[Potemkin]

Libertarianism: "The safety problem of a nuclear reactor is solved by negotiating between the owner of the reactor and those who are affected by a potential failure".

And how would this 'negotiating' proceed, Nunt? I'm guessing it would go something like this:

TOWNSPEOPLE: Your nuclear reactor is dangerous and has lowered the value of our property, not to mention it may blow up and kill us all horribly. We demand that you spend money to make it safe!

C. MONTGOMERY BURNS: No! Smithers, release the hounds!

*The townspeople scatter in all directions, screaming in fear, as slavering guard dogs chase them off Mr Burns' property*

[nucklepunche]

Exactly the point. Libertarianism would send all business decisions to private courts where the wealthy would always win.

[Nunt]

Exactly the point. Libertarianism would send all business decisions to private courts where the wealthy would always win.

Why are the wealthy more likely to influence the decisions of private courts than government policy? Is there something inherently trustworthy about politicians?

[Godstud]

Best of luck, Eran! I hope we still see you from time to time, you whacky guy!

[ThereBeDragons]

Congratulations. If anything, the left (and certain strains of reactionary right) will probably approve of your new job more than the old because it's not the dread spectre of finance. Now you are doing real work that benefits real people.

Why are the wealthy more likely to influence the decisions of private courts than government policy? Is there something inherently trustworthy about politicians?

Because it's nominally illegal to buy off politicians.

[Nunt]

Because it's nominally illegal to buy off politicians.

This is not something that is exclusive to politicians.

[Potemkin]

Is there something inherently trustworthy about politicians?

Is there something inherently trustworthy about the rich?

[Nunt]

Is there something inherently trustworthy about the rich?

Not really. But why do you assume that we can keep politicians from getting bribed and passing laws that are not in the public interest. Why do you assume that government judges will remain impartial and just? What do these people have that makes them uncorruptible that arbitrators without a government stamp do not have?

[Potemkin]

Not really. But why do you assume that we can keep politicians from getting bribed and passing laws that are not in the public interest. Why do you assume that government judges will remain impartial and just? What do these people have that makes them uncorruptible that arbitrators without a government stamp do not have?

Nothing, aside from the fact that they are answerable to the legal system and must periodically seek re-election. The rich must also answer to the legal system (but can use some of their wealth or connections to try to bribe their way out of trouble), but are not answerable to an electorate. I therefore fail to see what makes the rich inherently more trustworthy or less likely to be exploitative or oppressive than politicians.

[Nunt]

Nothing, aside from the fact that they are answerable to the legal system and must periodically seek re-election. The rich must also answer to the legal system (but can use some of their wealth or connections to try to bribe their way out of trouble), but are not answerable to an electorate. I therefore fail to see what makes the rich inherently more trustworthy or less likely to be exploitative or oppressive than politicians.

You have twisted my arguement a bit. I never supported the idea that we should get the rich to be our judges. Rather I propsed that we used private arbitration to be our judges. So non-government sanctioned judges. I'm not sure what the rich will be doing, but I doubt many billionaires will become judges. The idea I am proposing is not rich judges vs average income judges.

[Potemkin]

You have twisted my arguement a bit. I never supported the idea that we should get the rich to be our judges. Rather I propsed that we used private arbitration to be our judges. So non-government sanctioned judges. I'm not sure what the rich will be doing, but I doubt many billionaires will become judges. The idea I am proposing is not rich judges vs average income judges.

They wouldn't have to become judges, Nunt, they would merely have to bribe them (or, alternatively, threaten them).

[Ambroise]

Not only would they not have to become judges, but they'd probably prefer it if they didn't become judges. That way it doesn't become way too obvious, and in-your-face, and it maintains a thin sense of legitimacy.

It's sort of like when Nelson Rockefeller decided to run for the presidency. Apparently a lot of his friends and wealthy associates were upset with him, and allegedly thought something to the effect of, "You're not supposed to be a president, you're supposed to buy them, you're giving the game away, you fool."

The wealthy are quite clever that way.

[Truth To Power]

Not only would they not have to become judges, but they'd probably prefer it if they didn't become judges. That way it doesn't become way too obvious, and in-your-face, and it maintains a thin sense of legitimacy.

It's sort of like when Nelson Rockefeller decided to run for the presidency. Apparently a lot of his friends and wealthy associates were upset with him, and allegedly thought something to the effect of, "You're not supposed to be a president, you're supposed to buy them, you're giving the game away, you fool."

The wealthy are quite clever that way.

They don't have to be clever, because the 99% are so gullible.

[Nunt]

They wouldn't have to become judges, Nunt, they would merely have to bribe them (or, alternatively, threaten them).

How is that an arguement against private judges? Can government judges not be bought? Can they not be threathened? As Ambroise explains, even presidents are bought.

[Potemkin]

How is that an arguement against private judges? Can government judges not be bought? Can they not be threathened?

Indeed they can. The difference is that a judge who is backed up by the power of the state can call upon that state to protect him if he is threatened, or will be punished by the state if he is bribed. If a wealthy oligarch were to threaten the life of a private judge, then where will that judge turn to for help? The oligarch will have deeper pockets than the judge and will be able to hire more thugs - oh I'm sorry, private security firms - than the judge. The judge will simply be outgunned, and will have no choice but to do what the oligarch tells him, or be killed. We can actually see this happening before our eyes in nation-states with a weak and/or corrupt government, such as Mexico now or Russia in the 1990s.

[Nunt]

Indeed they can. The difference is that a judge who is backed up by the power of the state can call upon that state to protect him if he is threatened, or will be punished by the state if he is bribed. If a wealthy oligarch were to threaten the life of a private judge, then where will that judge turn to for help? The oligarch will have deeper pockets than the judge and will be able to hire more thugs - oh I'm sorry, private security firms - than the judge. The judge will simply be outgunned, and will have no choice but to do what the oligarch tells him, or be killed. We can actually see this happening before our eyes in nation-states with a weak and/or corrupt government, such as Mexico now or Russia in the 1990s.

You wrongly assume that only a state will be able to punish and protect judges. In fact, as you yourself have shown, it is not merely the presence of a state that will be sufficient. Mexico and Russia had a state, but they didn't have a very good rule of law. So your proposed solution: "just install a government" will not be enough. You need something more. You need a government that doesn't just own a lot of guns.

You need a society with norms and values that support the rule of law. This isn't something that comes automatically with government (as the examples show) and not something that is exclusively part of government. Those norms and values that are more important than government are part of a broader civil society. Thus we can have institutions and practices that protect judges from violence and corruption without government. If a judge gets threathened then he will have broad support so that security agencies will have no choice but to support them.

Government isn't the magical solution here. There are more failed governments that succesful ones to demostrate this point.