[extropy-chat] Extropy and libertarianism - a search fo rmeaning...

[Robert Lindauer]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Arbitration costs money.  In an adversarial situation where a large 
>>company is suing a small consumer or vice versa, the party with the
>>more money will try to force upon the party with the lesser amount of
>>money the more expensive option(s) in hopes that this will force them
>>to settle on their terms and/or force them out of business. This is
>>the nature of adversarial court situations. This was the point I
>>    
>>
>meant
>  
>
>>to illustrate in the Walmart example, perhaps you didn't understand
>>what happened?
>>    
>>
>
>What makes you think that government courts are not adversarial? If you
>admit they are, then you have no point of dispute here, because there
>is no distinction on that detail. 
>  
>

Your constant lack of understanding is astounding.

>Furthermore, government court proceedings are more expensive than
>alternative dispute resolution,
>

Not really, ADR generally is just a step along the way to the more 
expensive proceeding BECAUSE they are just another weapon used by the 
powerful in their quest to mitigate their losses against the weak.

> which is why they are encouraged by the
>overburdened government courts. The reason for this is that arbitrators
>tend to look poorly on snow-job tactics and are more agressive at
>finding out the facts and issuing a ruling than in pussyfooting around
>on technicalities, since the arbitrator is paid on his case rate, not a
>lifetime salary as government judges are.
>  
>

Remember that arbitrators CAN'T resolve a matter. Even with an existing 
binding arbitration clause, a good lawyer can wind the matter up in 
court.  Then they'll use ADR as a means of running up the cost of their 
opponents.  It's a pure and simple war-tool, nothing more.

>Additionally, if you are a wealthy corp who has wronged me, a consumer
>or employee, there are plenty of lawyers with deep pockets who take on
>cases on a contingency basis.
>

Not for $500 of damages, it's not worth their time.  Most causes are 
like this - someone sells a faulty saw and refuses to take it back or 
someone sells a lemon to someone and refuses to give the money back or 
take an exchange, etc.  Lawyers don't take these cases until there's a 
decent class action in it for them.  So, if you have that list of 
lawyers who'll take contingency cases for less than $500, please forward 
their names to the list.

> Contingency fee representation ensures
>quality lawyering, as your lawyer only gets paid if you win. A salary
>attorney on the company payroll doesn't have the same degree of incentive.
>  
>

It ensures it for big-money cases, not little-money cases.  Lawyers 
scrounging for half a $500 settlement are not likely to be as good as 
300,000/year salaried lawyers or retainer-based law firms that a large 
corporation -should- and usually does employ.

Big-money lawyers like the corporate attorneys for WalMart aren't making 
chump change and they're practically guaranteed to be among the best 
lawyers in the country, unless WalMart is stupid.  Do you think the 
people who run WalMart are stupid?

Robbie