Best Thread Keynes Vs. Hayek
Martinghoul
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,691
- Likes
- 277
1. Clearly, you're not happy with the government carrying out the regulatory/supervisory function. I can certainly understand that. The natural question that follows is, obviously, what entity would you actually be happy with? What sort of agency, in your view, can exist in capitalist society that is capable of "enforcement of rules"?
2. I can agree with your definition of sound and fair rules, but I am having a hard time coming up with "axioms" that actually hold up as such in society. Your example of property rights, for instance, is only an axiom until you get to the idea of "eminent domain" and similar concepts.
2. I can agree with your definition of sound and fair rules, but I am having a hard time coming up with "axioms" that actually hold up as such in society. Your example of property rights, for instance, is only an axiom until you get to the idea of "eminent domain" and similar concepts.
1. In a free, unhampered market, where competition is allowed, the Insurance industry is best placed to "enforce the rules." This would include the formation of a competitive Justice system, based not on legislation, but rather the Common Law.
The Insurance companies would direct their business to the Courts that provided the most fair, just, transparent and consistent application of the law and legal principals for the reason that their premiums are based upon this variable.
The individual is best served through having a just decision reached. The best chance of reaching a just decision is a fair, just, consistent, logical and transparent application of legal principals. Thus the Court that provides these services, serves both the Insurance company and their individual premium holders.
Interpretation and application of the law, of presenting and evaluating evidence are hardly objective. They are subjective. Hence the premium placed on the above listed qualities. If we stay with a jury system, which I think has integral flaws, I would like to see separation of the jury, and hidden votes. The current system allows excessive influence from dominant personalities.
As to the development of law, the system that developed the Common Law seems to serve the purpose quite adequately. The recent dominance of Statutory Law is anathema.
The judgment of the appeal Court would be binding on all the lower Courts. By the authority granted by all the competing lower Courts. This authority would need to be obtained on a voluntary basis, any lower Court being free to abstain. Market forces would drive the competing Court systems to join, humans, after all dislike, and do not value uncertainty.
Which takes you to competitive provision of security/policing. The model for private security is already well known, so there is no real need to go into that. The Insurance companies would also provide this service, but more importantly, a service dedicated to finding/returning property subject to crime.
2.
Clearly, an individuals "property rights" are violated, by government, claiming, under "legislation" created by government legal monopoly, that their expropriation is "legal."
Hardly.
jog on
duc
Martinghoul
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,691
- Likes
- 277
Ah, so you're envisioning that services related to dispute resolution and enforcement of rules are provided by the private insurance market? Would you care to illustrate this on a practical, reasonably common example? Specifically, suppose I am Bob and Alice is my doctor. I sue Alice, as well as Alice Hospital Co, for malpractice, because she accidentally amputated one of my testicles during a routine examination (let's take an extreme example). Alice has malpractice insurance that will be required to pay out whatever damages the "justice system" decides to award, if any. How do you envision the process is going to operate in the framework you have described?
Right, so you're a believer in sorta extreme "allodial title" (from the same Wikipedia article)? So you believe that there are no circumstances whatsoever under which private property rights may be violated?
The services provided, are the Courts, only not the single, monopoly based Judicial system that we have currently, rather, a Judicial system based on free entry and competition.
It is the Insurance industry that is most propitiously placed to bring this system into place, due to their assumption of risk and liability.
I would anticipate that the Common Law, would, most likely be adopted by all the competing Courts, but, it would not necessarily be so. Market forces would soon winnow out those that failed to deliver "justice."
Sure.
In Common Law, this falls under Tort. I anticipate no change in this at all.
The main point of difference would simply be in the selection of the jurisdiction. Early in the change-over, there would undoubtedly be some "questionable" results. Until reputations were established on the free market as to the quality of the "Justice" dispensed by the various competing Courts, these contentious decisions would have to be appealed. [See previous post.]
Correct.
jog on
duc
Martinghoul
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,691
- Likes
- 277
You misunderstand me, duc... I wasn't asking about the theory and the terminology here. Could you actually illustrate, using the case I have given, how this "private judicial process" (I guess, given your emphasis on Common Law, similar applies to the legislative process) is going to actually work? As Bob the victim with one testicle, what precisely are the steps I am going to follow?
Shall we conduct a bit of a thought experiment here also, in this case? Suppose I own an acre of land in the middle of town... Suppose I am also a bit of a businessman and I decide to build a nuclear waste treatment plant on my property. What do you think should happen in this particular case?
It is precisely the theory that is important. The point being that the "State" is not required to provide the legal system. The legal system can be provided by the private sector.
However let's consider two possible scenarios: you have medical insurance [ii] you have no medical insurance.
In you would lodge a claim against your insurance. The insurance company would if it believed there was a tort to answer, pursue the case.
In [ii] you as an individual would need to engage a solicitor to take legal advice as to whether there was a case to pursue. Assuming that there is, the case would be pursued through the Court system. The Court jurisdiction being decided by opposing councils. The payment of your legal bill would be negotiated by yourself and your solicitor.
The Lockeian principal of first use governing property rights would apply here. Again there are two likely outcomes: the town don't want a nuclear plant [ii] the town do want a nuclear plant [iii] the town is divided in their desire
In the explanation is actually easier by reversing the example. Let's say that a nuclear plant set up on unoccupied land, located in an isolated spot. Later, houses built around the plant, and in due course, complained that the plant, due to the nature of its business, violated their property rights.
The answer here is straightforward, the plant pre-dated the housing. The housing built, knowing the nature of the plant. The choice was made, voiding any contract that the housing relies upon to press against violation of property rights.
In the same way now in your example, the housing etc, pre-dates the nuclear plant. The nature of the existing town, their property rights, would be violated by the placement of a plant in the centre of town.
Property rights, to be considered valid, must not impact other's property rights. In this case, that clearly is not the case.
In [ii] clearly, there is no issue, the town want a plant.
Case [iii] presents the problem. Some want a plant, some don't. In this case, the solution to would prevail. The property rights of the "nay's" even if a minority, even if just 1 individual, prevail. If it is that important, simply buy the individual out.
The far more interesting, and challenging case is where the invasion of property rights involves "pollution" that travels. So an industrial plant wants to set-up upstream/upwind, or an airport, with attendant noise pollution etc.
These pollutions already exist, and it is legally the responsibility of government to police these violations, yet, they do nothing.
This dissatisfaction with pollution is laid at the door of "capitalism" when in fact, it is actually the failure of government to properly enforce property rights and the true costs of production are subsidised, viz. a loss of property rights.
jog on
duc
Last edited:
Which assumptions are outdated and no longer valid?
Rather than proffer nothing more than an opinion, without even an example, never mind an example without an argument supporting that proposition, has little or no value.
jog on
duc
Last edited:
scose-no-doubt
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,630
- Likes
- 954
So what would happen if malpractice becomes criminally negligent to a point where you have to look past tort and damages/striking off just doesn't cut it?
Last edited:
NT mate you ever condsidered giving up trading and writing fiction.
To clarify simply put - to bring us out of our debt crises I prescribe to;
1. Raise taxes
2. Cut spending (and reduce big Gov)
3. Maintain interest rates r < i below inflation to stimulate growth (this also helps with exch rate)
How exactly, do you justify, with economic theory, the three interventions that you have listed?
You have actually listed 4. You assume, a rate of inflation. Where is this inflation rate originating from?
jog on
duc
Then it falls under Criminal Law, within the Common Law.
Common Law, as distinct from Statutory Law, has been with us since Roman times. The case law and precedent, form a corpus of law that covers pretty much everything encountered in the human condition.
But, just supposing it didn't. Then, simply, the case would create precedent, the Common Law would be expanded to include the new circumstances/issues.
jog on
duc
I see you edited.
You are entering another area. You are moving past liability into "consequences" or "punishment" assuming that liability is found to exist.
Currently, consider the system that we have.
We, the taxpayers, fund the Police and Judicial system. My house is burgled. The police catch the guilty party [assume that they are tried and found guilty] but do not recover any of my stolen property, valued at say $1000.oo
So, I am out of pocket $1000.oo [assume no insurance]
I am further out of pocket for paying taxes to support the Police/Court system.
Then, the Court imposes a custodial sentence.
I get to pay, via tax, to support these chaps for their prison term.
How about, I don't pay any tax.
I purchase insurance.
I am robbed, I claim on my insurance.
The chaps are caught/tried/found guilty.
They are required to pay [either to me, or insurance company] compensation, proportional to the value of the theft, say 2X from their wages, or family/friends/charitable contributions to them, as there is now no Welfare State to support them.
jog on
duc
scose-no-doubt
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,630
- Likes
- 954
And what if they have no money to pay?
And who pays for prisons?
And who pays for prisons?
First, why do they have no money?
With regard to prisons. Prisons would be privately produced. This asks then, where is the profit motive for the private sector to build and administrate them?
To answer this question you would need to first consider what crime would necessitate a prison sentence.
Murder, could be dealt with by a death penalty.
Someone who was physically injured during a crime, could be dealt with via flogging, and/or amputation of hands/feet etc.
Theft of property, by compensation in monetary terms proportionally.
My point is this: the incarceration of individuals under the State is excessive. The ratio can fall significantly. The monetary costs, fall in relation to the prison population.
Then, it is put to the free market. A cost, as part of, or in addition to, any insurance policy, would fund the building and running of a far smaller prison system. This cost would be voluntary, under the principal of demonstrated demand. If, not enough money were raised to pay for and support a prison system, then there would be no prison system.
Food for thought.
jog on
duc
scose-no-doubt
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,630
- Likes
- 954
erm because he's a robbing tramp?
new_trader
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,770
- Likes
- 1,656
More food for thought...A large number of people (especially in the USA) are imprisoned for VICTIMLESS crimes (For example, in the United States current victimless crimes include prostitution, gambling, and illicit drug use)...that's Government for you!
Probably add tax evasion to that...how many people would be freed from prison if we abolished income tax..!
Then, he suffer's the amputation of a hand or other bodypart, and throw in a public whipping for good measure. The point being that if he persists in violating property rights of others, his will be violated in return.
Of course, he would be offered the chance at the lesser penalty first, assuming it was a 1'st offence. Persistent thieves however would suffer an escalating scale of punishment, assuming their ownership of assets were exhausted or non-existent.
jog on
duc
Last edited:
Martinghoul
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,691
- Likes
- 277
Right, I have no idea what Bob's insurance has to do with it, rather than Alice's medical malpractice insurance. However, that doesn't matter. Let's say Bob demands compensation for his lost testicle from an insurance company. It's obviously not in this insurance company's immediate economic interest to pay Bob's claim, so suppose they refuse. Can you please be kind enough to specifically describe what happens next? I am not interested in the general "case would be pursued through the Court system" sort of summary, as it doesn't help me understand the proposed design of the "private judiciary".
Right, so let's take what I imagine is the most easily imagined case, i.e. your case , where the town predates the nuclear waste treatment plant and the other town residents don't want it. Let's say that I insist that, due to the simple fact that the land in question is my private property, I am free to do with it whatever I wish, up to and including the construction of a nuclear waste treatment plant. The town residents, understandably, are not happy with this. Can you please, just like in the case above, specifically describe what happens next?
This case is actually not interesting for my purposes at all, so, rather than spreading ourselves thin, why don't we leave it for later.
Simply, should Alice deny liability, Bob claims on his, and the insurance company, if they feel that Alice is at fault, pursue Alice via her insurance.
This of course depends on the policy wording. Assuming Bob can demonstrate the loss/harm, it was not pre-existing, and was caused by the procedure, they pay out.
Alice continues to deny liability. Bob's insurance company pay Bob, but believe they have a case to claim, they initiate legal proceedings. They file with a Court, and await their trial data, assuming no out of Court settlement.
The case is tried, according to Common Law, in front of a Jury. The verdict is delivered. Assuming no errors in jurisprudence from the Judge, case closed. If there is potential/actual error, it goes to appeal.
There are no major differences here save the major one. The Court system is not a government monopoly. Courts are in competition, free entry. The Courts that provide the best, most transparent justice will thrive. Those that fail this test, for whatever reason, will pass away.
No "Statutory Law" means that government lose the ability, the "Power" that accrues to the monopoly granted the right to "create the law."
You take your case to Court, to argue why, your property rights are being violated. If you, or your Barrister, win, you get to build your nuclear plant. If you lose, you don't.
I am saying that you should lose your case, for the reasons already outlined. However, your Barrister may be far superior to mine, and you may actually win your case. Again, as it is the Common Law, it is tried in front of a Jury.
Fine.
jog on
duc
Similar threads
- Article
