|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 31, 2013 17:41:46 GMT -5
You shouldn't pay the arbitrator ahead of time. Whoever loses should pay them, that way it avoids what you are saying. If they feel they have done nothing wrong (and this would only apply in civil matters not crimes like murder or rape) then they should have no problem going before the arbitrator and telling them why they are in the right. If the government is involved and the person doesn't think they've done anything wrong and they no show the court appearance then the government will just side with the neighbor. That's how it works now. If you don't show up, you lose. Another question. Let's say I lose, but refuse to pay. What then? Just like it is now but you don't need the government to do it. You can go to the person's employer with the judgement and you can have the employer dock the person's pay. You can have the community stop offering the person services until they pay. You can have the person forced to work for the arbitrator until the debt is paid off. There are many creative ways you can find to get the person to pay. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 31, 2013 17:56:51 GMT -5
Another question. Let's say I lose, but refuse to pay. What then? Just like it is now but you don't need the government to do it. You can go to the person's employer with the judgement and you can have the employer dock the person's pay. You can have the community stop offering the person services until they pay. You can have the person forced to work for the arbitrator until the debt is paid off. There are many creative ways you can find to get the person to pay. Who enforces the judgement though? My employer might tell you to pound sand himself. Enforcing the judgement is extra work for him. Plus, he likes me and I've talked to him and told him why I think the judgement is bogus. You think the entire community is going to boycott my employer for such things? And if you're going to force me to work, who is going to do the forcing? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 31, 2013 17:56:59 GMT -5
I must say though if governments only function was to settle disputes (or punish evildoers) like we have been talking about then I'd be ok with that limited government.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 5, 2024 13:53:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 18:26:01 GMT -5
But I have never advocated it And its not called brainwashing its called mass teaching and its the cleanest and less violent way of spreading a message. Just look at this: www.campaignforliberty.org/Libertarians love brainwashing too. What about that is brainwashing? I don't see anyone advocating for mass re-education camps like you are suggesting. From what I'm seeing if this hate groups are something along the lines of The Klan, Neo-Nazis, or anything like that. Then yes, they probably should of been dealt with properly however that would be. They sound like the scum of society, not a group of different opinions, |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 31, 2013 18:54:56 GMT -5
What about that is brainwashing? I don't see anyone advocating for mass re-education camps like you are suggesting. From what I'm seeing if this hate groups are something along the lines of The Klan, Neo-Nazis, or anything like that. Then yes, they probably should of been dealt with properly however that would be. They sound like the scum of society, not a group of different opinions, Freedom of speech is designed to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech needs no protection. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 31, 2013 19:31:08 GMT -5
Just like it is now but you don't need the government to do it. You can go to the person's employer with the judgement and you can have the employer dock the person's pay. You can have the community stop offering the person services until they pay. You can have the person forced to work for the arbitrator until the debt is paid off. There are many creative ways you can find to get the person to pay. Who enforces the judgement though? My employer might tell you to pound sand himself. Enforcing the judgement is extra work for him. Plus, he likes me and I've talked to him and told him why I think the judgement is bogus. You think the entire community is going to boycott my employer for such things? And if you're going to force me to work, who is going to do the forcing? (Sorry, didn't see this posted when I posted my other response) How does the government now enforce the judgement? Either they can keep fining the person (which won't work because they won't pay) or they put him in jail (which won't stop the fence from being there and doesn't pay the neighbor for his troubles). I'm not saying it's 100% possible, I'm just giving different scenarios. The police force can take you to do the work. It's a better punishment than just sitting in jail, wasting jail space and it actually pays back the arbitrator. Sitting in jail, like how the government now would do it, doesn't pay the arbitrator what is owed to him. The arbitrator gets nothing out of the person being put in jail. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 31, 2013 19:35:44 GMT -5
Who enforces the judgement though? My employer might tell you to pound sand himself. Enforcing the judgement is extra work for him. Plus, he likes me and I've talked to him and told him why I think the judgement is bogus. You think the entire community is going to boycott my employer for such things? And if you're going to force me to work, who is going to do the forcing? (Sorry, didn't see this posted when I posted my other response) How does the government now enforce the judgement? Either they can keep fining the person (which won't work because they won't pay) or they put him in jail (which won't stop the fence from being there and doesn't pay the neighbor for his troubles). I'm not saying it's 100% possible, I'm just giving different scenarios. The police force can take you to do the work. It's a better punishment than just sitting in jail, wasting jail space and it actually pays back the arbitrator. Sitting in jail, like how the government now would do it, doesn't pay the arbitrator what is owed to him. The arbitrator gets nothing out of the person being put in jail. Currently the government has the ability to garnish wages and even (in an extreme case) seize property and liquidate it to pay a judgement. They can force an employer to garnish your wages. If the employer refuses they can seize the employers assets and even seize the business and liquidate said assets in an extreme case. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 31, 2013 19:42:44 GMT -5
(Sorry, didn't see this posted when I posted my other response) How does the government now enforce the judgement? Either they can keep fining the person (which won't work because they won't pay) or they put him in jail (which won't stop the fence from being there and doesn't pay the neighbor for his troubles). I'm not saying it's 100% possible, I'm just giving different scenarios. The police force can take you to do the work. It's a better punishment than just sitting in jail, wasting jail space and it actually pays back the arbitrator. Sitting in jail, like how the government now would do it, doesn't pay the arbitrator what is owed to him. The arbitrator gets nothing out of the person being put in jail. Currently the government has the ability to garnish wages and even (in an extreme case) seize property and liquidate it to pay a judgement. They can force an employer to garnish your wages. If the employer refuses they can seize the employers assets and even seize the business and liquidate said assets in an extreme case. That, I feel, would be an abuse of government. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 31, 2013 19:47:21 GMT -5
Currently the government has the ability to garnish wages and even (in an extreme case) seize property and liquidate it to pay a judgement. They can force an employer to garnish your wages. If the employer refuses they can seize the employers assets and even seize the business and liquidate said assets in an extreme case. That, I feel, would be an abuse of government. Completely disagree. In today's system in order to get that far you have to go in front of a judge, present your case and win a judgement. It doesn't happen over night. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 31, 2013 19:56:44 GMT -5
That, I feel, would be an abuse of government. Completely disagree. In today's system in order to get that far you have to go in front of a judge, present your case and win a judgement. It doesn't happen over night. I just feel it is wrong to go after someone who doesn't even owe money to the creditor. Collect valuables from the person who owes the money (get a warrant or whatever, don't just take it) and do it that way instead of ransacking someone who has no stake in the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 31, 2013 20:12:44 GMT -5
Completely disagree. In today's system in order to get that far you have to go in front of a judge, present your case and win a judgement. It doesn't happen over night. I just feel it is wrong to go after someone who doesn't even owe money to the creditor. Collect valuables from the person who owes the money (get a warrant or whatever, don't just take it) and do it that way instead of ransacking someone who has no stake in the matter. You're not going after them for the money. You're going after them for failing to collect the money when they're legally required to. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 31, 2013 20:17:31 GMT -5
I just feel it is wrong to go after someone who doesn't even owe money to the creditor. Collect valuables from the person who owes the money (get a warrant or whatever, don't just take it) and do it that way instead of ransacking someone who has no stake in the matter. You're not going after them for the money. You're going after them for failing to collect the money when they're legally required to. So say you confiscate the business owner's car and/or house. How does that pay the person's debt? If I were the business owner, I would then sue my employee for getting my car and/or house taken. They refuse to pay the employer so they get fired. Now they have no job to reimburse the owner. How does the owner get money from the person? Putting him in jail won't rectify the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 31, 2013 20:34:42 GMT -5
You're not going after them for the money. You're going after them for failing to collect the money when they're legally required to. So say you confiscate the business owner's car and/or house. How does that pay the person's debt? If I were the business owner, I would then sue my employee for getting my car and/or house taken. They refuse to pay the employer so they get fired. Now they have no job to reimburse the owner. How does the owner get money from the person? Putting him in jail won't rectify the situation. No, if you're a business owner you obey the law and garnish the employees wages. You have no legal recourse to sue someone else because you broke the law. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 31, 2013 20:43:11 GMT -5
So say you confiscate the business owner's car and/or house. How does that pay the person's debt? If I were the business owner, I would then sue my employee for getting my car and/or house taken. They refuse to pay the employer so they get fired. Now they have no job to reimburse the owner. How does the owner get money from the person? Putting him in jail won't rectify the situation. No, if you're a business owner you obey the law and garnish the employees wages. You have no legal recourse to sue someone else because you broke the law. But how do you justify taking away the business owner's property because he refused to take away money from his employee? Don't say "he broke the law." That is not a moral justification for taking someone's property especially since he was not the one that owes any money. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 31, 2013 21:05:50 GMT -5
No, if you're a business owner you obey the law and garnish the employees wages. You have no legal recourse to sue someone else because you broke the law. But how do you justify taking away the business owner's property because he refused to take away money from his employee? Don't say "he broke the law." That is not a moral justification for taking someone's property especially since he was not the one that owes any money. He did break the law. The law requires you to garnish an employees wages. That is the law. Breaking the law is moral justification for taking someone's property. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 31, 2013 21:14:32 GMT -5
But how do you justify taking away the business owner's property because he refused to take away money from his employee? Don't say "he broke the law." That is not a moral justification for taking someone's property especially since he was not the one that owes any money. He did break the law. The law requires you to garnish an employees wages. That is the law. Breaking the law is moral justification for taking someone's property. Rosa Parks also broke the law, it does not mean that law was moral, just or right just because the government said it was a law. How does taking the business owner's property make up for him not garnishing the employee's wage? |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 1, 2013 7:21:13 GMT -5
He did break the law. The law requires you to garnish an employees wages. That is the law. Breaking the law is moral justification for taking someone's property. Rosa Parks also broke the law, it does not mean that law was moral, just or right just because the government said it was a law. How does taking the business owner's property make up for him not garnishing the employee's wage? He is in contempt of court. Should there not be punishment for being in contempt of court? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 1, 2013 13:27:09 GMT -5
Rosa Parks also broke the law, it does not mean that law was moral, just or right just because the government said it was a law. How does taking the business owner's property make up for him not garnishing the employee's wage? He is in contempt of court. Should there not be punishment for being in contempt of court? Judges can say you are in contempt of court for wearing the wrong outfit to court. I really wouldn't put too much stock in contempt of court. But that doesn't answer my question, how does taking the business owner's property make up for him not garnishing the employee's wage? It doesn't get the arbitrator the money he is due. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 1, 2013 13:52:48 GMT -5
He is in contempt of court. Should there not be punishment for being in contempt of court? Judges can say you are in contempt of court for wearing the wrong outfit to court. I really wouldn't put too much stock in contempt of court. But that doesn't answer my question, how does taking the business owner's property make up for him not garnishing the employee's wage? It doesn't get the arbitrator the money he is due. It's not about getting the arbitrator the money. It's about being in contempt of court. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 1, 2013 13:59:33 GMT -5
Judges can say you are in contempt of court for wearing the wrong outfit to court. I really wouldn't put too much stock in contempt of court. But that doesn't answer my question, how does taking the business owner's property make up for him not garnishing the employee's wage? It doesn't get the arbitrator the money he is due. It's not about getting the arbitrator the money. It's about being in contempt of court. Then what's the point of doing all that if it's not about getting the arbitrator the money? It's pointless to keep punishing the employer especially if it will not result in the arbitrator getting his money. If for some reason it was even ok to take the employer's stuff, it should be with the reason to get the arbitrator his money. The employer can then dock the employees pay to pay back what the employer had stolen from him. The government should not be taking things just because they claim they can especially if the end point is not paying the person this all started because of. |
|
