Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Do you think your arbitration provisions would be worth a damn if (1) courts did not enforce arbitration provisions and (2) courts did not enter arbitration awards as enforceable judgments?

If there were no government, and no laws, there would be no lawyers -- litigators or transactional. People hire lawyers to work on deals to make sure that the deal terms are legal, enforceable, and hopefully favorable. This is stating the obvious.

Re-read my post. I've already conceeded the enforceability issue. I also readily conceeded the need for government. But what I do not conceed is that courts are necessary for civil matters. Arbitration can handle this quicker, cheaper and more efficiently.

Your belief that you would have a job in a society without government is faith-based. And defies all evidence -- look how well countries without government, like Somalia, function. Hoo-boy, bet there are a lot of lawyers doing well there.

Again, re-read my post. I've already acknowledged that government plays an important roll in stabilizing society, but other than that it does not play a significant roll in wealth creation.

And your response omits any number of other government inputs into your ability to make a living. You already told us that you ride public transit. Even if you didn't, who provides the roads that you ride on? The police and fire protection for your building? The public schools that probably educated the vast majority of people working at your firm? The postal system that brings most of your correspondence in? The Federal Reserve system that the banks who cash your paychecks -- and maybe hire your firm -- depend on to survive (again, lots of great banks in places like Somalia).

Yeah, the rich don't benefit from government at all.

You are confusing the issues. I did not say that the rich do not benefit. What I said was that the benefits received do not come anywhere near the revenue they contribute. Remember, this started as a debate regarding progressive taxation, and I asked whether anyone could defend it. In my initial post I posited that if you really drill down on the numbers, the rich do not receive the an increase amount of "benefits" which correlates to their contributions.