User Rating: 0 / 5

Star inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactive
 

Sovereign-R-UsTHE SOLUTION

Free markets

If more laws and regulations are not the answer, then what is?

The free market. In a free market the only valid agreement is a voluntary agreement among parties. Since there are no governments to lobby or processes to co-opt it is the pure free market that decides the faith of all participants. The free market has only one rule: serve your customers or go broke.

The natural greed of corporations is automatically balanced out by competition (direct or indirect - see We Don't Need No Stinking Competition). When this fails and corporations breach contracts or interact with other's peoples properties without one, they are subjected to mediation. The difference is that in this instance, both sides of the mediation process are greedy corporations.

In an IIA process we have a large corporation with all its resources and well-motivated lawyers, while on the other hand, we have government bureaucrats who get paid whether they win or not.  Is then there a surprise to know that corporations win almost always?

In a free market, arbitration is big business since there is no "official" justice. In the same manner that today there are "ambulance chasers" among lawyers, in a free market there will be "arbitration chasers" of all kinds. The difference is that there will be far more of them simply because it is the only way to get reparations.

In Chevron's case for example, there would have been a massive legal organization to oppose it in front of the "tribunal". Why would such an organization be there? Money! And lots of it!

You see, in a free market, disputes are money and dispute sizes attract bigger firms because there is more money at stake. It is a simple principle of profit. The bigger the screw-up, the bigger the potential payout, the larger the litigating company will be involved.

Screw-up sizes are balanced by larger (and more powerful) litigating companies.

Co-opting Newton's third law, we can say that in a free market:

For every screw-up there is an equal and opposite demand.

Furthermore, we can say that:

For every size of screw-up there is an equal and opposite demand size.

Presto! Instant balance.

Of course, this does not guarantee "justice", but it does guarantee that forces will be balanced and that on average, contracts will be enforced or lack of thereof properly paid for.

The possibilities

Realistically speaking, these are the most probable permutations in a dispute assuming the worst case scenario; this is that the economic power of each side mostly decides the outcome:

 

Part #1

Economic Power

(damaged)

Part #2

Economic Power

(damager)

Amount of Money

Probable Outcome

Comparison with

Current

Scenario

Small

Small

Small Money

Just or Reasonable (settled)

No Difference

1

Small

Small

Big Money

Just or Reasonable (through arbitration)

No Difference

2

Small

Big

Small Money

Just or Reasonable (settled)

No Difference

3

Small

Big

Big Money

Just or Reasonable (settled)

No Difference

4

Big

Small

Small Money

Unknown (settled)

No Difference

5

Big

Small

Big Money

Unknown (settled or mediated)

No Difference

6

Big

Big

Small Money

Just or Reasonable (settled)

No Difference

7

Big

Big

Big Money

Just or Reasonable (through arbitration)

No Difference

8

 

Scenario #1: both sides have little or no money to pay a representative and the amount of money is small. Both parties have equal power during the dispute. The parties either fix the problem face-to-face or just forget about it. Same as today.

Scenario #2: both sides have little or no money but the stakes are high. Both parties hire representatives (on commission). Both parties have equal power during the dispute. The dispute is settled reasonably since there is no advantage to either side.

Scenario #3: small party against big party for small amounts of money.  The parties either fix the problem face-to-face or just forget about it. For the big party it is cheaper to settle than to go to mediation. Same as today.

Scenario #4: small party against big party for large amounts of money. Small party hires representatives (on commission) to oppose big party. Both parties have equal power during the dispute. The dispute is settled reasonably since there is no advantage to either side.

Scenario #5: big party against small party for small amounts of money. Big party does not want to have large expenses for mediation. The issue is settled, but it may not be settled "justly". However, there is no difference from what is happening today.

Scenario #6: big party against small party for large amounts of money. Small party may hire a representative (probably not on commission) but the balance of power is uneven. The issue may be settled or mediated, but the result may not be "just". However, there is no difference from what is happening today.

Scenario #7: both parties will probably settle through representatives. There is no issue, same as today.

Scenario #8: both parties get their representatives into mediation. Both parties have equal power during the dispute. The dispute is settled reasonably since there is no advantage to either side.

As you can see the outcomes of disputes, even in the worst case scenario, are identical to what we have today.

The difference is that mediation processes are far cheaper than current judicial "Justice".

Voila! Instant justice! No fuzz, no mess, no bureaucracy!

Before we go, we need to point out that justice in the free markets is not perfect, not by a long shot. It is simply better, cheaper and faster than what we have today. Nobody here is trying to sell Walhalla or Paradise, just a better system. 

CONCLUSION

The issue of Corporate Sovereignty is a worrying issue indeed. However the solution to the problem is not more regulation, but less; far, far less. Actually, none. Pure free market.

Given the fact that most people do not understand what we just explained in this lesson, it is fully understandable that they may be afraid of large corporations. And they should be. Such corporations are indeed dangerous to the financial well being of a great deal of people. The problem is that this danger originates in the fact that governments exist which enables politicians to be routinely "owned" by corporations. This in turn creates biased (noxious) market conditions through political market "management". Those are the root causes, not corporate behavior. Asking politicians to be honest is intrinsically contradictory to their job description, they must lie to be elected. Asking corporations to behave is also intrinsically contradictory to their purpose of making profits. The solution is not to ask either party to behave in a manner that contradicts their most basic nature, but to set-up a system where such nature can be tamed automatically. For politicians, such a system is the dismantling of governments. For corporations, such a system is the free market. Or does all of this make too much common sense?

Regardless, it is in your hands now. Believe it, don't believe it. Your sovereignty is at stake. Choose wisely.

Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.

 

Comments | Add yours
  • No comments found
English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditNewsvineTechnoratiLinkedinMixxRSS FeedPinterest
Pin It