Why not sell water to the US?

[Hugo]

I would say rather, that any agency which purports to resolve disputes is an appendage or variation of government.

Then your definition of government is wrong. Government is an organisation that exerts a monopoly over the services of law and justice within a geographical area. Since private courts and arbitrators do not exercise a monopoly over their services within a geographical area they cannot be called or compared to government.

All of those things are underpinned by either or both of:

1-underlying government law

Not at all. These institutions only presuppose that a contract should be binding, and that concept exists quite independently of "government law", as the medieval Law Merchant or the Somali Xeer illustrate quite neatly.

2-residual or delegated government enforcement authority.

If you default on bills and loans, Equifax will make your life a misery as a penalty without any "residual or delegated government enforcement authority" whatsoever. All they will do is advise people not to deal with you, which depends on no authority or enforcement of any kind except that which people will willingly give (i.e. nothing to do with government).

[The Terrible Sweal]

I would say rather, that any agency which purports to resolve disputes is an appendage or variation of government.

Then your definition of government is wrong. Government is an organisation that exerts a monopoly over the services of law and justice within a geographical area.

I don't know which of us is the monkey or the weasel, but we've been around this cobblers bench before.

Try this then in your terms: the 'monopoly' the government asserts includes all forms of dispute resolution, either direct, or delegated.

Since private courts and arbitrators do not exercise a monopoly over their services within a geographical area they cannot be called or compared to government.

They are merely agencies or licensees of the monopolist.

If you default on bills and loans, Equifax will make your life a misery as a penalty without any "residual or delegated government enforcement authority"

whatsoever.

What, utter, stuff and nonsense!

Equifax is an INCORPORATED entity, it operates within the REGULATED financial services industry, it reports on your performance of LEGAL debt obligations, it must comply with federal or provincial privace LEGISLATION.

Equifax's entire environment and substance is governmental.

[Hugo]

Try this then in your terms: the 'monopoly' the government asserts includes all forms of dispute resolution, either direct, or delegated.

How can that be when private mediators do not exert monopoly? Are marriage counsellors monopolists? Are they agents of the state?

They are merely agencies or licensees of the monopolist.

No, they are not. If you see two people fighting and you step in to break it up, does that make you an agent or licensee of the government?

Equifax's entire environment and substance is governmental.

Equifax's incorporation is for its own existence to comply with the law of the land. In role it is the heir of the Law Merchant, which existed outside of any government law, which is a point I notice you did not address at all - stuff and nonsense, indeed!

To summarise your argument here, I should say that you are arguing that the only possible way for disputes to be mediated is by the government, a contention so ridiculous that you can only support it with a definition of government so useless and loose that it cannot distinguish between Parliament, a marriage counsellor, and a man who breaks up a bar brawl.

[August1991]

No, they are not. If you see two people fighting and you step in to break it up, does that make you an agent or licensee of the government?

Can I step in and mediate? (And no, I don't work for the government... )

Let us call Equifax a "virtual government". You choose to become a subject of this "government" voluntarily. When you do so, you accept that Equifax managers will make future decisions binding on you.

Is it only the word "government" that is the problem? Hugo refuses to use it. TS refuses to attach it to a private entity.

But how is Equifax different from a government?

[Equifax cannot put you in prison... but according to Hugo, it can make your life hell.]

Step back 500 years to 1505 and look at how "governments" were then, and how much they have changed since. Now, step 500 years into the future to 2505 and imagine what "governments" will look like.

The institution is useful but its form is hardly fixed.

[Hugo]

Let us call Equifax a "virtual government".

Let's not. There's a perfectly serviceable term already in use that describes Equifax: it's a credit reporting agency.

Is it only the word "government" that is the problem? Hugo refuses to use it. TS refuses to attach it to a private entity.

No, I think my definition is accurate and I use it daily. The problem I have with Sweal's definition is that I don't think when he says "government intervention" he means marriage counsellors, therefore, I have difficulty taking it seriously when apparently he doesn't take it seriously himself. I'm of the belief that vocabulary should serve logic and not vice versa.

Step back 500 years to 1505 and look at how "governments" were then... The institution is useful but its form is hardly fixed.

Did governments 500 years ago not meet the definition I gave, August? I rather think they did. I think they did right back to the earliest governments of human history.

[Guest eureka]

Equifax can in no way "make your life hell." It can only do as TS said it could and attempt to collect on behalf of creditor clients.

In that, it must operate within the law and within bounds that do not include the right to harass.

The Ministries of Consumer Affairs would have something to say to Equifax if it did harass or make someone's life "hell'"

Government would protect.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Try this then in your terms: the 'monopoly' the government asserts includes all forms of dispute resolution, either direct, or delegated.

How can that be when private mediators do not exert monopoly? Are marriage counsellors monopolists? Are they agents of the state?

mediators? counsellors?? what the heck are you dragging them into this for???

They are merely agencies or licensees of the monopolist.

No, they are not. If you see two people fighting and you step in to break it up, does that make you an agent or licensee of the government?

again, your example does not match your position. what do you think you are enforcing when you break up a fight?

Equifax's entire environment and substance is governmental.

Equifax's incorporation is for its own existence to comply with the law of the land.

equifax "exists" because the gov. provides for corporate status.

In role it is the heir of the Law Merchant, which existed outside of any government law,

never heard of it. where and how is it enacted? how is it enforced?

To summarise your argument here, I should say that you are arguing that the only possible way for disputes to be mediated is by the government, ...

usually you go a few round before making erroneous imputations of others' positions. i guess you're just getting more efficient. just for starters, I'm not talking about "mediation". (and neither were you.)

try a dose of intellectual integrity sometime.

[caesar]

We have a federal government to handle issues for the whole country when it affects the majority of the people. We, the citizen's choose those whom make uniform decisions. Governments hire experts to look at all the remifications. Why would we want a hodge podge of "private arbitrators" Where a little cash slipped into someone's hands could make decisions affecting others.

[Hugo]

Equifax can in no way "make your life hell."

It can make it extremely difficult for you to get a house, a car, a loan, a credit card or even a job.

The Ministries of Consumer Affairs would have something to say to Equifax if it did harass or make someone's life "hell'"

Government would protect.

The only thing Equifax does is advise other companies and individuals on who has a good credit rating, and who does not. The only thing government could do would be to force people to do business with people they'd rather not.

Do you think businesses should have a right to refuse to serve people they don't trust?

mediators? counsellors?? what the heck are you dragging them into this for???

Because they "resolve disputes", as you put it.

again, your example does not match your position. what do you think you are enforcing when you break up a fight?

Nothing, you're mediating. According to you, that's government!

never heard of it. where and how is it enacted? how is it enforced?

See here.

Why would we want a hodge podge of "private arbitrators" Where a little cash slipped into someone's hands could make decisions affecting others.

And this has never, ever happened with government? The difference is that corruption in one company gives you Enron, whereas corruption in government gives you Saddam Hussein.

[Guest eureka]

Actually, Hugo, Equifax does a great deal more than that. That is only the Credit Reporting side of the business. But that is neither here nor there for the purposes of your discussion.

It is not Equifax that makes life hell. It is the record that is reported and which a potential employer or provider of some service is entitled to know.

[PocketRocket]

There is no reason not to sell water to the US, but there are those in this country that would rather watch it run out into the ocean that sell it to the americans. It's typical of the blame america first, crowd.

I'm not sure what you mean or who is "to blame", nor what they are to be blamed for. Presumably you speak of who is to be blamed for the water shortage in the USA. Well, some may blame the USA themselves for wasteful usage of their vast H2O resources, but not me.

I blame Saddam Hussein for the water shortage in the USA

There we are. Does that make you happy???

On a more serious note, there are ways to recycle water, like most other resources.

Holding tanks, precipitators, etc. Most water used in a household could be re-used many times over.

I do not see that being done.

Eventually, America's water needs will far outweigh the availability of the water itself, if current trends continue.

In some instances, ie; backyard swimming pools, salt water could be used, rather than wasting fresh water.

And yet we see tens of thousands of backyard swimming pools in California, where water shortage is a chronic problem, all filled with good, sweet, fresh water, open to sunlight, subject to evaporation, and eventually simply being drained and replaced.

This kind of behaviour is typical of North American thinking (I include Canada here). If it's free, or even very cheap, we view it as an endless resource.

[Iknowbest]

I remember years ago in my town where there were signs in every mens washroom in every pub, tavern and bar which said:

" Please flush the toilet because Sudbury needs the water"

Now if we sidle down real close to the Can/US border perhaps a similar sign could be of help?

[Guest eureka]

I read an interesting piece on preventing the evaporation of water - I think it was in a Canadian Geographic magazine. I merely skimmed it at the time so don't recall al the information.

Somewhere in Africa on a lake used for water supplies and subject to high evaporation, Canadians have "coated" the surface with something (and I can't remember what it is, but it does not interfere with normal usage). The rate of evaporation is reduced by, I think, about 60%

It seems to be a process that could heal many of the problems of water supply. It might even be a way to prevent Calgary from becoming dehydrated.

[The Terrible Sweal]

mediators? counsellors?? what the heck are you dragging them into this for???

Because they "resolve disputes", as you put it.

No. Mediators help parties find solutions. They don't provide them. Not the same thing at all.

again, your example does not match your position. what do you think you are enforcing when you break up a fight?

Nothing, you're mediating. According to you, that's government!

Would you PLEASE stop fabricating things and attributing them to me. It's an intensly objectionable and dishonest tactic. :angry:

never heard of it. where and how is it enacted? how is it enforced?

See here.

Oh, very informative. You really showed me how much you know about what you're talking about. (Zip.)

Here's a notion for you. Instead of posting your ill-considered notions in prose, why not just confine yourself exclusively to posting links to whatever you think amounts to an argument.

HERE, for anyone interested is what you get when you google it.

Even an insane gibbon could see that in actual fact it utterly rebuts Hugo's claim of non-governmentalness.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Consider the very first listing ... The Law Merchant and the Fair Court of St. Ives, 1270-1324

Who enforced the decisions at St. Ives?  Who ensured that damages were paid and that fines were collected?  On whose authority were the judgments pronounced?  In the context of thirteenth-century legal theory, there could have been little dispute about such questions; these functions were very clearly the abbot’s to command.  The court was part of the patrimony of the abbot of Ramsey, and the court’s officers—the steward, the bailiffs, and the clerks—were appointed by the abbot or by his representatives. The fines and amercements paid in the fair court went to the abbot’s treasury, and the watchmen and constables as well as the jurors of presentment were unfree men who owed services to the abbot as their lord.[19]  The abbot’s men were responsible for collecting payments to the court,[20] for distraining absent defendants by seizing their goods,[21] and for conducting unlucky defendants to jail.[22] In 1287, a man named Totte Simon tried to collect a tax on wool; because he “executed this office without warrant and without the leave of the bailiffs of the fair,” he was summoned to the fair court and his goods were seized.[23]

[Hugo]

No. Mediators help parties find solutions. They don't provide them. Not the same thing at all.

So you think the only worthwhile resolution of a dispute is one that is dictated to one or both parties, rather than one to which they can both agree? Or that a dispute can only be resolved by the decree of a third party rather than by compromise between the primary parties?

Would you PLEASE stop fabricating things and attributing them to me. It's an intensly objectionable and dishonest tactic.

Is this or is this not what you said on March 4th at 3:32 PM?

any agency which purports to resolve disputes is an appendage or variation of government.

Mediation resolves disputes. It may not dictate the resolution but you cannot argue that the purpose of mediation is not to resolve a dispute! According to what you said on March 4th at 3:32 PM, that means that mediation is either government or derived from government, therefore, your accusation that I am "fabricating things" when I say that is entirely false.

Oh, very informative. You really showed me how much you know about what you're talking about.

Oh, you richly deserved that snipe. I had already told you that the Law Merchant was a medieval institution, so when you began referring to it in the present tense you demonstrated that you were not, in all likelihood, paying much attention (since I don't believe you have a serious mental disorder). Therefore, I made a rather crude suggestion that you start paying attention and perhaps seek to understand what is being discussed.

Even an insane gibbon could see that in actual fact it utterly rebuts Hugo's claim of non-governmentalness.

Why not consider the third listing? You obviously didn't "f'ing Google it" very much!

Law Merchant: A body of principles and regulations applied to commercial transactions and deriving from the established customs of merchants and traders rather than the jurisprudence of a particular nation or state.

...the body of rules applied to commercial transactions; derived from the practices of traders rather than from jurisprudence

...The Law Merchant refers to a legal system used by merchants in 13th century England. Rather than being the result of the edict of a final authority, it was evolved based on common usage.

The Wikipedia entry is especially detailed and enlightening. I suggest you read it!

Consider the very first listing ... The Law Merchant and the Fair Court of St. Ives, 1270-1324

If you read more of that, you will find the following passage:

First, the merchants at St. Ives were subject to many legal regimes other than “the law merchant,” including the ordinances of the abbot, the statutes of the king, and the customs and principles of equity that constrained and modified these two authorities.  Second, the law merchant as practiced at St. Ives was not an exclusive law for a well-defined merchant class. Taken together, these observations gravely weaken the argument that the merchant community exercised the primary legislative authority within the fair—that the merchants were sole authors of the laws by which they were privileged to be governed.

--emphasis by original author

So basically, what you have done is to take an example which the author specifically states was not representative of the Law Merchant, claim it was representative of the Law Merchant, and presume to make an historical analysis of the Law Merchant based upon this completely faulty assumption of what it was.

It is not Equifax that makes life hell. It is the record that is reported and which a potential employer or provider of some service is entitled to know.

Well, strictly speaking it is the people who read and trust Equifax's reports who make a person's life "hell", by which I mean they do nothing, thus making a person's life hell. But you are correct in that Equifax is nothing more than a provider of information, and an example of how noncoercion can be used as an effective punishment for wrongdoing.

[Guest eureka]

The purpose of mediation is not to resolve disputes: it is to provide an avenue for disputants to talk about their complaints without judicial restraint and to come to agreement. It sometimes facilitates agreement.

It is also a process whereby the issues are narrowed into what is relevant to the dispute thus saving court time and expense. There is nothing binding about mediation until the parties agree to a resolution and put this into a binding agreement. Whatever happens in the process is confidential and cannot be used in court.

[Hugo]

The purpose of mediation is not to resolve disputes

Yes, it is. The parties enter into arbitration because they want their dispute resolved (and hopefully on terms favourable to them). If they did not want the dispute resolved they would not bother with arbitration, since the dispute can be perpetuated without any outside involvement.

it is to provide an avenue for disputants to talk about their complaints without judicial restraint and to come to agreement.

You've just described a telephone.

There is nothing binding about mediation until the parties agree to a resolution and put this into a binding agreement.

Actually you can enter into either non-binding arbitration (where the arbitrator merely dispenses advice) or binding arbitration, where you agree before even entering into the arbitration process to abide by the decision of the arbitrator. You only describe the first kind.

[Guest eureka]

Arbitration is not the same as mediation.

[The Terrible Sweal]

No. Mediators help parties find solutions. They don't provide them. Not the same thing at all.

So you think the only worthwhile resolution of a dispute is one that is dictated to one or both parties, rather than one to which they can both agree?

I'm drawing (since you seem to need it clarified) a distinction between disputants who cannot reach an agreement and those who can. The latter are not our concern here.

Would you PLEASE stop fabricating things and attributing them to me. It's an intensly objectionable and dishonest tactic.

Is this or is this not what you said on March 4th at 3:32 PM?

any agency which purports to resolve disputes is an appendage or variation of government.

Yes. Seemingly the context of this conversation did not make it sufficiently clear that parties settling their own disputes was not included.

Mediation resolves disputes.

No. Parties in mediation resolve their disputes.

A body of principles and regulations applied to commercial transactions and deriving from the established customs of merchants and traders rather than the jurisprudence of a particular nation or state.

A body of REGULATIONS, is not governmental to you?

...the body of rules applied to commercial transactions; derived from the practices of traders rather than from jurisprudence

Whoever wrote this does not understand the meaning of the word jurisprudence. Also, they don't understand that extant jurisprudence is also derived from business practices.

...The Law Merchant refers to a legal system used by merchants in 13th century England. Rather than being the result of the edict of a final authority, it was evolved based on common usage.

Who interpreted it? Who enforced it? Under what authority?

Consider the very first listing ... The Law Merchant and the Fair Court of St. Ives, 1270-1324

If you read more of that, you will find the following passage:

First, the merchants at St. Ives were subject to many legal regimes other than “the law merchant,” including the ordinances of the abbot, the statutes of the king, and the customs and principles of equity that constrained and modified these two authorities. Second, the law merchant as practiced at St. Ives was not an exclusive law for a well-defined merchant class. Taken together, these observations gravely weaken the argument that the merchant community exercised the primary legislative authority within the fair—that the merchants were sole authors of the laws by which they were privileged to be governed.

??? So what?

So basically, what you have done is to take an example which the author specifically states was not representative of the Law Merchant, claim it was representative of the Law Merchant,

The title says law merchant and it was the first source Google produced. It was YOU who told me to google it. If you had better sources, why the F didn't you cite them in the first place, Mr. Dillatory?

[anticlimates]

What's so special about water? 

Maybe the "Council of Candians" feel the same about trees?

In which case there's nothing "so special" about water in relation to lumber, in their view. As you claim.

At the same time, people seem upset that Americans won't buy our lumber.

I don't think that's quite it, do you? Aren't people actually upset about lumber tarrifs....which have repeatedly been called illegal by the WTO?

This topic is hurtin'.

[Hugo]

I'm drawing (since you seem to need it clarified) a distinction between disputants who cannot reach an agreement and those who can.

How could binding arbitration fail to reach an agreement? The agreement is made before the arbitration is even convened. I might also remind you that dictating terms (such as the Versailles Treaty) is not really a resolution to a dispute at all since the root causes of the dispute are left untouched. That being the case, it could be said that the only way for disputes to be resolved is through non-governmental action!

No. Parties in mediation resolve their disputes.

By that same standard, parties in a court of law resolve their disputes. What matter the judge if no matter the mediator?

A body of REGULATIONS, is not governmental to you?

Not if it's voluntary. Is IEEE-SA governmental?

Who interpreted it? Who enforced it? Under what authority?

I already gave you a link and suggested a starting-point for you to find this information. I don't think it would help you to repeat myself.

The title says law merchant and it was the first source Google produced. It was YOU who told me to google it. If you had better sources, why the F didn't you cite them in the first place, Mr. Dillatory?

That's a terrible attempt at a dodge. What Mr. Sweal is attempting to disguise here is the fact that he followed only the first link he found, didn't read it in any depth and made a very incorrect interpretation precisely because he didn't read it fully.

FYI, I didn't read the whole thing either, but 5 minutes spent with the text was enough to show me how glaringly wrong your interpretation was. How long did you read it for?

[The Terrible Sweal]

I'm drawing (since you seem to need it clarified) a distinction between disputants who cannot reach an agreement and those who can.

How could binding arbitration fail to reach an agreement?

Man! You shift ground so fast it makes the head spin. Now, in yet another whirl, you're talking about binding arbitration. Binding arbitration is not mediation, but it is more like what I meant in the first place. Note the term 'binding'. What, Hugo, do you imagine creates the 'binding' part?

The agreement is made before the arbitration is even convened.

Pursuant to LEGISLATION, subject to review by the COURTS, and enforceable by LAW.

I can't help but point out that every example you have offered over the course of these discussions has been open to the same point. Try to come up with one that isn't.

No. Parties in mediation resolve their disputes.

By that same standard, parties in a court of law resolve their disputes.

No. That's a simply ridiculous comparison.

A body of REGULATIONS, is not governmental to you?

Not if it's voluntary.

Voluntary regulations are either not regulations but merely guidelines, or if they have greater authority, precision and enforceability, they are an alternate manifestation of government (as I already said).

Is IEEE-SA governmental?

You tell me.

Who interpreted it? Who enforced it? Under what authority?

I already gave you a link and suggested a starting-point for you to find this information. I don't think it would help you to repeat myself.

Evasion.

That's a terrible attempt at a dodge. What Mr. Sweal is attempting to disguise here is the fact that he followed only the first link he found, didn't read it in any depth and made a very incorrect interpretation precisely because he didn't read it fully.

Lies.

[Hugo]

Binding arbitration is not mediation, but it is more like what I meant in the first place. Note the term 'binding'. What, Hugo, do you imagine creates the 'binding' part?

The agreement of the parties concerned. Perhaps you are familiar with terms such as "honour" and "reputation"? These are absolutely fundamental issues for a true free market. He who is without honour and who has a bad reputation will not get far. Those who wish to prosper must have honour and reputation, therefore, one will wish to bind oneself to agreements, out of long-term self-interest.

Look at Enron. Within hours of revelations of dishonest accounting becoming public, their stock was in freefall. By the time the government got around to investigating, Enron was history as a company. Why? Because they proved they were dishonourable and disreputable.

Pursuant to LEGISLATION, subject to review by the COURTS, and enforceable by LAW.

No. The Law Merchant functioned by simply ostracizing those who did not comply with the Merchant's decisions. Credit providers today function in a similar way - although they may use courts to pursue defaulting debtors, they will also refuse to do business with a dishonest borrower. Hence credit ratings, and why if you default on your car payments you will find it hard to get a mortgage. The penalty of your default is not just action taken against you by the car company, but also the refusal of other companies to do business with you based upon your bad reputation. This refusal alone makes a very powerful argument, especially in the modern economy where every man is dependent upon a thousand others just for his continued existence. If it was that effective in the medieval period, when people were far more self-sufficient than today, imagine how effective it would be now!

No. That's a simply ridiculous comparison.

I've put my argument forward, and you have no counter-argument, which means either that your opinion is indefensible or that you don't consider it worth defending.

Voluntary regulations are either not regulations but merely guidelines, or if they have greater authority, precision and enforceability, they are an alternate manifestation of government (as I already said).

Your argument hinges upon a word game: "regulation" must mean "government". The problem is that many things in this world are self-regulating, for example, most people don't binge on food or alcohol, and most companies try to provide reliable products without government insistence that they do so. For example, there's no law stating that car companies must warranty a powertrain for 5 years, but most do (and some for even more).

The difference between regulation and guideline is slim but enough to destroy this line of argument. A regulation is a requirement, a guideline is a suggestion. For instance, for a company to produce a USB2 computer peripheral it must comply with the IEEE-SA regulations on USB2 specification. If not, then it isn't USB2, and it won't have any success in the marketplace for USB2 peripherals. On the other hand, it is a guideline that a computer motherboard should be 12" by 10" in size. It isn't a regulation because not all of them are, but it is a guideline set out by Intel in its ATX specifications.

Is IEEE-SA governmental?

You tell me.

No, it isn't. It's an international body that sets standards by way of peer participation.

Evasion.

How on earth is that evasion? You asked me questions, I provide a link where you can find the answers, and you call that evasion?

Is this another word from the Terrible Sweal's Patented Bizarro Dictionary?

Lies.

No, it isn't. Watch, I'll demonstrate.

First you quoted the actions of the abbey as being indicative of the functioning of the Law Merchant, stating that "an insane gibbon could see that... it utterly rebuts Hugo's claim of non-governmentalness [sic]."

Then I quoted a passage from the same text saying that the actions of the abbey were in fact distinct and separate from those of the Law Merchant, which completely refutes your point. In response, you started blustering about how it was somehow a failure on my part that the first Google link you saw took you to a text that you didn't read properly and therefore wholly misunderstood.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Binding arbitration is not mediation, but it is more like what I meant in the first place. Note the term 'binding'. What, Hugo, do you imagine creates the 'binding' part?

The agreement of the parties concerned. Perhaps you are familiar with terms such as "honour" and "reputation"?

Absolutely. I am also familiar with the terms greed and opportunism, which are equally real, I assure you.

Look at Enron. Within hours of revelations of dishonest accounting becoming public, their stock was in freefall. By the time the government got around to investigating, Enron was history as a company. Why? Because they proved they were dishonourable and disreputable.

You can hardly consider that outcome either desireable or sufficient though, can you?

Pursuant to LEGISLATION, subject to review by the COURTS, and enforceable by LAW.

No. The Law Merchant functioned by simply ostracizing those who did not comply with the Merchant's decisions.

I've read differently. What are your sources?

Credit providers today function in a similar way - although they may use courts to pursue defaulting debtors,

This was my point. It obviates completely your contention that Equifax is an entirely private dispute resolution regime. Thank you for conceding the obvious.

Voluntary regulations are either not regulations but merely guidelines, or if they have greater authority, precision and enforceability, they are an alternate manifestation of government (as I already said).

Your argument hinges upon a word game: "regulation" must mean "government".

No word game. I am operating on the only definition which makes sense (to me at least): Anything falling short of 'legitimate', authoritative, and enforceable is, for the intents and purposes of this discussion, non-governmental. And anything that is all those things is, for all intents and purposes is governmental. If this isn't a definition you can concur with, let's deal with that.

The difference between regulation and guideline is slim but enough to destroy this line of argument. A regulation is a requirement, a guideline is a suggestion.

Exactly. Now what constitutes a 'requirement' in this sense?

No, it isn't. It's an international body that sets standards by way of peer participation.

Who are the members?

Lies.

No, it isn't. Watch, I'll demonstrate.

First you quoted the actions of the abbey as being indicative of the functioning of the Law Merchant, stating that "an insane gibbon could see that... it utterly rebuts Hugo's claim of non-governmentalness [sic]."

Then I quoted a passage from the same text saying that the actions of the abbey were in fact distinct and separate from those of the Law Merchant, which completely refutes your point. In response, you started blustering about how it was somehow a failure on my part that the first Google link you saw took you to a text that you didn't read properly and therefore wholly misunderstood.

More lies.