Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You seem to think the inclusion of an arbitration provision means the parties are "opting out" of the law. Any litigator can tell you you're seriously mistaken. Putting aside Sidd's incisive comments regarding the enforceability of ADR outcomes, dispute resolution in arbitration relies on the existence of a well-developed body of substantive law that was developed in government courts. That is what makes it The Law. Arbitration works well when the substantive law is highly developed and not much in dispute, such as commercial contracts. Would arbitration work as a form of dispute resolution with inherent authority where the law is a little more fuzzy, like child custody proceedings, or the criminal law? Hardly.
The state is a human community that successfully claims a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. You propose to live in a world where that monopoly is subjected to competition? We have a name for those places: the Third World. Move there if you dare.
|
No, they are opting out of the court system. I'll tell you what I told him . . . re-read my post. I already acknowledged the enforcement issue, and said it was necessary to a stable society - hence my comment regarding the threat of the gun.
So getting back to the real issue, can you justify progressive taxation, other than on the fuzzy (and I think intellectually dishonest) "benefits" theory?
