> You’re describing a court whose history traces closer to the founding of our republic than to the present day
This is certainly no less damning. However, it is very illustrative of our colorful history: trade above humans!
This is certainly no less damning. However, it is very illustrative of our colorful history: trade above humans!
Seriously lost on what point you're trying to make. Is it a general diatribe against specialist courts, e.g. dedicated family and traffic courts?
But the entire premise of the private market is competition, or else it's just a blight on humanity. So the idea of a trade court seems a little silly at best, or actively enabling the worst hypothetical behavior of capitalism at the worst. If the court were really that necessary, the fundamental tenets of the alleged benefits of capitalism seem in question, and we should probably renegotiate at all costs with those who own the means of production.
You think private markets can exist without laws (and by corollary, venues in which to adjudicate them)?
And let me re-emphasize, private markets are generally a terrible thing for most people who aren't already being starved by their state. This does not generally result in efficient processes in the short term, and we're discovering in the long term private markets don't encourage competitiveness either.
...but when we talk about private markets (i.e., public markets of mostly private things), we neglect the real private markets, aka "platforms", aka app stores and subscriptions. These aren't even pretending to provide the benefits of market-driven societies.