guilt or innocence will have no influence on Merry's community standing.

Merry's community standing will be affected in the manner she handles the bond posted for her clients debt resolution.

In short, a better situation then the current U.S. Legal System.  Especially for the perps and victims.