Europeans and Americans have, through various forms of compulsory labor, for centuries been subsidizing branches of occupation administrations ("governments"), including courts, that primarily serve the interests of special exempt groups which are not required to pay a share of these branches' costs equivalent to the benefits the said sub-groups gain from them. Consider, for example, those institutions known in the western world as "courts," which serve primarily as negotiation venues for occupation businesses. If two large companies have a dispute--say, over details of control over a joint venture--courts provide an amazingly cheap clearinghouse for mediation of that dispute, including settlement and enforcement backdrop.
Funding the Occupation in Stages
To access these services, the corporate officers and/or organized shareholders who run the companies pay seemingly exorbitant fees to lawyers, who tend to be their kin or extended kin. And these fees, which disproportionately benefit the corporate officers and/or organized shareholders, are paid by "the corporation" as a whole, meaning that unconnected investors, unorganized investors, and compulsory investors have their resources redistributed primarily to occupation groups. Consider public sector employees receiving a mandatory "benefit" through a pension fund managed on their behalf by mediators, which invests billions in corporations who extract vast regency fees over the resources--fees for fiscal management from the mediators, fees for corporate stewardship given primarily to the kin or extended kin representing C-level employees, fees for legal services given primarily to big firms controlled by the kin or extended kin of occupation management, and so forth. Not merely public sector employees, but private sector employees, are forced into these schemes, either through non-optional or nigh-mandatory employee benefits plans implanted into employment contracts, corporate norms, or simply the acceptance of blind investing through the knowledge that, if extra pieces of salary are not turned over to the financial mediators, the occupation administration's taxing body (in America, the I.R.S.) will exact greater fees from the individual.
Many years of training have made it appear to most human assets that giving money to various occupation agencies is just, fair, and reasonable. Even sillier, in a way, is the side effect of "deductions," wherein many more human assets feel that it is a positive act, a relief, to provide additional resources to occupation mediators, or useful sub-mediators, in exchange for a "tax break." E.g. the private sector, through 401(k)s et. al., also contributes massive funds to the disproportionate extraction of resources available through corporations, whether by stock, bond, or more cleverly marketed security.
In their own right, any legal form of investment within the system, including survival, is a contribution to occupation, whether free and informed or not so. Occupation police, similarly, make any illegal form risky, and theoretically hyperpunitive or actually invisible punishments balance all such spreadsheets thus far.
The individuals and organizations who call themselves the western "left" have largely understood this principle of extraction, although their refusal to acknowledge other aspects of the occupation ultimately cripple them; the individuals and organizations who call themselves the western "right" are in some ways more perceptive, in some ways grossly less so, as their reverence for various pre-perverted iconic ideals, and more importantly, escape holes built ahead of time which lead into new labyrinths, keeps them sufficiently controlled.
The Cheapness of Subsidized Courtrooms
Like all divisions of occupation government, including the obvious Pentagon/MICC, western "courts" themselves provide their services to occupation arms at an astoundingly cheap rate. A company with profits in the 2017 billions may pay a laughably small filing fee ($100-$500) in order to employ, for weeks of trial, a spacious downtown courtroom and parking garages, filled with police protection, judges, a massive bloat of human resources and administrative staff using smartphones, mediators, discovery specialists, et cetera, all of whom are salaried and medicated and pensioned. The free market cost of such a trial would be exorbitant, and any business contemplating operations in an area without the availability of courtroom service would find itself needing to plan for correspondingly better business, in order to avoid the expensive horror of a trial. In part, these costs can be eliminated by forms of "tort reform" that make it all-but-impossible for subjects to sue occupation arms over "small" offenses.
For example, if you buy a $300 computer operating system and it crashes rampantly, is preloaded with undisclosed spyware, or is in some other way so low-quality or outright economic rapine that it goes beyond any pale of sanity, it is so expensive to go to court, and so impossible to get a suitable compensatory, let alone punitive, award, that it's better to just let it be. Consider a small business example: a rural hardware store purchases Windows operating systems and inventory management programs. The systems and programs crash regularly, sometimes at crucial moments. The direct costs incurred by the business are $5K and running in local IT-service bills to fix the problem, $15K in employee overtime to redo work or salvage sales or customer data and fix what can be fixed, and $30K in lost profits from crushed sales. (Add a zero for a small medical practice, add three zeroes and 1-5 dead people for a hospital, or add six zeroes and 100-500 dead people for a network of overseas embassies and military bases.)
Via western courts, it's sufficiently impossible to recover even the actual costs, let alone a cost that would speak to the un-levied claims of the uncountable millions of silent sufferers afflicted by the same problems. Western courts, therefore, are primarily useful only to megabusiness, where the tiny costs associated with their dispute over percentage licensing rights on a patent are an irrelevant part of keeping the court machine running. So too people who go through four lengthy divorces, using similar courtrooms and records services, which are paid for primarily by less-divorced persons, but the greater proportional benefit is to businesses, who can rely upon the availability of those furnished, secured courtrooms, paid for in perpetuity by external subjects, in making their plans and profits.
The private sector of lawyers to whom corporate litigation sinecures are directed may be robbing stockholders, but they are at least directly paid for by the corporation (apply airquotes liberally throughout latter sentence), as opposed to by the taxpayers. Judges, mediators, arbitrators, et cetera, are of course lawyers being paid by the taxpayers to mediate, say, Samsung v. Apple, but discounting even that pretension, the administrative bloat remains staggering.
For an occupation subject to sue Microsoft over Windows, or to sue the computer store where the employee said a dozen times during the office suite sales process, "Yeah, it runs well," is generally the same or a similar filing fee to what Widget Multinational pays to sue Neowidget Multinational. Occupation judges would lose their salaries if they permitted a jury to assess damages against Widget Multinational for losses caused to Frank's Rural Hardware by their inventory or OS software, so Frank pays his $300 and puts on his secondhand suit to get summarily dismissed. Widget Multinational's lawyers, taking $800K in fees from the city pension funds who invested in Widget, pay $350 to file against Neowidget. Then the judge, at $120K a year plus medical dental vision retirement offices and storage, jumps to their service, along with a $40 million (conservative) building, a $20 million downtown parking garage, an incalculable security infrastructure with metal detectors and bomb-sniffing dogs, 4 desk clerks at $33K a year each (again, a conservative estimate, assuming a minor county in Oklahoma) plus medical dental vision retirement offices and storage, 2 judicial assistants at $33K a year each plus medical dental vision retirement offices and storage, 0.6 of equivalent time in a records clerk at $38K a year each plus medical dental vision retirement offices and storage, 2 bailiffs at $35K a year each plus medical dental vision retirement offices and storage, and so on until you've gotten through the K-9 units, and the goys who run the metal detectors and clean the bathrooms and fix the lights in the overflow parking lot. Oh, and since it's Widget v. Neowidget, there are media liaisons and extra security and people have to come from the executive division and the Mayor's office and the business commission, and there's a program where MBA students at the local public university get to be escorted in to watch real-live negotiation happen, so they need somewhere to park and millions of dollars later the stockholders of one company may or may not transfer a sum to the stockholders of another company, which sum will be less valuable than the free advertising, excuse me, the positive publicity, that the trial has given the winning company (and possibly the losing company too, depending on the details and on what sides different consumer-observers take). Oops, forgot the journalism and communications students at the other nearby public university, and the gender studies students at both universities, who are writing papers about the new judge's life history, and don't even get me started on the Sociology department, but at least the city bus system can shuttle them to and from the courtroom if they show their university passes.
Alternative Court Functions
The other things most western courts do involve redirecting people to new life plans, whether total food and housing and medicine with limited outdoor privileges, or total food and housing and medicine with expansive outdoor privileges. Like the costs of maintaining massive judge-staffed corporate settlement buildings in every major metropolis, or of invading places seemingly at random, this extracted-resource-funded policy comes with its own inherent problems and catastrophic costs, tallied and untabulatable alike, which could be, once all its subtle side effects are accounted for, a more damning indictment (sic) of the system than subsidizing corporate litigation, but which are not our current focus. Instead, we look here at the "incidental" costs of subjecting taxpayers to government regulatory authority: fishing licenses, marriage certificates, business formation, et cetera. Whether or not these things should be in any way related to one or more governments and/or occupation governments--whether in the form of corporate-government contract, corporate-government understanding, international treaty, federal agency, state, county, municipal--is not here at issue. We discuss, rather, the ways that these "services" make the various tax-laundering substructures appear to be serving those from whom they extract. The perception of universal coverage, and of the supposed benefits in pooling costs, are, like the perception of much crony capitalism/socialism in the western world, highly mistaken and fundamentally ignorant of the ways in which the extraction structures actually work to take resources away from those who produce and give them disproportionately to those who do not produce, or, primarily, those who produce intangible benefits of management and oversight for astronomically greater sums than are required.
(A combination of "cultural diversity" and blind- or deliberately-misdirected statistical work does help exacerbate the false appearance of fairness, by suggesting that average citizens do utilize the system--say, by averaging the cost of an African's prison stays and death-sentence-appeals across 100 employed taxpayers--but, again, that is not our current focus. As the Zionist military empire remains more expensive than the panoply of subsidized breeding farms in, say, Mexifornia, so too do street thugs remain less dangerous and cheaper than merchants' institutions, including both costs disclosed and subtle.)
If you want to "get married," "get divorced," get born, die, catch fish, drive a car, visit a designated pseudo-natural area, travel to another country, inherit property, charge to install backyard fencing, et cetera, you must visit a local tax farm to pay one or more licensing and maintenance fees. Hundreds of millions of people do these things constantly, and their accumulated per-transaction taxes ("fees") amply cover the tiny shred of government operating costs associated with, say, taking ten minutes to file someone's contractor's license (for a lazy moron using a Microsoft-based government subsystem, rather than the alternative of an intelligent person using hypothetical quality software to do it in twenty seconds). Later, the license file may be reviewed for review or suspension, costing a different moron another ten minutes, but the fees the contractor paid during the application and education and verification and licensing and updating process (conservatively posit $500) amply covered the contractor's relatively minuscule share of employing those government employees and systems (and storage and paperwork).
As we've previously discussed, Bigcorp v. Giantcorp costs parking and security and judges and assistants and clerks and janitors and courtrooms, to the tune of millions, for filing fees totaling probably less than the aggregate cost of a citizen obtaining a plumber's license. And the insurance component of having all those possibilities available to big businesses, essentially free, is of even greater value. Of similar or perhaps exceeding value is the ability of the courthouse to forcibly deliver and re-house external labor at taxpayer expense, such that taxpayers fund the processing, shelter, feeding, medicating, and reproduction of whatever percentage of scabs prefers to remain idle and/or so violent that their housing options must become less flexible than that of replacement labor which actually labors. The latter is, given the European and American "immigration" debates, a significant component of this issue, but again, focus on the subsidization of courts as financial negotiation venues, rather than their other extractive uses.
Chartered by the Crown
Given this focus, we find in American courts a similarity to colonial privateers. When Semitic finance consolidated the peoples of Europe under the control of various inbred Judeo-Christian monarchies, colonization began, and working people were forced to labor to produce wealth that was used, among many other nefarious purposes, to repress technological and cultural development at home, and to propagate Judeo-Christianity abroad. Because the horridly mangled and/or crypto-AshkeNazi monarchs and their financial courtiers were prone to infighting, the project of colonialism was beset by proto-advertising expenses and other expensive troubles, ergo "privateers" were chartered: mercenaries who were given royal/holy license to rob and exploit in designated non-areas. Privateers then behaved like courts or non-central banks do now, extracting additional fees from ordinary people for day-to-day, rather than yearly or life-stage-based, transactions. E.g., one pays the King half of one's harvest annually, but also must buy a traveling license from the King's semi-private tax farmers, who employ paramilitary thugs to patrol the roads arresting those without proof of having paid protection money.
Many of these processes, such as the PITC or pitsee complex (Police Insurance Traffic Court) and their mobile pillaging armored cavalry and tech. and air-support units, would be justifiable if they were based on safety standards, e.g., strenuous and non-universalist licensing and accident-culpability policies, non-civil-only penalties for infractions that were purportedly life or death, and punitive standards that did not depend upon fines to fund their ongoing existence, much as banks/governments depend on certain levels of unemployment/crime/war, ergo cannot legitimately claim an interest in stopping them. PITC is an early form of what we see now with the ACA/Obamacare, in the sense that occupation administration steals resources from the occupied citizenry and uses them to fund mercenaries who mandate payments to preferred firms in return for the citizens' permission to live. The ACA provides exemptions to the destitute, but the early and ongoing PITC disallows even that. (How cars fit in here is easy to understand, but fees for walking and bicycling where you live are less so, being either prepaid monthly/annually or, if you're without a street address, taken from others or screened through "charitable" laundering organizations; fees for taking mass transit have PITC fees built-in.)
Like tumors, and like privateers in earlier Christian/colonial times, court-like aspects of government become inefficient beyond even the inefficiency planned by their creators. They do not "become" corrupt, for they were conceived corrupt, but they do become more greedy, more brazen, and even more clumsy in the carrying out of their supposed and ever-expanding duties. Consider not only the obvious judiciary, but the ubiquitously implausible departments of motor vehicles. What is amazing is not the arrogance or stupidity of these organizations, but that anyone would be amazed by it. Mercenaries have always been known to be lazy, stupid, and untrustworthy, as liable to not show up for crucial battles as to betray their hirers' hirers without even necessarily being aware of the conflict.
As administrative bloat increases, mercenaries gain increasing day-to-day regulatory power over birth, reproduction, labor, leisure, and death, to say the least. The seals of privateers, issued to delegates for a fee, must be affixed to the various licenses that permit viability. When the Crown wishes a matter resolved, it may be done--like hackers building in backdoors, there are ways for the thieves and their brood to accomplish things that are meant to be accomplished, just as there are ways to formally attempt to do things that are not meant to be accomplished. For example, if Trump wants to endanger Minnesotans, he writes down a note and a judge writes a note that the other note is meaningless, and Minnesotans are endangered. Conversely, if Trump wants to endanger Syrians, he sends missiles and the judges are silent.
One cited problem was files stored in an unsecured storage garage and damaged by water and mold. Other issues include uncooperative and "at times combative" court and city personnel that caused delays in access to files. Auditors also found $26,000 in illegal fees charged to residents.Any number of "court" or "city" offices or filing systems could be similarly assessed, particularly in the United States. The joint attempt of Ferguson and the lügenpresse to imply that decades of soggy records and rude incompetents managing them are (1) unique as to Ferguson, (2) unique as to post-Michael-Brown, or (3) unique as to America are admirable in a vile way, given how even Americans who have finally figured out "the DMV" and "politicians" are wont to fail to connect the dots to other aspects of the system.