Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Libertarian position on certain 'law Message-ID: <1712@inmet.UUCP> Date: Thu, 23-Aug-84 00:39:42 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.1712 Posted: Thu Aug 23 00:39:42 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 19-Aug-84 02:12:58 EDT Lines: 73 Nf-ID: #R:ccieng2:-47100:inmet:7800127:000:3686 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Aug 14 13:04:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / ucbvax!faustus / 6:42 pm Aug 13, 1984 >Much of the argument in favor of less government and more >personal freedom people have been giving makes sense, but >"private courts"? This is something I can't understand. Say I >have some gripe against you and decide to sue you. Who gets to >decide which court we will go to? VERY briefly, you and I both subscribe to private police systems or arbitration services. Such services would provide (as a matter of course) agreements with each other about what happens when their members conflict. If, for example, you subscribe to Alpha Security, and I subscribe to Beta Security, chances are that Alpha and Beta would ALREADY have some agreement on how to arbitrate disputes in the situation where a client of Alpha's and a client of Beta's conflict. They would have these agreements to enable them to avoid costly (and embarrassing) armed conflict. For more details, read "The Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman. >Say you have been burning >tires in your front yard, and it just happens that the judge who >sits in the court of your choice also burns tires in his spare >time. Hardly fair, I would say, but I have no more power to >force you to to a different court than you have to force me to >go to this one. We indeed have no power at all. The problem, though, is that whichever one of us seemed reluctant to go to such a court (by refusing to go, unreasonable demands about evidence, whatever) is showing himself to be guilty. Will their insurance company keep up protection if they aren't willing to adjudicate a valid complaint? Will anyone deal with them except on a cash-up-front basis if it's clear that they won't deal with a civilized court? Illegal behavior is EXPENSIVE. >Now, with government-run courts, this problem >doesn't occur... It's certainly true that with government-run costs CERTAIN problems don't occur. I'd rather have this "problem" (no single final court system) than a court system where judges need not prove their competence except to voters and officials. I'd much rather see one where judges must prove their competence to a market. >Or say that I win a decision against you, but >you decide that you want to continue burning tires anyway. So I >call the police and tell them that you aren't obeying the court. >What are they supposed to do, enforce the decisions of every >private court that decides to call itself that? Right now, arbitration agreements are written so that failure to obey the decision of the arbiters is a BREACH OF CONTRACT. If a state court system remains, you sue the leaf-burner for breach of contract, and you wait the several years for the state court system to get to your complaint. >Or maybe the >police force should be private also, or perhaps every private >court should have its own police force to enforce its >decisions. I think it's obvious where this leads. I suggest you read the above-mentioned book to find out where it might lead. Until then..... >I think that the problem with most Libertarian thinking is that >it assumes that without government, people will be resonably >civilized and cooperative. This is absurd -- without a big >powerful government keeping order, within a few months everybody >would be at each other's throats and it wouldn't be long before >society would degenerate into a bunch of armed feudal states... I suppose that's possible. It didn't happen, though, in medieval Ireland or Iceland, both given in a lecture by Friedman as examples of minimal-government societies. There were plenty of clans, or small organizations, but no big, powerful, government keeping order.