Awful idea. So, to prove how awful my idea of a free market approach to law enforcement is, you link to a story of how government law enforcement miserably failed? Did you really think this through?
Um...what?
Explain to me how that news story would have happened if there were no privately run juvenile detention centers? If the public detention center had remained open?
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
The problem was with for-profit juvenile detention centers, which were paying the judge to send them more kids. If the detention centers were run by the government, there would be no incentive to bribe the judge to send more kids to juvie for inconsequential crimes.
--
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2636/ivotedphoenixyi0.png No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga
Explain to me how that news story would have happened if there were no privately run juvenile detention centers? If the public detention center had remained open?
The issue isn't the detention centers, the issue is the judges. In a free market system, when one particular agency of justice proves to be corrupt, you can take your business elsewhere.
In any case, if your position is that government run detention centers are "free" you are wrong. If your position is that police and judges aren't pressured into convicting people, regardless of whether the detention center is private or public, you are wrong.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Also, how can these detention centers be considered a product of the free market if 100% of their business comes from the government. That's something of a contradiction as well. A truly free market enterprise can only exist by courting the voluntary business of customers who choose to transact with them.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Judges are not bribed to convict people under a government run justice system, because there is no financial incentive for that to happen. And who gets to "take their business elsewhere?" The defendants? They don't have a say in where they go.
--
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2636/ivotedphoenixyi0.png No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga
From: SmartMuffin | #103 The issue isn't the detention centers, the issue is the judges. In a free market system, when one particular agency of justice proves to be corrupt, you can take your business elsewhere.
Then what if all of them become corrupt? No law for honest citizens?
Look, I'm about to just stop posting in this topic. If you guys really are interested in the mechanics of free-market defense services, you should probably seek out people with much more expertise on the matter than I. I'm just some guy who reads some Internet articles.
Here's Dr. Murphy offering a brief summary of how it would work. Only one hour. Not nearly enough time to get into the real details of the matter!
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I think you're missing the point here. Who gets to choose where a defendant goes in this free market system? The defendant? Well then he'll go to the free market option where the defendant is always found innocent. What about if the prosecutor gets to decide? Then he'll go to the court that convicts all but the most obviously innocent defendants. It doesn't work either way.
--
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2636/ivotedphoenixyi0.png No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga
SmartMuffin posted... Then what if all of them become corrupt? No law for honest citizens?
Then the honest citizens start their own. What a pointless question. It's like asking "what if ALL restaurants decide to start poisoning people?"
What if all restaurants decide to put trace amounts of cocaine in their food so that their customers get hooked and keep coming back?
This isn't even entirely hypothetical--used to be an issue with Colas....
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
Well then he'll go to the free market option where the defendant is always found innocent. What about if the prosecutor gets to decide? Then he'll go to the court that convicts all but the most obviously innocent defendants. It doesn't work either way.
I fail to see how businesses that are in the market of fairly arbitrating disputes will succeed with a "we find everyone guilty" or "we find everyone innocent" business model.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
From: SmartMuffin | #113 Well then he'll go to the free market option where the defendant is always found innocent. What about if the prosecutor gets to decide? Then he'll go to the court that convicts all but the most obviously innocent defendants. It doesn't work either way.
I fail to see how businesses that are in the market of fairly arbitrating disputes will succeed with a "we find everyone guilty" or "we find everyone innocent" business model.
They get fewer clients, but charge more to those that do want to use their service in exchange for guaranteeing a favorable result?
SmartMuffin posted... I fail to see how businesses that are in the market of fairly arbitrating disputes will succeed with a "we find everyone guilty" or "we find everyone innocent" business model.
What market forces are encouraging them to be fair, though? Who pays their paycheck?
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
They get fewer clients, but charge more to those that do want to use their service in exchange for guaranteeing a favorable result?
It's really, really, not that simple. Look, as I said, if you're legitimately interested, go do some research. I can't answer all of your questions, I'm not a professional economist. If your point is to say that a free market system would have flaws, that's obviously true, but that's only relevant if your assumption is that the current system DOESN'T have flaws. Good luck with that argument!
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
SmartMuffin posted... Well then he'll go to the free market option where the defendant is always found innocent. What about if the prosecutor gets to decide? Then he'll go to the court that convicts all but the most obviously innocent defendants. It doesn't work either way.
I fail to see how businesses that are in the market of fairly arbitrating disputes will succeed with a "we find everyone guilty" or "we find everyone innocent" business model.
Well then tell me who's deciding which court a particular defendant goes to. Those are the options that make the most sense to the involved parties. The only other party with any standing is the society as a whole, represented by (gasp) their government, which is administering the very courts you deem to be too socialized or whatever. The government's the only party without a clear bias, though.
--
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2636/ivotedphoenixyi0.png No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga
No, you're not an economist. But the question stands, and is really super obvious. Who gets to decide which court to go to? The plaintiff or the defendant? They can't both choose.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
red sox 777 posted... No, you're not an economist. But the question stands, and is really super obvious. Who gets to decide which court to go to? The plaintiff or the defendant? They can't both choose.
The right of choice goes to the winner of best 2 out of 3 rock paper scissors.
--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch
Who gets to decide which court to go to? The plaintiff or the defendant? They can't both choose.
Ideally, they both agree. Or, they go to two different courts and the two courts agree. In the worst case scenario, you could always have a businesses whose job was to arbitrate differing claims among courts sort of like how we have "bankers banks" already today.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Ideally, they both agree. Or, they go to two different courts and the two courts agree. In the worst case scenario, you could always have a businesses whose job was to arbitrate differing claims among courts sort of like how we have "bankers banks" already today.
How could they possibly agree? They're both going to choose the court that's best for their case, and unless all the courts are the same, those are definitely going to be different courts.
As for the arbitrator between courts, that sounds exactly like our current court system.
Remember, the whole point of a judicial system is to exercise control over people who do NOT consent to it. It is involuntary. The purpose is to protect our liberty and property.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
red sox 777 posted... Remember, the whole point of a judicial system is to exercise control over people who do NOT consent to it. It is involuntary. The purpose is to protect our liberty and property.
Smartmuffin is a hippie's hippy. If only we go just get rid of the BIG BAD MEAN GOVERNMENT, we could all live together in peace, harmony, and happiness in a society built entirely on voluntary interaction on every level.
--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch
SmartMuffin posted... What market forces are encouraging them to be fair, though? Who pays their paycheck?
The general public, who presumably, on the whole, wants fair results.
Ok, so the public collectively chooses a judge company, and law abiding citizens pay them, so that neither prosecutors nor defendants pay the judge's paycheck, and thus bias the result. This is what you're arguing for, yes?
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
redrocket posted... Smartmuffin is a hippie's hippy. If only we go just get rid of the BIG BAD MEAN GOVERNMENT, we could all live together in peace, harmony, and happiness in a society built entirely on voluntary interaction on every level.
Oh, wow, you're right.
Smart Muffin is totally a Marxist!
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
Smartmuffin is a hippie's hippy. If only we go just get rid of the BIG BAD MEAN GOVERNMENT, we could all live together in peace, harmony, and happiness in a society built entirely on voluntary interaction on every level.
Nope. I'm not a utopian. As I said, there would still be flaws with a completely free-market system. I just think it would still be a lot better than what we currently have.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/