While I do think the numbers seem mightily skewed I don't think you have to assume that businesses are near perfect. Not every complaint or business mistake goes to arbitration. I would think things don't go to arbitration unless a resolution can't be achieved through the normal complaint process. Therefore many cases of imperfection are handled well before arbitration and the customer "wins".

Businesses may be much better at analyzing what they can win in arbitration than John Q Public and, in many cases, if they can't win they will pay before arbitration. If it is unclear whether they will win or lose, they will undoubtedly look at the amount in dispute and factor that in. These factors seem to support some level of skewing toward businesses winning more.

Nevertheless no business is able to analyze something with a 96% to 98.4% success rate so this clearly does not explain all of the skewing.

Posted at April 22, 2008 5:06 PM in response to The Solution to Arbitration?

Steven,
What is your view on whether "Militant Unitarians" are Christians or not. It is my less than perfectly informed opinion that many on the religious right would hold out belief in the trinity as a requirement for being considered a Christian. Additionally belief in the inerrability of the bible would be another requirement. The reason I bring this up is there is a refrain I have heard that the FFs were "Christian". Whereas I think there are aspects of Unitarianism that would go against such an unqualified statement.

The reason I bring this up is from a SoCaS perspective I have 2 "levels" of concern. The first is when people argue against the concept that the government should not choose one religion over another for special treatment. (The FFs were Christian so we should only look to the infallible bible, especially the word of Christ, to guide our nation. We'll call this the Huckabee approach.)

The second arguing against a prohibition against the government choosing to favor religious institutions over non-religious institutions. (The FFs were religious and built the country based on morals that were come strictly from religious teachings).

I would think a Militant Unitarian (tm) (or a Unitarian of any persuasion) would be troubled by the first because of the inherent belief in the inerrability of the bible that would undergird such an approach.

The second level would seem problematic to me from a Unitarian perspective as well because of it ignores rationality and relies solely on spritual writings. I would think a Militant Unitarian (tm) would believe that the path to God is through rationality.

I will not speak for "most progressives" but I will say when I have become concerned about SoCaS it is these two levels of concern. (There are clearly others such as can tax money ever go to a religious organization or Christmas Trees on public property that are further down the spectrum and about which I have less firm thoughts on.)

Finally a point about the Deist fallacy. When I have heard that the FF were Deists I understood that to mean that they while they were spiritual and believed in a God, they did not necesarrily believe in the trinity and in the inerrability of the bible. (To some extent were they "Christians" or not) Through this conversation I have learned that to be more precise. I should not think of "Deist" as simply nontrinitarian. I do not think I am alone in this view and that is why I think, in some (many?) cases the concept of FF were Deists being a fallacy is less about being a fallacious belief and more of misunderstood semantics.

Posted at March 13, 2008 2:07 PM in response to What Did the Founders Believe About Church and State?