Molyneux's DROs Vivisected (1 of 2)

Dispute Resolution Organizations exposed to analysis.

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• market
• anarchy
• philosophy
• atheism
• relativistic
• skepticism
• DRO
• Dispute
• Resolution
• Organization
• Stefan
• Molyneux
• Ron
• Paul

[Herv3]

If two DRO's can not agree on a resolution. Instead of going to some "higher" authority, couldn't they then use a third DRO to be an independent and help arbitrate?

[pyrrho314]

@Herv3 the third DRO is the higher authority, they agreed to submit to it's authority... what if one or both objects to that DRO, they can go to another right? When does it end, when do appeals run out. In our system it takes years... in this on, potentially never. In the end people volluntarilly submit to a ruling, or they merely appeal to another DRO.

[pyrrho314]

@Herv3 : it is technically the authority for that arbitration, it's just a word, granted, the parties voluntarilly choose the DRO. Which is why when they have a dispute with one they have to go to another DRO... and that can continue forever, since none have official authority to end the appeals.

[enotdetcelfer]

just to pose the argument. If the state solution (circuit courts, supreme court etc) has a termination point, why can't the DRO also only have a limited (albeit distributed/multiple) regression? why would a private system be infinite regression and the state solution terminate with the supreme court. Wouldn't there be a natural balance that forms?

[pyrrho314]

who is the final arbitor in a private matter, and why would the client not be able to challenge that DRO. Would one private organization actually be over the others, the ultimate appeal, and if so, how would that not be privatized government, but government all the same, a final authority?

[enotdetcelfer]

well I don't think there would ever be an infinite loop of DROs for many reasons but simply because people aren't that stupid and wouldn't stay in litigation their entire lives. Second there would only be a limited number of DROs because of logistics. The big issue really, surprised you didn't hit on it, is enforcement. Stef talks about societal outcasting as enforcement, no buy sell etc but there would always be a market to deal with rich "outcasts"... anyway, enjoyed the vid

[pyrrho314]

enforcement is a big deal, but the fact that DROs exist to specify what should be enforced, but cannot specify such a final outcome, is a problem. The is no "final decision" therefore nothing to enforce.

The enforcement question is another way of approaching this problem, that is... if there were any organization to enforce the ruling, how would it know what ruling to enforce? There is no way except having its own judicial process and treating THAT as final.

[hugesinker]

@6:23 One thing, Unions do have property-- they own their labor which they are trading to the company for a wage.

[Herv3]

@pyrrho314 That's the whole point of a DRO system. Instead of submitting to a ruling authority based on geographical birth, you'd have an option to choose it and not have a the whim of the majority to choose it for you. The third party DRO is not any higher authority than asking one friend to settle a dispute or argument. The third party doesn't suddenly get raised to a higher party, but is simply used to mediate or settle a dispute. The system we have now takes far more resources than needs to.

[gosmokesome]

but powerless people are not protected from the taxes required to run the justice system...