The New York Times recently ran a series of articles on arbitration (links below), claiming that arbitration was basically a privatization of the US legal system. I found this concept very interesting as my work looks at capitalist based and privately funded electoral processes as a "privatization of democracy." Obviously, within any society governing by neoliberal principles, the goal is to privatize as much of humanity nd society as possible - deregulate economics, bring everything into the market, create strong private property regimes, etc. But within this logic, neoliberalism is generally thought to be about economics, that is, using political and legal caveats to create the best position for capitalist economic gains and businesses. However, these articles show that this extends to the legal and political spheres of our society in a manner truly detrimental to the essence of those aspects of society. In this case, do we really believe that private market influenced interests are the best adjudicators of conflict? Or more broadly of politics? I would contend that law and politics, when designed by select people and groups with specific interests, create a conflict of interest, and that when those processes are implemented for all of the people there are detrimental affects for much of society.
My point is, that these articles in the New York Times have shown a trend in american business practices that point to an effort to actively circumvent the United States judicial system. Having decisions heard by individual lawyers - usually with professional and monetary ties that could affect their decision making ability - does not beget impartiality. In fact the New York Times articles specifically speak to conflicts of interest, and tendencies of arbitrators to side with corporate and wealthy benefactors who are often are deeply involved in the process financially. In short, the people making the decisions are usually paid (or afforded more work) by people with something to gain by the decision.
My point is, that these articles in the New York Times have shown a trend in american business practices that point to an effort to actively circumvent the United States judicial system. Having decisions heard by individual lawyers - usually with professional and monetary ties that could affect their decision making ability - does not beget impartiality. In fact the New York Times articles specifically speak to conflicts of interest, and tendencies of arbitrators to side with corporate and wealthy benefactors who are often are deeply involved in the process financially. In short, the people making the decisions are usually paid (or afforded more work) by people with something to gain by the decision.
