5 ms·

Yes and no. Yes we need courts and no, we can choose them (unlike now). Same for enforcement. Violence yes, monopoly no.

grzm 10y ago
Re: choosing courts. Depends on the jurisdiction, doesn't it? In some jurisdictions, judges are elected. In others they're appointed by representatives who are elected. At least I believe those are the common cases in democracies. (And there's another couple of assumptions.) Or am I misunderstanding? Wouldn't be the first time.
- dmichulke 10y ago
  Yes and no:) Currently and generally a single jurisdiction doesn't allow for competing courts. In libertarian land everyone has (or is?) his own "jurisdiction" for his private property (and there is no public property). All other courts are defined in contracts. Note the latter is the generalization of the former where entering other people's property entails an implicit agreement to the owner's terms (and jurisdiction if you will.) So everyone can define his own abortion/marihuana/uber free zone at will and/or just rule out the public completely. Often there is a misunderstanding that this entails a "free for all" but municipalities in today's sense would still exist and have their own laws / courts and the streets there would probably belong to a company consisting of a number of the municipality's inhabitants. This doesn't mean that there is only one such company, so you can "choose your court" by walking the streets of company A and avoiding the streets of company B. Or you dislike them both and just move to some other town a few kms away.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it.
jandrese 10y ago
I have a disagreement with my neighbor, I'm taking him to court. The court of me, overseen by me, the court finds in my favor. Now I appoint myself to enforcement, with my deputies Smith and Wesson. Letting people choose their own court is a terrible idea. It's basically binding arbitration for the masses.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  Many flavors of libertarian agree that in order for any court's decision to be binding, all parties to the dispute have to agree to grant it jurisdiction. This, like most parts of Libertopia, is completely dependent on a robust reputation system. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to determine whether the proposed court is likely to be fair and impartial for your specific case. If you can't find a single judge that you can both agree on, you basically become Hatfields and McCoys, and then the rest of the county pulls their own guns, and decides which gang gets to be out in public on which days of the week. In a government court, jurisdiction is just assumed. In Libertopia courts, you can never skip that step. You also can't skip the part where the litigants post cash bonds to the court, to pay the judge and jury, and guarantee some of the judgment award. Filing suit as plaintiff in your own court seems like a slam-dunk until you realize that no defendant with an IQ higher than broccoli would ever be insane enough to grant you jurisdiction to hear your own case against them. And they definitely wouldn't pay you to do that.
  - jandrese 10y ago
    My neighbor claims that my fence is over the property line, so he is taking me to court. Turns out there are no courts that I feel are acceptable for resolving this dispute. Having total freedom to do anything you want only works until other people exist.
    - dmichulke 10y ago
      There is always karma. At some point you will have a hard time leaving your property and people will avoid entering yours. That's when you dearly pay for everything bad you did. And of course, there's also violence, just as today.
      - jandrese 10y ago
        Once you are depending on karmic justice to enforce your laws you no longer have laws.

grzm 10y ago

Re: choosing courts. Depends on the jurisdiction, doesn't it? In some jurisdictions, judges are elected. In others they're appointed by representatives who are elected. At least I believe those are the common cases in democracies. (And there's another couple of assumptions.) Or am I misunderstanding? Wouldn't be the first time.

dmichulke 10y ago
Yes and no:) Currently and generally a single jurisdiction doesn't allow for competing courts. In libertarian land everyone has (or is?) his own "jurisdiction" for his private property (and there is no public property). All other courts are defined in contracts. Note the latter is the generalization of the former where entering other people's property entails an implicit agreement to the owner's terms (and jurisdiction if you will.) So everyone can define his own abortion/marihuana/uber free zone at will and/or just rule out the public completely. Often there is a misunderstanding that this entails a "free for all" but municipalities in today's sense would still exist and have their own laws / courts and the streets there would probably belong to a company consisting of a number of the municipality's inhabitants. This doesn't mean that there is only one such company, so you can "choose your court" by walking the streets of company A and avoiding the streets of company B. Or you dislike them both and just move to some other town a few kms away.
- grzm 10y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it.

jandrese 10y ago

I have a disagreement with my neighbor, I'm taking him to court. The court of me, overseen by me, the court finds in my favor. Now I appoint myself to enforcement, with my deputies Smith and Wesson. Letting people choose their own court is a terrible idea. It's basically binding arbitration for the masses.

logfromblammo 10y ago
Many flavors of libertarian agree that in order for any court's decision to be binding, all parties to the dispute have to agree to grant it jurisdiction. This, like most parts of Libertopia, is completely dependent on a robust reputation system. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to determine whether the proposed court is likely to be fair and impartial for your specific case. If you can't find a single judge that you can both agree on, you basically become Hatfields and McCoys, and then the rest of the county pulls their own guns, and decides which gang gets to be out in public on which days of the week. In a government court, jurisdiction is just assumed. In Libertopia courts, you can never skip that step. You also can't skip the part where the litigants post cash bonds to the court, to pay the judge and jury, and guarantee some of the judgment award. Filing suit as plaintiff in your own court seems like a slam-dunk until you realize that no defendant with an IQ higher than broccoli would ever be insane enough to grant you jurisdiction to hear your own case against them. And they definitely wouldn't pay you to do that.
- jandrese 10y ago
  My neighbor claims that my fence is over the property line, so he is taking me to court. Turns out there are no courts that I feel are acceptable for resolving this dispute. Having total freedom to do anything you want only works until other people exist.
  - dmichulke 10y ago
    There is always karma. At some point you will have a hard time leaving your property and people will avoid entering yours. That's when you dearly pay for everything bad you did. And of course, there's also violence, just as today.
    - jandrese 10y ago
      Once you are depending on karmic justice to enforce your laws you no longer have laws.