mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (12/19/84)
>>> > Suppose I owe you $1,000 and refuse to pay. You decide to use >>> > force to collect your debt, so you send your police to my house to >>> > force me to pay up. ... >>> Not likely. Protection agencies ... >>If you have to submit to binding arbitration, what's the point of having >>your own mercenaries? >> >>Marcel Simon ..!mhuxr!mfs > You and earlier posters have gotten away from the original >assertion. The above situation is not possible given the original >assertion. The key is the difference between "protection agencies" >and "collection agencies." The protection agencies must be just that, >i.e., their job is to protect you from anyone who attacks you; they >would not [be permitted to?] accept the task of collecting from you in >the first place. Collection agencies, on the other hand, need not be >permitted weapons or the use of force to perform their duties and they >and you would be subject to binding arbitration. > There is a significant difference between "protection >agencies" and mercenaries. [I am not sure how to keep the one from >becoming the other, but as an idea or concept, there is a very real >difference.] > Let's keep this discussion going for awhile. Feel free to >post this if you want. > > jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull > trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. > Hawthorne, CA 90250 My point is that if there is going to be a private police that I pay, it will play by *my* rules, which are get the fuck off my face! Your point, while valid in theory, do not take into consideration human nature. On the other hand, if there are going to be these various binding rules on protection and collection agencies, why not stay with the present system: a police and legal system paid for by everyone through taxation? Marcel Simon ..!mhuxr!mfs