21 votes

How the free market is replacing a broken court system and making the government redundant


http://youtu.be/C1qqTsjwB50

This is the first in a 10 part series demonstrating how the free market is replacing the broken state.

Feel free to make a request for future episodes or comment on this.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

this one is much better

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qmMpgVNc6Y

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

It is also complete nonsense.

It is also complete nonsense.

ok, sir

Care to elaborate on your well crafted argument ?

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Yes these videos are excellent.

I try to make my videos much shorter, so inevitably a few doors are left open. :)

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

Courts are properly part of

Courts are properly part of government. Nothing is enforceable without the government mandate; government is the one institution society allows the use of force.

If you don't like the way the courts operate, you have two options:

1. You can work to reform the courts.
2. You can leave the country.

An arbitration service doesn't change anything. These services work within US law, not outside of it.

The point is, moneybag, that

The point is, moneybag, that society does not allow ABUSE of force. Abuse of force by government's agencies has been usurped thus is unlawful. As the courts are intrinsic part of abusing power government, they should be dismantled, their members prosecuted and imprisoned if convicted by newly sworn in replacements. Declared supporters of abusive government should leave the country.

markj

there has to be some sort of justice system

and unless you are for "might makes right" and settling things with duels, then there is no way around that.

The mere existence of a court system is not "abuse" of "force".

And the sentence "Abuse of force by government's agencies has been usurpred thus is unlawful" is meaningless. So, you are saying governments "abuse" "force", that someone has "usurped" that, and because of the "usurping" that makes the "abuse" unlawful? What? Do you speak English? Heck, I'm a lawyer and that just seems like a confusing combination of big words.

"their members prosecuted and imprisoned if convicted by newly sworn in replacements". What? So their replacements are already sworn in and are going to convict them? WTF?

"Declared supporters" should "leave the country"? So you don't value freedom of speech, or of belief?

You're nuts.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

To a libertarian... Courts are a proper role of government...

Since you as an individual have the right seek contract enforcement, then it is legitimate for humans to delegate that authority to government.

To an Ancap though courts are not a legitimate role of government as the funding for this apparatus is stealing money from people by force, and therefore cannot be tolerated. Choose your flavor.

Also, do not mix judiciary with enforcement.

Arbitration is replacing judiciary. You still need to get a sheriff or police to go and confiscate your award. How Sherrifs and police are being replaced by the free market is a matter for another video.

Stay tuned. :)

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

OK, so tell us

how "sherrifs and police are being replaced" in the context of enforcing an award? You're still glossing over it. You would need to take the award to a court, get it converted to a judgment, and only then can it be enforced by sheriffs/police.

And assuming you've done all that, where else would you go to enforce it? Other than police or sheriffs I mean. You can't get a judgment enforced by a security guard. What gives? A quick simple answer or "I don't know" will suffice.

I am beginning to think the phrase "that is the subject of a different video" is your code for "beats me".

I am also beginning to think you've not thought all of this through very well, and are simply offering a service that you don't even thoroughly understand. Witness the claim of 146 countries, etc.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

The problem is this

Who will judge cases in which the government is a plaintiff or defendant? If the government controls the courts, how can the courts be impartial with respect to the government? In a society in which one agency has a monopoly on law, there can be no true justice.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

This court is for contract enforcement...

The Free market will handle criminal matters differently.

You cant ask your rapist or thief to go to arbitration, but you can agree with your business partner to use it.

Your point is perfectly valid though.

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

well as a Libertarian

I think there are certain things which are inherently government functions. And I also think that when inherent government functions are "outsourced" the problems mutliply, not decrease. I wouldn't want to see criminal law administered in the private sector, just like I don't want to see prisons operated for profit, or mercenaries fighting our wars "unofficially" as some off-the-books operation managed by an intelligence agency instead of Congress. Now, in the la la land of bunnies and gumdrops, all the happy an caps can just get along without any oversight.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

I understand your point very well.

I was its biggest proponent for over a decade.

I was an expert at pointing out the failures of government to Republicrats, and why limited government is the answer, etc.

Ancap I thought could never work for a variety of reasons

Then I read a couple of books on Ancap and literally slapped myself in the forehead. It turned out it was more my lack of imagination and problem solving skills that was the reason why I thought Ancap would not work. Once I read a few books, although one in particular that demonstrated (in much greater detail than my videos) I saw Ancap solutions working everywhere.

So if you are in the mood to challenge yourself and your paradigm, I encourage to take an hour and read this free book.

A Practical Guide to Anarchy.
http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx#pa

It broke down a lot of my practicality arguments, and might just do the same for you.

If not... Still love and respect to you.

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

I'll be happy to read it

but it'll be a few weeks, lots of good reading in the que - cheers

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

!!!

WOW!

"We’ve moved beyond the Mises textbook. We’re running in the open market." - Erik Voorhees

Wow!

My first impression is that I LIKE IT.

I hope this works, and for my next contract I'll look at using this service.

Kudos to the founders! And Bitcoin is something that will require some investigation too.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Bitcoin is the next video.... Stay tuned.

Also, this book is the best book published about bitcoin. Every review is 5 out of 5 stars. Any skeptics need to read it.

I just so happened to have written it as well. :)

http://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Revolution-Ending-Tyranny-eboo...

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

can you do a video

on how to spam libertarian websites? K, thanks

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

so, an arbitration system for small claims actions

Here is what they don't tell you in their advertisement video (which for all intents and purposes, is what to call it).

First, their math is wrong. This is probably intentional, as their premise is that the Court system is all fouled up. I will agree as a practitioner that this is true, but not for the reasons stated. Over a $5,000 simple breach of contract case, one would never incur $20,000 in legal fees and no lawyer worth his salt would ask for that up front. A lawyer might as for $1,000 or $1,500 or just refer you to small claims court and offer to give you advice on the side for an hourly rate. An hour or two of time should do it in that circumstance.

Second, arbitration is nothing new. There are arbitration services all over the place. They aren't all wonderful, even for big business disputes. It can be harder to compel the attendance of witnesses, you lose MOST appellate rights, and often arbitrators are biased in favor of one side or the other. They can cost less than a court action, and sometimes the opposite is true. If you have an actively litigated dispute before an arbitrator that charges $500 an hour, and you or your opponent is filing a lot of motions, that means you are paying by the hour for someone to do the workup, analysis, review, and ruling upon things - which in a court case is done by a judge paid by tax dollars (aside from the filing fees for the motions which are comparatively insignificant in most cases).

Third, this is a solution in search of a problem. Small claims courts are quite efficient. Perhaps too efficient. You can get a court date within 2-3 months, still retain some appeal rights, have no need to hire a lawyer (but you can consult with one on the side if you wish), and no problems with enforceability.

Fourth, I am skeptical of the claim that this service provides results that are readily enforceable. Think that through. You go to the sherriff saying "judge.me.com" gave me a verdict. I need you to enforce it. He'll say "No." You will instead have to go through court process anyway to transform your arbitration award into a judgment - in whatever jurisdiction. That may or may not occur with this service. But assuming it does, this will cost you time, attorneys fees, filing fees etc., that for a small claims-sized case would be the same or greater than what you would have incurred for filing a small claims case in the first place.

Fifth, how impartial is this service, and who are the persons making rulings? Do they have legal training, or understand contract law? Or are they high school kids sitting around popping zits while watching game shows?

Maybe it has a place or some way of being relevant, but I'm really not impressed. I do give the business points for creativity, though.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

I think you misunderstand the purpose of arbitration

The purpose of arbitration is not to replace the court system. Arbitration is an additional service. You try arbitration first, before you go to the courts. In my county, you are required to try arbitration first before going to small claims court. If the parties work it out in arbitration, you still go in front of the judge and the judge congratulates you on working it out. If you don't work it out, the judge listens to both parties and makes a ruling.

So, it's not arbitration or the courts. It is arbitration AND the courts. As far as the courts go, though, we can debate private courts vs. government courts as far as which is more efficient.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Actually I don't

I don't know what county you are from but you mention only one possibility.

Yes, you can try to arbitrate before a small claims court case.

But the video promoted doing so in place of it, which is also a possible use for arbitration.

There are also court cases that start out in court, then are referred to arbitration by agreement of hte parties or by a court order.

I've been involved in all of these. The whole point of hte video - as made clear in the title - was to use arbitration as an alternative to the courts, i.e., in place of. But of course, it is possible to try arbitration and then go to court. Never said otherwise.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

you bring up good points...

but these points are applicable only within U.S jurisdiction.

I hope this is the beginning of even better business models for international arbitration.

"We’ve moved beyond the Mises textbook. We’re running in the open market." - Erik Voorhees

Practical Reality

Enforcement of judgments across borders can be very costly.

For this to work, at all, the following would need to happen:

1. there would need to be a contract signed by both parties agreeing that this service will arbitrate all disputes.
2. there would probably also need to be a choice of laws provision stating what jurisdiction's law should apply - whether we're talking cross-state or cross-country borders.
3. The award would have to be rendered in a matter which respects due process rights
4. The award would have to be turned into a judgment by a court action
5. The judgment would then have to be turned into a judgment in whatever other jurisdiction, again by a court action (whether cross-state or cross-country borders are involved)
6. The court would have to accept a judgment based on this service as being valid
7. Either it would have to be uncontested or the other party would have to lose a dispute about the enforceability in that jurisdiction
and
8. Only then could anyone collect, which would have to be done according to the laws of that jursidiction

Pimpin ain't easy!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Good points...but..

I agree with your points about appeals, possibly overstating the costs of the current process, possible bias of arbiters, but I disagree with small claims being efficient and I doubt they would mislead people about their 96% rate of awards being honored. That is extremely high rate of honoring awards when you consider the simplicity and efficiency of the process. (Judgements are made by email.) Maintaining such a high rate of awards being honored seems to indicate people like the system, whether or not as you say:'high school kids sitting around popping zits while watching game shows' could be behind it. I'd prefer good judgement over credentials. In a free market the companies like judge.me will tend to attract the best jurists and arbiters and costs will decrease over time through competition. In general, current small claims courts as well as non-small claims are extremely inefficient and costly. Just like any other monopolistic government agency costs will likely increase in the future. That's why I think the general trend has been toward using arbitration in contracts.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

you seem transfixed by the 96%

where did that number come from? From an advertisement. Do you believe it? Who did the analysis? What was the sample size? Was it audited?

The same goes for the 140 countries claim.

"Hello Mr. Sheriff, I have an email from a cyberjudge who awards me $4,000 of some other guy's money. Please enforce it for me." "I'm in the middle of a donut, please take that to a court and convert it to a judgment, and then I'll consider it, depending upon the relative availability of cream filleds with sprinkles. Now have a good day sir!"

I know if someone tried to enforce one of these against me I'd have a field day with it. Not saying it couldn't be done, but it ain't all roses and bunnies.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

All of your points are valid queries....

These are questions that any person should want answered before using the service.

But you spend more time raising the issues that it would have spent finding the answer.

Go to http://www.judge.me/ Watch the full 90 second video clip and there is an excellent FAQ (How it works) page that answers all of your questions.

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

I already watched the ad video

which took longer than that, which didn't address what I thought were some really obvious questions.

I stand by my points, even if I am a bit lazy.

Maybe in the right case it makes sense.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

OK. I will go through them one at a time.

1. Cost analysis is wrong. Well you are correct that for small claims court hiring a laywer is not commercial. that is the point. The laws/motions/loopholes/legalese are still there though and often justice is obstructed without a lawyers to navigate the nightmare.

2. Arbitration has flaws. True, but so does government courts. There are fewer in Arbitration services, and that is why they are often used for huge multi million dollar contracts.

3. Courts can be efficient. You have not factored in the cost of the courts through taxation. Once you factor that, they are horribly ineffecient

4. Arbitration claims may not be enforceable: From the website FAQ.
Judge.me is binding is the 146 countries countries that signed the 1958 Convention of New York. Almost every country involved in international trade is on the list. Countries not party to the convention (i.e. where judge.me is not binding) include many African countries, Taiwan and a few of the small tax paradises around the world.

5. Arbitrators can be biased, but so can judges and juries. As Arbitration is their business they are incentavized to deliver fair rulings and get a good reputation or lose customers. Judges and juries have no incentive to deliver fair rulings as their salaries are not paid by customers, but by bureaucrats.

Thanks for your comments.

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

Re read my post

I stand by my former points. Why is this spam here anyway?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

You're obviously a typical lawyer

You can't see the right from the wrong in anything. I'm so sick and tired of you jerkoffs taking control of various situations and making it way more complicated than it has to be. This, imho, is why lawyers were initially banned from public office.

If you knew the first thing about major business contract law, you would know that services like this are not only very popular, they are becoming the ONLY way contracts are enforced. Business, like most people, doesn't want to wait around for months for some arbitrarily biased, lifer judge to decide the fate of anything more important than a parking ticket.

This "spam", as you call it, is here because it shows how the free market is systematically re-taking control over our society, piece by piece. A large part of that is the creation of an alternative to the broken (or should I say - criminal) court system, which includes the bar. This is what liberty leads to and by even questioning that, you clearly display your ignorance of liberty itself.