# The Ethics of Lawsuits **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 21, 2000, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550 "2000-03-21T21:10:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![CalifBoomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CalifBoomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalifBoomer)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/21 "2000-03-22T04:29:00Z")
I think she smoked 'ya, Lib… ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/22 "2000-03-22T05:26:00Z")
An interesting note: I’ve created three topics in GD: [Is libertarianism rationally debatable?](http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001490.html) [The US is already a Libertarian society!](http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001475.html) [School Vouchers](http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001547.html) The first directly queries the basis of libertarian thought. The second asserts a novel interpretation of ownership. The third calls for the privatization of the public school system. Yet Libertarian has not seen fit to post in any of these threads? He _does_ have good reason to be mad at me, I _did_ call him a “monster.” But I thought we had got beyond that; he apologized for helping to create the misunderstanding, and I apologized for jumping to conclusions. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions. 🆒 * * * “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away”. - Phillip K. Dick ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/23 "2000-03-22T05:58:00Z")
You know, I would call myself a libertarian, and I’ll often jump into things (like census threads) with a rather libertarian slant to what I’m saying, but I just don’t get lib at all. EVERYTHING has to be somehow related to Libertarian principles, even ‘wow, I don’t get why they closed that thread.’ Lib’s idea that simply making ‘do not initiate force’ the only law is silly on it’s face. That law, for example, doesn’t provide for the funding of the legal system that Lib expects to provide free services. It also doesn’t answer relatively simple questions of property rights; for example, if a kid cuts across my lawn despite my ‘NO TRESPASSING’ sign, is it legal for me to take out a shotgun and blow him away? (And no, Lib, telling us that that’s not OK is not a real answer unless you tell us how you got that answer from the one law). It gets really silly with more complex questions of property rights; does a factory belching chemical smoke on my property violate the principle? OK, how about a guy burning leaves in his backyard? Does setting up an oderifous pig farm next door to me violate my property rights? How about a neighbor cooking something where the smell wafts over? And how do you derive a foreign policy from a country with this single law? I don’t see that entering into a defensive agreement with another country violates that principle, yet the LP (and presumably Lib) do not believe in enacting such agreements. While I agree with the basic principle of Libertarianism, the idea that you could have a country in the real world operating with ‘THOU SHALT NOT INITIATE FORCE’ as it’s only law is just plain insane. * * * Kevin Allegood, “At least one could get something through Trotsky’s skull.” - Joseph Michael Bay ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/24 "2000-03-22T11:47:00Z")
**Billdo** > [@](#): > > OK Lib, since I sort of inspired this thread I’ll jump in. Actually, it was “inspired” by Dex, but you are welcome to jump in. I pretty much ignore Jodi because I get tired of chasing the red herrings only to find that there are more. Direct answers don’t suit her. She will copy and paste my responses line by line, attack me personally for them, and create a completely new subject out of each one. So, if I began with a simple answer to her question, she will hand me back twenty more questions to answer. She thinks I have the **obligation** to kowtow to her agenda, while she relaxes and contributes nothing. She is like the sniper in the bell tower; she shoots, I jump. No, thanks. > [@](#): > > I’m relatively new here and have sort of stayed away from the political theory debates over in GD, but I’d like to understand your libertarian theory of dispute resolution. Don’t confuse the **libertarian context** with the **system of Libertaria**. Maybe you’re not. I’m just making sure. I advocate dispute resolution by arbitration in a context of noncoercion. Others might advocate some _other_ system in the same _context_. > [@](#): > > (Perhaps if I understand one small part of the the libertarian theory, I’ll be able better able to follow what the heck you are talking about in the libertarian discussions in general.) [Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy](http://www.libertarian.org/libphilo.html) > [@](#): > > Now in your quote above, you say that you’ve already paid for arbitration when you signed up. Now my first question is how and when do you get into the system (sign up, buy in)? And what happens if you do not sign up? Well, you buy in when you decide that you consent to be governed. (That is, when you decide to have your rights secured by government. “It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all.” — Thomas Jefferson) If you do not sign up, then you have elected to secure your own rights. > [@](#): > > Second, you say that “there’s only one law!” What is that law (and I’d appreciate it if you could phrase it in simple words and concepts, not abtruse theory)? “Every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from initiated force and fraud.” Simple enough? > [@](#): > > How does that law balance competing interests? Basically, by saying that my rights end where yours begin. Whatever interests I might have, **you too** are guaranteed freedom from **my** coercion and fraud. **Wally** > [@](#): > > Looks to me like Jodi’s put this puppy to bed. So, the winner is whoever rants last? **Slythe** > [@](#): > > I don’t know-I think I’d like to see this “one law” also. Well, Lib? I’d better say this to keep this in the Pit: _Damn_, Slythe. Where the hell have you been? I can understand the newbies, but _you_? 😉 See above answer to Billdo for the umpteenth rendering of the Law of Libertaria. **Bloomer** > [@](#): > > I think she smoked 'ya, Lib… Lordy! If Jodi’s hysteria impresses you, you’d **love** Dr. (sic) Laura. **SingleDad** I haven’t intentionally ignored you. You might have missed my explanation elsewhere. I just don’t have much time nowadays, what with the new job and all. In fact, I gotta go right now. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/25 "2000-03-22T13:50:00Z")
Libertarian, I merely wanted _you_ to state the law so that you couldn’t claim misinterpretation later on. You know, as vague as your “law” is, it might work as merely a foundation of a set of laws, IF everyone thought exactly as you did. But they don’t. Different people have different needs, beliefs, cares, philosophies, religions _ad infinitum_, and what one might see as initiated force another might see as need or necessity. Guaranteed freedom from fraud? What if one person feels that evolution is fraudulent, or that liberals are really trying to subvert the governtment to sneak in the evil empire? What about homeopathy, psychics, faith-healing, speaking in tongues, and all the myriad ways that we differ in our conception of reality? Forget the cost of your “guarantee”-most people can’t even agree on what we are guaranteed from. * * * Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines. ---
**Author:** ![WallyM7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5e925/32.png) [@WallyM7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WallyM7)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/26 "2000-03-22T17:14:00Z")
Jodi said: > [@](#): > > Yeah, and I exposed your “rant” for the meaningless, idiotic blather that it is. And I agreed. Doesn’t matter who gets the last word. Nonsense is nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/27 "2000-03-22T17:48:00Z")
Your latests about me is such evident bullshit, Lib, that you shouldn’t be surprised no one is buying it. > [@](#): > > I pretty much ignore Jodi because I get tired of chasing the red herrings only to find that there are more. A “red herring” is generally defined as a ruse or distracting tactic, intended to take attention away from the real question under consideration. None of my questions are ever red herrings; they are, rather, reasonable questions about the system you adore but refuse to defend. > [@](#): > > Direct answers don’t suit her. Jeez, Lib, you’d hardly know, since you don’t give any answers at all. > [@](#): > > She will copy and paste my responses line by line, attack me personally for them, and create a completely new subject out of each one. So, if I began with a simple answer to her question, she will hand me back twenty more questions to answer. That’s because – stay with me here – the answers you give are generally so non-specific and full of rhetoric, that reading them only suggests a whole raft to questions to me. If you take that as suggesting numerous new subjects, then just pick one subject and follow it through. But you never follow through on _anything_; you’re a parrot for your cause, and your inability to defend it leads me to believe you really don’t know that much about it. > [@](#): > > She thinks I have the obligation to kowtow to her agenda, while she relaxes and contributes nothing. Actually, she laughs at this, because she doesn’t have an agenda beyond demanding that you defend the system you continually put forth as the One True Way. She also finds it supremely ironic, since if there is one poster on this entire Board who has a personal agenda he attempts to further at any cost, it is you. > [@](#): > > She is like the sniper in the bell tower; she shoots, I jump. No, thanks. You rant; I call you on it. And I will continue to. Find something substantive to say and I’ll leave you alone. Keep posting your pseudo-libertarian empty-headed no-thesis crap, and I’ll call you on it whenever I see it. BILLDO – Wasn’t his post helpful? His stock response to anyone who asks him for the specifics of what he purports is to paste in that link to the Libertarian site. Once there, you’re expected to wander around until you find the answer to your question. It’s Example A of how Lib refuses to defend his philosophy (because he can’t, I’m convinced), and those of us who have been here a while have seen the link a thousand times. Oh, and be careful if you have follow-up questions to his over-generalized and obviously unsatisfactory answers to you questions; if you post them, he will construe them as “red herrings” posted to further your “agenda.” LIB says: > [@](#): > > So, the winner is whoever rants last? There’s no “winner” because there’s no debate. To have a debate, you have to have (a) a subject (which you nicely avoided posting) and (b) a position – but you will never defend yours, you just post it over and over. In this thread, there is only me telling you to defend your philosophy or give it a rest, for once. ## SLYTHE – There you go, posting “twenty” questions in response to his “direct” answer – direct in his mind, totally unsatisfactory in the minds of everyone else. If Lib runs true to form, he won’t bother to answer you. You will be someone else with some non-specified “agenda” or he will simply be “too busy.” He’s never too busy to post this crap in the first place, though, and that’s what pisses me off. On last time, Lib: defend the position you advocate, or do us all a favor and shut the hell up about it. Jodi _Fiat Justitia_ ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/28 "2000-03-23T06:37:00Z")
**Slythe** > [@](#): > > Different people have different needs, beliefs, cares, philosophies, religions ad infinitum, and what one might see as initiated force another might see as need or necessity. Guaranteed freedom from fraud? What if one person feels that evolution is fraudulent, or that liberals are really trying to subvert the governtment to sneak in the evil empire? What about homeopathy, psychics, faith-healing, speaking in tongues, and all the myriad ways that we differ in our conception of reality? Um, you’re forgetting one thing. Libertarianism allows you to consent (or not) to be governed in **any system you choose**. Don’t like Libertaria? No sweat. Join Jodiria. ---
**Author:** ![quadell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/b9bd4f/32.png) [@quadell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quadell)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/29 "2000-03-22T19:49:00Z")
Look, Lib, I’m a card-carrying member of the LP too, but let’s be rational. In Libertaria or wherever, you’ll still have people trying use force or fraud to deprive others of their rights, and that’s where the government has every obligation to step in. (It’s _initiation_ of force, not force itself, that’s wrong.) So let’s say I sell kid’s shampoo, but it actually contains large quantities of lead (although I didn’t say so on the bottle.) Some kids die, defrauded, and robbed of the right to life. How can this be prevented? Answer 1: Do nothing. Then government is not doing its job of protecting the people’s rights. Wrong answer. Answer 2: Legislate. Make mandatory limits on the amount of lead allowable in kid’s shampoo, or make mandatory ingredient labels, or require health inspection checks, etc. This works, but it’s expensive, inefficient, requires taxes, and it gives me that not-so-Libertarian feeling. Answer 3: Litigate. Allow citizens whose children have been harmed to sue for damages, asserting that their rights were violated by my shampoo company. The court finds me guilty, fines me, I go bankrupt, maybe do time, etc. Now the next time someone wants to make shampoo out of lead, they realize it’s not worth it, since they’ll be sued. The people’s rights were protected, and this was done without a single new law. This is, generally speaking, what many libertarians have advocated as a way of protecting people’s rights without creating legislative regulation. (See [http://www.lp.org/platform/jfti.html](http://www.lp.org/platform/jfti.html) and [http://www.lp.org/platform/pol.html](http://www.lp.org/platform/pol.html) from the Libetarian Party Platform.) On the other hand, litigation has gotten so popular lately that some quasi-Libertarian groups are actually saying legislation is preferable to litigation when you have to choose (See [http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-20-00.html](http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-20-00.html) from the Cato institute, for example.) Still, I think in general, most Libertarians would agree that empowering people to sue is the best way to protect people’s rights. Freely, Your Quadell ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/30 "2000-03-22T20:06:00Z")
Thanks for the answer, Lib, though I’m not sure that things are all that much clearer. A few follow-up questions if I might: > [@](#): > > Don’t confuse the libertarian context with the system of Libertaria. Maybe you’re not. I’m just making sure. I advocate dispute resolution by arbitration in a context of noncoercion. Others might advocate some other system in the same context. I’m not sure exactly what I’m not supposed to be confusing. Does the “system of Libertaria” mean the theoretical world that would exist if you, personally, could set things up to run your way (as opposed to other libertarians who might have slightly varying rules). In any event, let’s try to go with _your_ system of libertarianism. I followed your link on “Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy.” It, however, says nothing about the mechanics of how disputes get resolved in Libertaria. Perhaps my question was unclear. The bit of theory I would like to start with is how the process of dispute resolution works in your theoretical society. > [@](#): > > Well, you buy in when you decide that you consent to be governed. (That is, when you decide to have your rights secured by government. “It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all.” — Thomas Jefferson) > > If you do not sign up, then you have elected to secure your own rights. Could you explain this process a little further? Is the decision to sign up for the system one that each individual makes (and, in that case, when does he or she make it), or is it something the society does as a whole (like the U.S. Constitution being set up in the name of “We the people”)? If the choice is individual, what happens to those who decide not to opt in? What happens to minors or those with insufficient capacity to decide? For those who buy in, how are they assessed for the societal costs of dispute resolution? What if someone who opted in has a dispute with someone who has opted out? > [@](#): > > “Every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from initiated force and fraud.” > > ## . . . > > ## How does that law balance competing interests? > > Basically, by saying that my rights end where yours begin. Whatever interests I might have, you too are guaranteed freedom from my coercion and fraud. I’m a little confused as to what initiated force and fraud is (and I read the posted link so I have some idea), but to give me an idea as to how it would work in a real world situation, I ask how would the system answer Riboflavin’s example: > [@](#): > > if a kid cuts across my lawn despite my ‘NO TRESPASSING’ sign, is it legal for me to take out a shotgun and blow him away? I’m sure that answers to these question will spawn more questions, but maybe bit by bit I can get some understanding? And, to keep this in the the Pit, if you don’t answer, dammit, you’re a pipsqueak parsnip. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/31 "2000-03-22T21:35:00Z")
**quadell** > [@](#): > > Look, Lib, I’m a card-carrying member of the LP too, but let’s be rational. In Libertaria or wherever, you’ll still have people trying use force or fraud to deprive others of their rights, and that’s where the government has every obligation to step in. (It’s initiation of force, not force itself, that’s wrong.) … [long, eloquent post…] You’re preaching to the choir, friend. Let those who want legislation consent to be governed by legislative collectives. I have no problem with that. That’s why I’m always careful to seperate the **context** of libertarianism, which accomodates a wide variety of implementations from the **system** of Libertaria, which is my own implementation of choice. **Billdo** > [@](#): > > Thanks for the answer, Lib, though I’m not sure that things are all that much clearer. A few follow-up questions if I might: Uh-huh. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure exactly what I’m not supposed to be confusing. Does the “system of Libertaria” mean the theoretical world that would exist if you, personally, could set things up to run your way (as opposed to other libertarians who might have slightly varying rules). Yep. Thassit. > [@](#): > > I followed your link on “Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy.” It, however, says nothing about the mechanics of how disputes get resolved in Libertaria. Perhaps my question was unclear. The bit of theory I would like to start with is how the process of dispute resolution works in your theoretical society. Dang! At the message board before the one that was before this one, I opened a thread called “The Court of Libertaria is Now in Session”. It was fun. I wish I had time to do that here. I served as Chief Arbiter, established the rules in the Opening Post, and people brought in claims and counter-claims. The site administrators closed the thread because someone used the word “turd”. > [@](#): > > Could you explain this process a little further? Is the decision to sign up for the system one that each individual makes (and, in that case, when does he or she make it), or is it something the society does as a whole (like the U.S. Constitution being set up in the name of “We the people”)? If the choice is individual, what happens to those who decide not to opt in? What happens to minors or those with insufficient capacity to decide? Y’know, if ya hadn’t shied away from the earlier libertarian debates, you’d already know most all of this. I’ll give you the nutshell version, and if you _really are_ interested, you can check out the older threads in GD, or you can go to the [Free Market](http://www.free-market.net) site. There’s a blue million ideas there. Mine goes like this: You may willfully and voluntarily consent to be governed by Libertaria (which means that Libertaria secures you from coercion and fraud) if you are an adult. You signify your consent by contracting with the government, just as you would with any other entity for any other service. There, an adult is defined as a person who is capable of giving meaningful consent. Meaningful consent is consent that is given freely and volitionally. It is the choice of _individuals_, not societies (whatever it means to say that “society chooses” — I suppose it means that the _majority_ of individuals, or else those with the most _political clout_ choose on behalf of everyone else). Minors and those with insufficient capacity to decide may not contract with Libertaria, but are assumed to be the charges of their parents or guardians. > [@](#): > > For those who buy in, how are they assessed for the societal costs of dispute resolution? What if someone who opted in has a dispute with someone who has opted out? Your jodiing me here a little bit, but we’ll see how this goes. Regarding the first of the two questions, I don’t know what a “societal cost” is, so could you clear that up? The cost of litigation is paid when you sign your contract. You are simply buying the service of Libertaria to secure your rights, and are consenting that it may secure the rights of all its citizens; that is, you are consenting to its arbitration. It offers no other services besides suppression of coercion. As to the second question, in or out of the other party makes no difference. You may avail yourself of unilateral arbitration. If the arbiter determines that a noncitizen has coerced or defrauded you, he will order the executive to restore you, using whatever force necessary. > [@](#): > > ## I’m a little confused as to what initiated force and fraud is (and I read the posted link so I have some idea), but to give me an idea as to how it would work in a real world situation, I ask how would the system answer Riboflavin’s example: quote: > > if a kid cuts across my lawn despite my ‘NO TRESPASSING’ sign, is it legal for me to take out a shotgun and blow him away? What it is legal for you to do is use _whatever force necessary_ to **evict** him from your property. If he will leave when you say, “Get the heck outta here!”, then you may not “blow him away”. But if deadly force is required, then deadly force is required. Alternatively, I suppose you could just go ahead and let him squat there in your front yard. Maybe let him build a hut or something? > [@](#): > > I’m sure that answers to these question will spawn more questions, but maybe bit by bit I can get some understanding? Uh-huh. […eyeing you suspiciously…] > [@](#): > > And, to keep this in the the Pit, if you don’t answer, dammit, you’re a pipsqueak parsnip. Yeah, let me add a suck, a bitch, and a damn or two. Damn. I’m sorry for being gun-shy, but I ain’t gonna invest any time in someone who’s just trolling me. Sincere inquiries I don’t mind at all. But it sometimes might be even a coupla days before I can get time to answer. Sometimes I can get right back to you. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/32 "2000-03-22T21:51:00Z")
> [@](#): > > On the issue of legal costs, please note Billdo’s comments earlier. There is a high cost (Billdo says $5,000 to $10,000) in responding to lawsuit, EVEN IF the case is thrown out at the earliest possible moment. Is the OP asserting that the estimated cost above is paid **to the court** and would thus not occur in the Libertarian utopia? Or is the OP asserting that the lawyers fees would disappear in the Libertarian utopia because the single law and system of arbitration would be administered in such a manner that there would be no benefit in a claimant hiring an advocate? * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/33 "2000-03-22T22:05:00Z")
[Note: The following quotes are pre-unloaded] > [@](#): > > Is the OP asserting that the estimated cost above is paid to the court and would thus not occur in the Libertarian [model]? No. > [@](#): > > Or is the OP asserting that the lawyers fees would disappear in the Libertarian [model] because the single law and system of arbitration would be administered in such a manner that there would be no benefit in a claimant hiring an advocate? Well, no, the Opening Post is not asserting that, but I would not hesitate to make that assertion. What the Opening Post is asserting is that the part you didn’t quote — > [@](#): > > “These charges against you are frivilous,” says the judge, “and it will cost you $10,000 to have them dismissed. Now, you may think that’s very expensive, but let me tell you, a Kennedy or Rockerfeller could not have it dismissed for one penny less. This is not a land where there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.” — is unbelievable. Excuse me, **Damn** unbelievable. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/34 "2000-03-22T22:32:00Z")
LIB says: > [@](#): > > Your jodiing me here a little bit, but we’ll see how this goes. If you have _any_ desire to see me back down off of you, to even the smallest degree, I suggest you leave my name out of things. I, in turn, will leave it to other posters to point out how ridiculous and nonsensical such ideas as “unilateral arbitration” obviously are. * * * Jodi _Fiat Justitia_ ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2000, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/35 "2000-03-22T23:45:00Z")
Unbelievable in the sense that you do not believe the quote is an accurate representation, or unbelievable in the sense that you feel the present situation is outrageous? I personally doubt that teh judge would tell a defendant it will cost him $10,000 to have a case dismissed. I felt the quote was a shothand for the judge dismissing a case and a lawyer handing over a bill for $10,000. I would be truly amazed at the assertion that in the best possible system of justice all human disputes can be resolved with one rule and no advocates trained in the nature of contracts or the details of arbitration had it come from anyone but you, Lib. * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/36 "2000-03-23T00:27:00Z")
Lib, might I point out one small flaw. You say that if people don’t want to join Lebertaria, they can join Jodiha, or slythia(damn! I like the sound of that.), or any number of different “countries” established by people of similar beliefs. What is to stop Russia, China, or even France from coming over and kicking butt one country at a time? * * * Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/37 "2000-03-23T01:57:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Libertarian: > \*\*The cost of litigation is paid when you sign your contract. You are simply buying the service of Libertaria to secure your rights and are consenting that it may secure the rights of all its citizens; that is, you are consenting to its arbitration. It offers no other services besides suppression of coercion. \*\* And if you can’t afford “the cost of litigation,” you aren’t allowed to sign the contract? You get no “suppression of coercion” that was inflicted on you? Looks to me like only the Kennedys and Rockefellers would get the government’s protection from coercion in Libertaria. * * * Feel free to correct me at any time. But don’t be surprised if I try to correct you. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/38 "2000-03-23T03:28:00Z")
Lib, you said: > [@](#): > > “Every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from initiated force and fraud.” Would be the only law in Libertaria. Yet in response to my trespassing example, you said > [@](#): > > What it is legal for you to do is use whatever force necessary to evict him from your property. If he will leave when you say, “Get the heck outta here!”, then you may not “blow him away”. But if deadly force is required, then deadly force is required. Where, exactly, in “Every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from initiated force and fraud,” is the bit about ‘whatever force necessary’? The one law of Libertaria only protects someone against _INITIATED_ force, and in my example the trespasser is the one who initiated force; I’m merely using retalitary force, and so I’m not in any way in violation of the one law of Libertaria. In order for your ‘minimal force’ laws to come into effect, you’re going to have to add another law to the books of libertaria. It’s kind of rough when the ‘one law’ needs an amendment after the first legal question. I suppose you could just have a 1000-page tome detailing the law and it’s limitations in Libertaria and call it a single law, but that doesn’t seem very honest to me. Also, > [@](#): > > Um, you’re forgetting one thing. > Libertarianism allows you to consent (or not) to be governed in any system you choose. > Don’t like Libertaria? No sweat. Join Jodiria So if I have a land ownership dispute with you, and Libertaria says you own the land, but Jodiria says I own it, what happens? Do they end up declaring war on each other? What if I decide to be governed by the rules of Riboflavland instead, and declare not only the disputed property but also the rest of your property to be mine? * * * Kevin Allegood, “At least one could get something through Trotsky’s skull.” - Joseph Michael Bay ---
**Author:** ![CalifBoomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CalifBoomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalifBoomer)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/39 "2000-03-23T03:38:00Z")
Much of the problem may lie in the fact that the legal system is _adversarial_, which makes it somewhat of a zero sum game. If it were a _reconciliatory_ process it probably would not be as burdensome, lengthy or expensive. That’s my .02 cents worth. I’ll take my change now. :: ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2000, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550/40 "2000-03-23T11:58:00Z")
**Jodi** > [@](#): > > If you have any desire to see me back down off of you, to even the smallest degree, I suggest you leave my name out of things. I, in turn, will leave it to other posters to point out how ridiculous and nonsensical such ideas as “unilateral arbitration” obviously are. Fair enough. But it was never your “being on me” that bothered me. It was the hitting and running, the sniping, the never accepting my answer as an honest one, but always framing it as an evasion. I had the sense that you simply hate me, so I just tuned you out. I felt your questions to me were on the lines of this one from someone else: > [@](#): > > Unbelievable in the sense that you do not believe the quote is an accurate representation, or unbelievable in the sense that you feel the present situation is outrageous? Why ought I even to waste time answering that? Is there anybody who has _ever_ read my posts who doesn’t know the answer to it? At some point (I’ve lost track now of when exactly), I started thinking you were throwing those kinds of questions at me: questions you knew, or should have known, the answer to, and that therefore were designed simply to agitate and annoy. But I am beginning to regret the enmity of our relationship, and wish it could be repaired. **Slythe** > [@](#): > > What is to stop Russia, China, or even France from coming over and kicking butt one country at a time? What’s to stop them _now_? Same thing. **Jab** > [@](#): > > Looks to me like only the Kennedys and Rockefellers would get the government’s protection from coercion in Libertaria. I see your point, despite the egregious exageration. But do you know how much the defense portion (defense is all the Libertarian government does) of the federal budget is, even though it is utterly bloated with excess? You can look it up on the US gov sites. You’ll see that even we Appalachian trash people can afford it. Besides, if you want to join a collective of volunteer altruists who will pay your way, feel, um, free. **Riboflavin** > [@](#): > > Where, exactly, in “Every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from initiated force and fraud,” is the bit about ‘whatever force necessary’? It is through the use of defensive and retaliatory force that the government suppresses initial force. That is spelled out clear as day in the link I provided above. Here it is again. [Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy](http://www.libertarian.org/libphilo.html). > [@](#): > > The one law of Libertaria only protects someone against _INITIATED_ force, and in my example the trespasser is the one who initiated force; I’m merely using retalitary force, and so I’m not in any way in violation of the one law of Libertaria. If you think blowing out the brains of a child without warning who might not have seen your sign is not initial force, then I don’t want you in my collective anyway. > [@](#): > > In order for your ‘minimal force’ laws to come into effect, you’re going to have to add another law to the books of libertaria. Not hardly. The child should be equally secure from your coercion as you are from his. > [@](#): > > It’s kind of rough when the ‘one law’ needs an amendment after the first legal question. The law needs no amendment. Arbitration will determine the interpretation of the law. > [@](#): > > I suppose you could just have a 1000-page tome detailing the law and it’s limitations in Libertaria and call it a single law, but that doesn’t seem very honest to me. Like I said, if you don’t like the application of common sense interpretation of the law by arbitration in Libertaria, then join Riboflavia. I enjoy this debate, though. It kind of reminds me of the libertarians who debate one another at [Free Market](http://www.free-market.net). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-lawsuits/5550.md?page=3)