Andrew Cain: Stranger:Why would you hire such an individual as opposed to any other one? A sense of legitimacy, formality, a desire for justice regardless of your personal interests. There can be a multitude of reasons.
Stranger:Why would you hire such an individual as opposed to any other one?
A sense of legitimacy, formality, a desire for justice regardless of your personal interests. There can be a multitude of reasons.
That's not an answer to my question. How would you choose which individual to appeal to?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
This thread is not complete without these.
Kenneth: What did you think of the book? What are the positives and what ae the negatives?
What did you think of the book? What are the positives and what ae the negatives?
There were no negatives. It was just a totally awesome book.
Stranger:Who would a single person turn to for help if this person had a conflict with a neighbor?
His PDA? His friends? Why is the only connection that helps here supposed to be genetic code or having sex?
Stranger:The family is such a system.
If true, this is again not what you need to prove. You need to say that it's the only possible such system. However, it is not such a system, or rather, if it is, it's a lousy one. How on earth would you expect my family to decide fairly between me and a neighbor?
JAlanKatz:If true, this is again not what you need to prove. You need to say that it's the only possible such system. However, it is not such a system, or rather, if it is, it's a lousy one. How on earth would you expect my family to decide fairly between me and a neighbor?
That's your neighbor's problem. If he also has a family, then both your families will have to sort this out by appealing to someone whose authority they respect, typically a tribal chief.
Stranger:That's not an answer to my question. How would you choose which individual to appeal to?
Well this is a bizarre question. How would I choose which individual to choose in a private service market? Myself personally, I would look for experience and fairness. That is just my subjective economic preference though. Other individuals could choose a person based on anything.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Stranger:That's your neighbor's problem. If he also has a family, then both your families will have to sort this out by appealing to someone whose authority they respect, typically a tribal chief.
Then what does this all have to do with families? Your conclusion only holds if one thinks that all families are equally powerful. If not, then by your previous statements, they won't appeal, the more powerful family will win. This is no different from what you said about individuals.
JAlanKatz:Then what does this all have to do with families?
Families provide security and justice at the small scale. Most disputes won't need to be appealed to higher up.
Andrew Cain: Stranger:That's not an answer to my question. How would you choose which individual to appeal to? Well this is a bizarre question. How would I choose which individual to choose in a private service market? Myself personally, I would look for experience and fairness. That is just my subjective economic preference though. Other individuals could choose a person based on anything.
On a related note, my family had once agreed with an insurance company to see an arbiter, and so we did. We didn't have to waste time and energy in court, the insurance firm didn't, and we came to an agreement and both saved money on it. The firm that does the arbitration is really good and well known by many law firms.
Private courts and arbitration are one thing and can be easily handled. Enforcement of law is another issue, probably dealing with police/security (which i know nothing about)
Giant_Joe:We didn't have to waste time and energy in court, the insurance firm didn't, and we came to an agreement and both saved money on it. The firm that does the arbitration is really good and well known by many law firms.
The last job I had used arbitration to settle its disputes with workers. Its faster and less costly for both sides.
Stranger: Families provide security and justice at the small scale. Most disputes won't need to be appealed to higher up.
So you claim justice cannot be provided without securities, when challenged appeal to the existence of a non-family mechanism, then say it doesn't contradict your point because it would only be rarely used?
Calling Hoppe Judeo-Christian truly exemplifies what I was saying in the Molyneux thread about making things up.