From: rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:04:42 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.

In article <BZS.93Jan10220702@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
>>bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>>: 
>>: So in summary what you're saying is a libertarian won't be an anarchy,
>>: something we don't disagree on (even tho you seem to love to point
>>: this out at every opportunity), but instead will be a bloated lawyer's
>>: paradise of court actions and no doubt we'll just cover the land with
>>: court houses run by the govt and that will be the major function of
>>: govt, managing lawsuit processing.
>>: 
>>: Well, no thanks. No thanks at all.
>>: 
>>I do not want the government to just manage lawsuit processing.
>
>Well, I didn't mean to say it will JUST be a lawsuit processing
>device, but that will become a major, major function. And the whole
>concept rests on the idea that somehow lawsuits are a reasonable way
>to resolve disputes, which everything I know shows that they certainly
>are not. They are a method for exploiting the frustrated for the
>benefit of attorneys. Period.
>
 Then you should fear the govt we have, which passes goodles of statute laws
 every year (80% of the laws in this century were laws modifying peoples
 behavior). A return to common law would clean alot of this up. Remember
 that most politicians are lawyers, and a good portion of their campaign
 funds may come from lawyer organizations. The result of all this is a 
 populace who don't know where they stand with the law, and lawyer lobbyists
 wanting to maintain it as is.

>>When
>>those that are held accountable for their actions are made to give
>>proper restitution, there will likely be much less lawsuits. 
>
>Ok, again, HOW will they be held accountable? By what force of law or
>nature or ???
>
>>Also,
>>government processing of lawsuits would likely be more costly than
>>private, so many could be handled outside the governmental court systems.
>>(Arbitraters are one example of how two parties would settle a
>>dispute.)
>
>And what power would arbitrators have to enforce decisions? Do you
>think unscrupulous people (and there are a helluva lot of them) will
>just voluntarily do what arbitrators decide???
>
>Let me tell you something that perhaps you don't know: If you win a
>settlement against an unscrupulous person, not even a horribly
>unscrupulous person, just some pissy landlord or whatever, your next
>adventure will be collecting. Go ask an experienced lawyer what it
>takes to collect on a judgement if the other party just kinda ignores
>the judgement. IT'S A PAIN IN THE ASS, at best. In fact, it's not hard
>for a determined jerk to make it more expensive to collect than is to
>be collected! What a deal!
>
>That's why, for one example, there's so much trouble with fathers who
>won't pay child-support. They ALL have judgements against them, but
>they just don't pay it.
>
>And somehow it's nearly impossible in many cases to make them pay it.
>
>You can dream up mechanisms, garnish paychecks (they work off the
>books), seize property (they don't have any, or none in their name),
>they disappear and it will take you thousands of dollars to find them,
>etc etc etc etc etc etc.
>
>So what o what o what magic bullet do you have to resolve all these
>problems. Don't tell me how you expect reasonable people to be dealt
>with, tell me how UNreasonable people are to be dealt with!
>
>o
 Tell me how the current system deals with unreasonable people?
 The currect system treats everyone as a suspected 'unreasonable' person.

 As to the restitution question you asked earlier, either Minnesota or
 Wisconsin (Minn I think) tried the restitution to the victim route on
 a trial basis a few years ago. Recidivism was reduced by 92%, so much
 so that the state of New York looked into it as a way to reduce the
 revolving door of justice in that state. Guess what? New York lawyers
 banded together and fought it tooth and nail, resulting in New York
 abandoning the idea.
 How did Minnesota make the criminals pay? Took it out of their paycheck,
 or if they didn't have a job, found them a job, then took it out.
 If the criminal refused, they went to jail. Guess what? Most agree to
 the setup. And the reason recidivism dropped? The criminals a.) were
 hurt financially, and b.) were made to think of the hurt of the victim
 (some even met their victims) by knowing that the money deducted went
 to the person whose stereo (whatever) was ripped off, instead of
 a mindless state that punishes people by giving them 3 meals a day.

-- 
>        -Barry Shein
>
>Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
>Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3451 comp.org.eff.talk:8647 soc.culture.usa:9748 alt.activism:20502