RE: THE LEFTIST ERROR ABOUT "OBLIGATION" towards "all kinds of people".

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

THE LEFTIST ERROR ABOUT "OBLIGATION" towards "all kinds of people".

in leftist •  6 months ago 

Watched the video.
The presenter makes me itchy, since it's hard to follow him, he swallows the words and hardly puts a coherent sentence together, it's a pain to watch him. Even subtitles don't help. So I probably missed more than half of what his concept explains.

People who attempt to decentralize what so far is used by the majority of people as places where disputes can be mediated and decided, might succeed with their concepts when they are able to prove best practice for the involved. Or, where no such place exists due to different locations and different national laws, which is a real time problem when a company from Venezuela works with a company from Bombay.

At least in disputes in which it is not the executive itself that subjects a person/company to official jurisdiction. So if the presenter has a company that is able to adjudicate said concept in disputes in the crypto-scene, through the adjudication system he presents, it will be used if those involved recognise it as useful and fair.

The weak points will reveal themselves through less clear formulated questions, for example. In my view, this requires a long test phase, certainly with real cases. The question is who will make themselves available as parties to the dispute. It is also a matter of promoting this concept.

As I said, I haven't figured out all aspects of it.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
Sort Order:  

So if the presenter has a company that is able to adjudicate said concept in disputes in the crypto-scene, through the adjudication system he presents, it will be used if those involved recognise it as useful and fair.

even simply on the face of it

having thousands of individuals comprising a jury

seems obviously more fair

than twelve hand-picked individuals that can be arbitrarily vetoed by the legal team on either side

So far, as I have understood it, it sounds like a very interesting concept. We will see if it gains momentum.
I am always open and interested in alternative methods and ideas. But one must be careful to stay cool about them and not praise them before they have not proved themselves.