Respect my authority!

[Egon]

Hmm, someone went to jail because they didn't follow a court order. Why does this thread even exist?

[Kuya]

The best way to handle funding for disputes, crimes, etc. Is to have a organization that's similar to a insurance company. That is, it spreads risk amongst a large number of people. So if you need to sue somebody, or somebody is suing you. That organization will provide the funding for your defense, etc. The fees could either be based on individual basis, or a blanket group, for example, an employer insures all his employees.

So if a company does not want to defend you because they know they will lose the case, you are pretty much at the mercy of the other company? This company is not defending you because it thinks you're innocent, it defends you for profit, and if it thinks you will lose, then it will not support you even though you are the victim, and this situation is further agravated by the fact that there doesn't seem to be a judge or a jury to listen to the companies defending the clients. If you have two companies defending its clients, who's supposed to preside over the cases? And who's supposed to enforce the due punishment?

Nobody can answer that for sure, since it will be decided by people themselves how to handle those who have committed murders and such. Now the funding for these judges and the police will be from it's immediate locals. House owners would want good police and fair judges, since it would raise property value

What exactly do you call a "good' judge and "good" police? The ones who will always side with whomever is paying them? If someone commits murder, and the community's judge presides over it, what is going to assure that the judge is fair? Would you be satisfied if the judge, who works for the community, decided to have the criminal killed or tortured? And when someone is falsely accused, what is going to assure that the trial is fair when the entire community think he's guilty, but he may not be? If the police investigates, and they are being paid by the community, what do you think their conclusion will be?

Yes, some people won't pay, but majority will. Why? Do you tip at a restaurant? Why? Humans are funny that way

So basicaly, they're screwed?

Besides, possibly the majority of funding will come from afore mentioned insurance companies, if for example, a large number of their clients live in a specific area, it would be in the companies best interest to keep an eye out there.

So whoever has the most money, wins?

Now the question of bias. It probably doesn't need to be said, but the companies that insure the risks would not want to be on a losing side. Neither would the clients, because of the possibility of increased rates. So in essence they will keep each other honest. So if company A refuses to acknowledge a claim by company B, company B can just advise all it's members not to do business with anyone from company A. An extreme scenario, but you can see how that's very bad for business.

How does it keep them honest? And the example you just presented basicaly has the situation not being resolved because everyone is tugging for their own side.

[Nystul]

I mean...at some point in your life you're going to have to acknowledge the impracticality of this. Just like how most kids get over the desire to be a spaceman by the time they are 10 or how a high school kid gets over the urge to be a gynecologist when he realizes that being wrist deep in diseased pussy all day may not be as glamorous as he once thought.

[guartz]

So if a company does not want to defend you because they know they will lose the case, you are pretty much at the mercy of the other company? This company is not defending you because it thinks you're innocent, it defends you for profit, and if it thinks you will lose, then it will not support you even though you are the victim, and this situation is further agravated by the fact that there doesn't seem to be a judge or a jury to listen to the companies defending the clients. If you have two companies defending its clients, who's supposed to preside over the cases? And who's supposed to enforce the due punishment?

absolutely ridiculous, Kuya. First off, the company is obligated to provide funds for your defense. Not to defend you if they don't want you. Since each company will have actuaries who asses expected losses and gains based on risks, etc. The system works almost flawlessly even if loss is guaranteed with 100% of it's clients. Life insurance, car insurance. etc. Nobody is ever obligated to pay, at least not by force. But your reputation will suffer if you don't. Look at modern credit score ratings. Would you buy something from an ebay account that has 12% approval rating? Sure, but you do it at your own risk. Same goes with the company. You wouldn't do business with a company thats known to stiff it's clients.

Also these sort of things don't need a judge. A simple damage and responsibility assessment done by a third party adjuster if needed is sufficient. Since there is no "law" aside from the contract agreement between the two or more parties. For example, if you get a contract that says, Person A will delivery these products to me, but this person fails to do so, and the contract stipulates that a 500$ fine is assessable. Then you can claim that fine! And if person A refuses to pay, then it will cost person A a lot more to enter contracts in the future. Maybe even his company will pay for your loss.

The only time you need a judge, or some body to preside over a case if it's extra ordinary circumstance. Like murder. Since there are no monetary reparations that could be made.

I don't even think the above scenario is all that necessary, since most people honor contracts. It's just, what if. Society can either use force to guarantee contracts, or we can use law of large numbers and incentives.

What would you prefer?

Better question is... What is more moral?

[archibaldcrane]

Better question is... What provides for the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people?

Fixed.
Hint: Not your system.

[Parshias]

Hmm, someone went to jail because they didn't follow a court order. Why does this thread even exist?

lolguartz.

And I really like the "even if a company loses all of its money all of the time, it'll still be around!" thing. After all, every company does come with its own gold-shitting pig.

[Kuya]

So essentially, this ideology assumes that no one will ever obtain more power than the rest enough to dwarf all established contracts, or even coerce others into contracts. Sounds deliciously idealistic.

Better question is... What is more moral?

Nothing, because rhetoric is worthless.

[guartz]

come on now people, morality exists. There is such a thing as preferred behavior. Especially within society.


Parshias, lol. Call metlife and ask them how their pig is doing! He's been shitting life insurance money since 1950s!

[guartz]

So essentially, this ideology assumes that no one will ever obtain more power than the rest enough to dwarf all established contracts, or even coerce others into contracts. Sounds deliciously idealistic.

I think it's more of a socio-economic theory.


For ideology I'm down with the 40kish type, total military theological superpower.

BECAUSE THERE, NO ONE QUESTIONS RIGHT OR WRONG!

[Raineer]

come on now people, morality exists. There is such a thing as preferred behavior. Especially within society.


Parshias, lol. Call metlife and ask them how their pig is doing! He's been shitting life insurance money since 1950s!

You have to concede this point, that there is preferred behavior in society, and it might as well be called morality.

Don't give me a chance to derail this into a thread about how Whole Life based insurance companies are truly the antichrist, I'LL DO IT!

[Kuya]

The word moral gets tossed around more than Puertorican vagina, it mind as well mean my anus at this point.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Oh guartz. How you make sense of your ideology in the real world beyond me.

[guartz]

The word moral gets tossed around more than Puertorican vagina, it mind as well mean my anus at this point.

Well, don't blame me for the mis-use of your anus. I mean, the word morality.

[Kuya]

Ok, that was a good one.

[guartz]

I was kinda hoping Raineer could derail this into how whole life insurance is evil.


Raineer. THIS IS WHY U GET UNIVERSAL LIFE!

d'uh