At this twenty year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, let us reaffirm its key principle: we accept adult choice of law, at least if bundled with choice of nation. North Korea still keeps locals from leaving, and until very recently the U.S. reserved the right to tax ex-citizens for up to ten years. But for the rest of the world, if someone picks up and leaves a nation and then solemnly swears allegiance to a new nation, we don’t see much need for regulatory oversight to determine if this new contract is “valid”.
I've never understood how Al Franken's "anti-rape" amendment is supposed to interfere with "private law". The amendment does not outlaw any form of private contract, it merely "prevent[s] the Pentagon from contracting with" companies that have entered into certain classes of contract with third parties. Obviously, this is intended to discourage such contracts, but companies are still free to engage in them so long as they're prepared to give up government business. It seems like an admirably free market solution to me.
Psy and david, how do we now deal with folks pressured into joining a nation they “don’t really want”? Should the U.N. limit movement between nations to prevent such errors?
Well, we don't, do we? I don't think we can suppose that wider society has a coherent theory of legitimate choice to begin with. Appropriately, North Korea really has been allegedly kidnapping South Koreans, and insists that they have actually defected of their own free will and refuses to allow them to return to South Korea. But the conventional wisdom here seems to be to assume that the South, not the North, is correct - and to complicate this further, it is evident that despite this neither the South nor the international community would consider this a priority in DPRK relations.
States (and their electorates) are concerned about different things than the movement of a tiny minority of people, unless one of them somehow becomes the basis of a sympathetic campaign, in which case the state still concerns itself with sympathy rather than coherence. Likewise in this case of Jamie L Jones; there have undoubtedly been previous cases where some employee has been similarly prevented from going to government court, but there is controversy only now because Jones is exceptionally sympathetic.
Recall that when the economy went sour in Qatar and hundreds of Western expatriates - who had obtained work visas in Qatar with all their associated conditions - suddenly got in debt trouble, coverage didn't go "yeah well you agreed to be subject to those laws, suck on it". Coverage went "universal human rights, outdated medieval bankruptcy laws, etc." We do let people tie themselves to other nations, we don't think this implies adult choice of law. At least for some laws.
I may be guilty of an RTFM failure here, but wasn't the arbitration against Haliburton as a corporate entity rather than against the person who commited the actual crime?
Do you mean something like a generic EULA club, to where you sign up for it and then any supporting software, instead of a long complicated eula, will simply list which eula it's giving you?
I.E. "CompuSoft uses a EULACLUB Restrictive license. Please enter your current EULACLUB membership ID to sign"
That makes a lot of sense. Companies buy rights to use the agreement, which pays for lawyers to enforce. Users only need to read a few contracts once before they can revert to a shortform.
When people change nations in Europe, they likely have many choices, or else their choices are limited by friends and family, providing a basic familiarity with some laws.
When people change companies, they regularly have only one option, because there aren't enough people hiring.
Some people do not have choices when changing nations--consider Mexican immigrants to the US. We certainly "regulate" them in ways that are harmful.
And while my general objection is that (necessarily) business-chosen arbiters would be pro-business and possibly expose people to (to my mind) unacceptable hardship, that has been true of national governments since the modern age began. Possibly the state of reform in public government, and it's mild level of theoretic accountability make some difference but it's hard to say (for me).
How many people do you know that have any knowledge of arbitration agencies?
How many of them would sign on to whichever one their employer suggested without having any idea there was another option? Especially if they're unemployed and can't get work without a contract.
This isn't exactly what I'd call negotiating in good faith.
"You seem to be just assuming that governments choose better laws and make better legal decisions."
Our government is not an arbitrary set of oligarchs. They are the people elected to support a system where all people have an equal chance at justice (amongst other things they are elected to do). I would bet that the court system does make better legal decisions than private arbitration where criminal behavior is concerned. It is not sensible to place some one size fits all "big government is bad" shoe on every event that potentially concerns a tax funded service, in this case the courts. Even in a libertarian world, the freely elected government is charged with protecting the freedoms of the individuals within that country. It is the government's job to protect people from rapists and it is the government's job to prevent those falsely accused of rape from suffering undeserved punishment.
This post is arguing that private law fans should focus on having private law choices be larger more stable choices, exactly to get the respect you say such factors merit.
I'm not that interested in the "spirit of the constitution" or what "most people would say." You seem to be just assuming that governments choose better laws and make better legal decisions.
"Why allow choice of nation but not otherwise allow choice of law?"
I am not sure we fully allow ex patriots to be subject to the laws of other nations. It's customary for countries with a lot of international clout to stick their necks out to retrieve expats who are at risk of major human rights volations in other countries becuse of the laws in those countries. For example, Britain tried to extradite a teacher in Sudan who was sentenced for blasphemy after she let her students call a teddy bear Mohammad. It seems we also don't respect their ideas of child custody. If an American wants to bring their child back with them to America after marrying a foreigner, I don't think we recognize the divorce and child custory laws of other countries when deciding whether or not the child and parent can return.
Western countries even recognize the basic human rights of people who have never been citizens. If a government decides to legalize genocidal policies, we sometimes arrange to accept those in danger as refugees. Since rape is considered a human rights violation, it makes sense that the legal system should never let private organizations be judge, jury and executioner when rape might have occured.
Neither contracts nor laws supersede human rights. I suppose though exist in economics, though.
I've never understood how Al Franken's "anti-rape" amendment is supposed to interfere with "private law". The amendment does not outlaw any form of private contract, it merely "prevent[s] the Pentagon from contracting with" companies that have entered into certain classes of contract with third parties. Obviously, this is intended to discourage such contracts, but companies are still free to engage in them so long as they're prepared to give up government business. It seems like an admirably free market solution to me.
Psy and david, how do we now deal with folks pressured into joining a nation they “don’t really want”? Should the U.N. limit movement between nations to prevent such errors?
Well, we don't, do we? I don't think we can suppose that wider society has a coherent theory of legitimate choice to begin with. Appropriately, North Korea really has been allegedly kidnapping South Koreans, and insists that they have actually defected of their own free will and refuses to allow them to return to South Korea. But the conventional wisdom here seems to be to assume that the South, not the North, is correct - and to complicate this further, it is evident that despite this neither the South nor the international community would consider this a priority in DPRK relations.
States (and their electorates) are concerned about different things than the movement of a tiny minority of people, unless one of them somehow becomes the basis of a sympathetic campaign, in which case the state still concerns itself with sympathy rather than coherence. Likewise in this case of Jamie L Jones; there have undoubtedly been previous cases where some employee has been similarly prevented from going to government court, but there is controversy only now because Jones is exceptionally sympathetic.
Recall that when the economy went sour in Qatar and hundreds of Western expatriates - who had obtained work visas in Qatar with all their associated conditions - suddenly got in debt trouble, coverage didn't go "yeah well you agreed to be subject to those laws, suck on it". Coverage went "universal human rights, outdated medieval bankruptcy laws, etc." We do let people tie themselves to other nations, we don't think this implies adult choice of law. At least for some laws.
Yes, that would be a good change, if not be the easiest first step.
So we should only let people change nations if they have family in the new nation?
Give'em guns and I will bet donuts to dollars that law will get real simple.
I may be guilty of an RTFM failure here, but wasn't the arbitration against Haliburton as a corporate entity rather than against the person who commited the actual crime?
Do you mean something like a generic EULA club, to where you sign up for it and then any supporting software, instead of a long complicated eula, will simply list which eula it's giving you?
I.E. "CompuSoft uses a EULACLUB Restrictive license. Please enter your current EULACLUB membership ID to sign"
That makes a lot of sense. Companies buy rights to use the agreement, which pays for lawyers to enforce. Users only need to read a few contracts once before they can revert to a shortform.
When people change nations in Europe, they likely have many choices, or else their choices are limited by friends and family, providing a basic familiarity with some laws.
When people change companies, they regularly have only one option, because there aren't enough people hiring.
Some people do not have choices when changing nations--consider Mexican immigrants to the US. We certainly "regulate" them in ways that are harmful.
And while my general objection is that (necessarily) business-chosen arbiters would be pro-business and possibly expose people to (to my mind) unacceptable hardship, that has been true of national governments since the modern age began. Possibly the state of reform in public government, and it's mild level of theoretic accountability make some difference but it's hard to say (for me).
How many people do you know that have any knowledge of arbitration agencies?
How many of them would sign on to whichever one their employer suggested without having any idea there was another option? Especially if they're unemployed and can't get work without a contract.
This isn't exactly what I'd call negotiating in good faith.
“Private” law (what an oxymoron) is meaningless… there is no such thing and there will never be…You should read Bruce Benson.
"You seem to be just assuming that governments choose better laws and make better legal decisions."
Our government is not an arbitrary set of oligarchs. They are the people elected to support a system where all people have an equal chance at justice (amongst other things they are elected to do). I would bet that the court system does make better legal decisions than private arbitration where criminal behavior is concerned. It is not sensible to place some one size fits all "big government is bad" shoe on every event that potentially concerns a tax funded service, in this case the courts. Even in a libertarian world, the freely elected government is charged with protecting the freedoms of the individuals within that country. It is the government's job to protect people from rapists and it is the government's job to prevent those falsely accused of rape from suffering undeserved punishment.
This post is arguing that private law fans should focus on having private law choices be larger more stable choices, exactly to get the respect you say such factors merit.
I'm not that interested in the "spirit of the constitution" or what "most people would say." You seem to be just assuming that governments choose better laws and make better legal decisions.
There was mutual agreement at the time they signed the employment contract.
"Why allow choice of nation but not otherwise allow choice of law?"
I am not sure we fully allow ex patriots to be subject to the laws of other nations. It's customary for countries with a lot of international clout to stick their necks out to retrieve expats who are at risk of major human rights volations in other countries becuse of the laws in those countries. For example, Britain tried to extradite a teacher in Sudan who was sentenced for blasphemy after she let her students call a teddy bear Mohammad. It seems we also don't respect their ideas of child custody. If an American wants to bring their child back with them to America after marrying a foreigner, I don't think we recognize the divorce and child custory laws of other countries when deciding whether or not the child and parent can return.
Western countries even recognize the basic human rights of people who have never been citizens. If a government decides to legalize genocidal policies, we sometimes arrange to accept those in danger as refugees. Since rape is considered a human rights violation, it makes sense that the legal system should never let private organizations be judge, jury and executioner when rape might have occured.