Hacker News Reader

Comment by hyperion2010 | Hacker News Reader

hyperion2010

The depth of misunderstanding of what justice is here is utterly staggering. Contract enforcement (or just enforcement) as a service maybe, but going after a company because you feel that they wronged you is as far from justice as revenge killing (to be fair the article does specifically mention violation of consumer protection laws here). The notion that anything other than a state (read: leviathan) can administer justice is a dangerously misleading notion since unless both parties agree to abide by the system then there is no consistent notion of justice (note that accepting your citizenship is tacit agreement).

View on HN

> The notion that anything other than a state (read: leviathan) can administer justice is a dangerously misleading notion since unless both parties agree to abide by the system then there is no consistent notion of justice (note that accepting your citizenship is tacit agreement).

Well, how Hobbesian! Of course, this is not the only possible conception of justice, which is, as Plato put it (in Jowett's translation), "sometimes spoken of as the virtue of an individual, and sometimes as the virtue of a State." But in either case, if we want to get all philosophical about it, I share your skepticism... if justice is a virtue, can we really have a virtue as a service (VaaS)?

Seriously, though, I don't think the OP's point is to propose administration of justice outside the state, but rather that certain tech advances can make it economically feasible for small, individual claims to be given a "fair shake" within the state system; claims which currently are too small to be worth a lawyer's---or even the claimant's---time without said tech.

I agree, and I think that it is actually pretty cool that there are some solutions that could put previously uneconomical enforcement to become economical. I do get the feeling though that this wouldn't be as much of an issue if corps were not continually trying (and succeeding) to prevent collective action against them (eg class action suits).

Lawyers have always touted their services as a way to "help you get justice". This is the same thing, just with a more scalable business model.

So objecting to the word "justice" in the context ignores long-established usage of the word.

Yes, "justice" is a marketing term. (That is indeed quite often the case when it is offered, as opposed to when it is seeked for.)

Is contract enforcement not a form of justice? Several of these are cases where a contract has been not only agreed upon, but done so without chance for negotiation. Working to ensure that a company follows rules that it wrote itself is hardly coopting powers from the state.

> but going after a company because you feel that they wronged you is as far from justice as revenge killing

But out desire for revenge i.e. a negative consequence to those who wronged you, is the fundamental source of our idea for justice, just formalised for a city life.

The guarantee of negative consequence of equal proportion represents a game theoretically optimal approach to discouraging others from harming you.

And if they kill one of yours, then to maintain said deterrence you have to kill one of theirs. As reflected by laws and customs for most of human societies throughout history.

consumer protection is just the start, don't you think?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com