endurox50 Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 I have a dispute resolution scenario that I am trying to solve via a free market solution. I have a sneaking suspicion that the solution far easier than I am expecting. I wish to thank you for your patience while I gather my thoughts below.There are two individuals in this story which takes place in a South American country; one is a wealthy developer, another is a poor farmer.These two individuals were relatively close neighbors (in proximity only) and one day the wealthy land owner decided to build an apartment complex on his part of the land. The pilings were being driven into the ground by machinery which vibrated the ground causing damage to the poor individual's home. The poor individual then brought suit against the wealthy neighbor for damages. The poor individual was getting into a cab to head to court but was shot before he could. The suit was closed and the land was sold off to the wealthy land owner next door.The remaining family members never brought suit (for fears of further retaliation) but the family had clear evidence that the wealthy land owner simply hired a murderer to eliminate the poor neighbor so that the suit would be dropped and the land sold off.I was told this story from one of said family members in response to my "the free market is the answer". Left me walking on egg shells as I didn't want to offend them and the departed out of respect.Just writing this out has already helped me focus on this topic. Yet I still look forward to your thoughts.My initial reaction / response; this poor individual relied on the state to obtain justice.I believe the only thing this individual could have done was to have purchased land in a contractual area preventing such buildings thus helping to prevent this threat of damage from an individual with only money on his mind. However this financially strapped individual had no means with which to a) defend himself, though it was his moral obligation b) couldn't just suck it up and move to a new location.I guess the only answer is that, sometimes the free market solution just sucks. But it's better than the alternative enslavement proposed by a state and federal government.I may have rambled on and possibly confused some of you. I don't even fully understand what question I am attempting to ask. I guess how would a poor individual defend himself in such a scenario above. Granted he probably couldn't foresee the extent his neighbor was willing to go (hire a gun) to get his way irrespective of the fact that he was clearly damaging another's private property in the development of his own.Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to our conversation...!
Andrew79 Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 There's little point in playing "what ifs" with people, it's not hard to set up a story that gets round any system. And mostly they rely on the nirvana fallacy - the fallacy that you're claiming everything under a free market system will be perfect. But it's good that they're genuinely concerned with what goes on in South America. Let's see what it's like there now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17021996 Hmm... a newspaper editor who exposed corruption was shot. And a few days before that another journalist and his girlfriend were murdered. Where was the government to help these people (other than more than likely directly involved or agreeing to turn a blind-eye)? How many tens of thousands are dead due to governments' war on drugs? Do these real life tragedies cancel out a fictional one? But if they really want to play the "what if" game, you can always ask them what if a government invents a story so it can go to war, and what if it wasn't the first time? At what point would they stop supporting it?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 They could just publish the clear evidence and seek protection from any retaliation. If this guy is a land developer then he's just destroyed his reputation. Who's going to do business with a known murderer? Why would this land developer hire an assassin and take that kind of risk when they could just compensate the poor homeowner? None of this makes much sense and in a voluntary society I cannot see how such a psycho could ever gain such wealth.
MrCapitalism Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 The family's fear is not of the wealthy guy, but of the state.The state provides such a bad service of protection and dispute resolution, that they are afraid to rely on it for justice.
Mike Fleming Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 One of the first things that I noticed was, why is it a South American country? Is the person afraid that if they posit the story for say the US or Canada it would sound ridiculous? I think in a free society one of the services that people would expect of protection companies is that they feel safe. Part of feeling safe would be not having unsolved murders go essentially unresolved. Especially when you would have investigative journalists look at this situation and ask the question, who benefits from this guy's death? They would then look at the legal situation and find out about the suit and find out what it's for and immediately suspicion would fall on the wealthy guy. At that point he would have to hope he's covered his tracks extremely well or his reputation is destroyed. "Don't do business with this guy because if he decides he doesn't like the terms he'll just have you executed". With all this information out in the open I can't imagine family members not filing suit. What is this guy going to do? He'll be watched like a hawk at this point from people expecting him to do something wrong because they'll get the story for their news show/blog/whatever. Any further bad behaviour is just going to result in the total destruction of this wealthy guy's life and any reasonably sane person at this point would just try to get out of the whole situation with as much reputation and wealth as he could rather than escalating. If he did escalate the situation he would be pretty much an outcast from society. The vast majority of people don't like murderers, especially when it's rich guys that think they can get away with it. Historically people got away with this by manipulating the corrupt law monopoly that exists in countries which is there to benefit those with money and influence.
Recommended Posts