: 
: >It's quite possible that a buyer and seller will both
: >trust some third party more than either trust the other, and
: >will desire the moderation of that third party.  But if a random
: >third party assumes the right to interfere in a transaction contarary
: >to the wishes of the primary participants, odds are pretty good the
: >results will be detrimental.
: 
: So we try to ensure that the process of deciding whether to introduce
: third parties isn't random.  As Steve said above, there are examples
: where third parties *are* less ignorant or corrupt than the two
: primary parties; should this knowledge not be able to help?
: 
A third party should be able to use persuasion to sway the transaction.
If, on the other hand, we condone the use of force or threat of violence 
by the third party, then we are in trouble.  A fourth party could say 
that it knows better than parties 1, 2, and 3.  And a fifth party... and 
so on.  Who wins?  The one that can use the force or threat of force the
best.  In other words "Might makes right."  Let's abandon such
aggressive tactics and work from voluntary cooperation and respect from 
others.  That is what libertarians want.