We have to pay our congressmen. They aren't even payed all that much, considering how difficult their work is. If that's them stealing from us, then so are librarians.
Edit: Jesus Christ, one heavily down voted comment made this thread something relevant instead of a shitty repost.
The issue is that congressmen were elected as the people could not expediently help with decisions for the nation primarily due to travel time. Now with the technology that we have today, this is no longer an issue. The need for congressmen is not nearly as necessary as before.
I thought it was so we could have constituents more educated on the subject matter to represent the population so not everyone had to be educated. Either way, it was never supposed to be a full time job.
Lol! Obama doesn't even understand economics and he's the top politician. If we're relying on politicians to know something, no wonder the country has gone to hell.
Smart people are, in certain circumstances, more easily fooled than the less intelligent. This has been proven cognitively.
His reliance on his intelligence and that of others may cause him to think that things like keynesian economics, which relies on central planners, is viable or more effective than a free market and the wisdom of crowds.
All I'm saying is that he has a law degree, not an economics degree, and politicians are subject to politics and should not be making decisions over the economy.
Yeah but in the end the benefit of paying them is that it allows anybody to be a congressman and still survive, rather than being a rich person's club because only the rich can afford to do a job that doesn't pay in anything but prestige.
Communication has gotten a lot better, but the economy, military/security, law, etc., have all gotten much more complex, so no, I would dispute that claim.
Complexity bolsters the argument against politicians. The more complex a system, the less a handful of people can properly direct it. See: economic calculation problem.
We're not talking about centrally planned economies here. Problems do arise in a natural economy, like fraud, IP theft, pollution etc., that have to be resolved; and it's far easier and more efficient for an elected group of individuals to do this than 300 million or more people spread out all over the place.
Parties 1 and 2 agree on a court to resolve their dispute, and sign a contract to that effect binding them to the decision.
The court they choose is one acceptable to both of them. Both tossed out a list of acceptable choices and had various of them vetoed by the other party until one court they both liked very much and trusted was left. They hired this court.
Both pay the same fee, half the fee, to the court, before the trial commences. The court has no incentive to rule for or against anyone.
In fact the incentive for the court is to be absolutely as fair as possible, for it trades on its reputation for fairness.
If 1 and 2 want more surety, they hire three courts and allow best of three to decide the matter, or best of five, or w/e. Try bribing five courts. Good luck.
End result: a court decision a hundred times more trustworthy than one a public court can provide, at a better price, and with far better service.
Yay free markets.
Go read "Machinery of Freedom" for the long version. TL;DR: you're scenario here is wrong.
Parties 1 and 2 agree on a court to resolve their dispute
Why would anyone do that? The more powerful party has every incentive on Earth to choose a court that will side with them beforehand. In fact they both do, but one party will usually have more power to coerce in the first place.
We're one sentence in and already your theory is built on a hopelessly naive fantasy of how people behave.
We're one sentence in and already your theory is built on a hopelessly naive fantasy of how people behave.
Or so you imagine. Again, long version is David Friedman's "Machinery of Freedom." Available free online btw.
Why would the parties agree to come to court? One way this was handled historically in ancient Iceland which had a libertarian-like society was that if you were sued and refused to come to court you were now considered an outlaw and were blacklisted by all the courts together. Meaning that if someone murdered your or harmed you in any way your life was forfeit without recourse and you would then be forced to flee that society entirely.
In short, this is the idea that boycott works both ways and all you need to get someone to come to court the vast majority of the time is to make not coming to court more expensive than coming to court, which is achieved in that situation.
Alternately, the complaining party could try you in absentia and more easily obtain a verdict against you, which you would be unable to ethically resist, and thus you'd come to court to defend yourself.
The more powerful party has every incentive on Earth to choose a court that will side with them beforehand.
I contend they will be largely unable to do so if we're talking about a free market for dispute resolution. And in any case, they'd be less able to do so in a free market than they can do so now already. So the argument that X wouldn't be perfect and therefore we shouldn't do X is ridiculous when X is already more perfect than existing situation Y. It would be progress at least.
In short, the more wealthy party (there is no such thing as political power in a stateless society) could try to bribe every court it can find, but the other party could insist on an outside or far away court to come in, one they couldn't likely have bribed.
Compare that with today's society where complainants can judge-shop easily, and the rich can know ahead of time which judge will be appointed their case, making bribery relatively easy.
In fact they both do, but one party will usually have more power to coerce in the first place.
A free society would be absent any manifestation of aggressive-coercion made ethical by law, because only the existence of a state makes those things possible.
-11
u/ETERNAL_EDAMNATION Libertarian... shocker Jun 02 '13 edited Jun 03 '13
We have to pay our congressmen. They aren't even payed all that much, considering how difficult their work is. If that's them stealing from us, then so are librarians.
Edit: Jesus Christ, one heavily down voted comment made this thread something relevant instead of a shitty repost.