6 ms·

I think it's a much better than a monopoly on force, which is a moral hazard that will always be abused. We'd be much better off with a free market of law enfor

I think it's a much better than a monopoly on force, which is a moral hazard that will always be abused. We'd be much better off with a free market of law enforcement and courts, like with anything else.

rosser 15y ago
Yeah, because for-profit courts will never be abused.
zmmz 15y ago
I'm having a hard time imagining what a free-market court system would look like and how it would operate. Can you elaborate on how the system would look like? I understand how law enforcement could work (and in some ways, it does, for example public transport officials that check if you have a ticket), but leaving arbitration to the "free-market" seems far fetched. Can you clarify?
- ryandickherber 15y ago
  Sure, I can tell you how I would think it would likely work, but of course people could be innovative and invent solutions that are better than what I envision. Basically, if you are the victim of a crime, you wouldn't want to just seek justice yourself, because your community might think you are the aggressor, and then your reputation would be damaged. So you would go to a court and pay them to rule on the issue. You would pick a court with a good reputation, so that everyone knew you're not just trying to cheat. The court would then rule, and if you won, you would be justified in paying some police to seek justice. The police would also want to make sure you had first sought judgement from a good court, since they have to worry about their own reputation as well. For instance, if someone stole something from you, you would bring your evidence to a court, and have them rule. If they rule in your favor, you could higher police to go retrieve your stolen property. Or if you are the victim of violence, you would follow the same procedure, and then be justified in having the aggressor locked up for a while. You'd probably want to have police/court insurance in case you are the victim of an expensive crime. For more info, here is a good video on this subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V0_Jd_MzGCw http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V... Also check out the works of Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio, and read the works of Murray Rothbard.
  - wanorris 15y ago
    So then organized crime could just set up its own courts and its own police force, confident that they're rich and powerful enough to outgun other forces. And after all, if mobsters paid you a visit and "suggested" that you use their court system, you wouldn't be dumb enough to turn them down would you? And if you would, then I bet the next guy wouldn't, after he heard about what happened to you. Another obvious problem is that if you rob someone thoroughly enough, they won't have the resources to hire police to get their stolen property back. It's the perfect crime! I haven't read all your source material, but from what you've said so far, these ideas simply don't make any sense.
  - notahacker 15y ago
    Rational people would much prefer a court inclined to rule in their favour (to a limited extent this already happens; patent trolls and other litigants tend to be selective about where they sue). Similarly, zeal for and efficacy in protecting my property will be a far more important criteria than reputation for fairness when I decide which police/defence force to pay. If I thought my kids are threatened by someone, I'd be looking for law enforcers who didn't care about maintaining a reputation for upholding the principle of innocence unless proven guilty. Inevitably the accuser and accused are going to disagree; the logical consequence is an impasse and no trial, unless the accused is incarcerated pending trial, in which case the accused is essentially coerced into accepting the terms of the accusers representatives, irrespective of their guilt. If parties are being paid by one party desiring a particular outcome, it's foolish to expect that "fairness" is going to be their prime motivation. One quality ultralibertarian capitalists seem to share with communists is excessive optimism about human nature. FWIW I don't think your post warranted the downvotes even though I disagree with it.
  - andrewflnr 15y ago
    +1. I disagree strongly, but I don't think you should be down voted for honest explanations of your views. That's not what the button is for.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    A homeless person is found murdered, identity unknown. Who takes up this victim's case?
- jhales 15y ago
  There is actually already a lot of free market arbtration. It is just in the civil sector. Business tend to like them for their speed. David Freedman's "Machinery of Freedom" is a nice introduction to anarcho-capitalism which free market courts are a part of.
  - lawnchair_larry 15y ago
    Actually, businesses tend to like them because the outcomes tend to favor businesses.
    - n09n 15y ago
      I hear this complaint a lot, but mostly from outraged consumers, who are surely biased. Do you know if there's any evidence that's true?
orthecreedence 15y ago
What this implies is that the more money people have, the better justice they can afford. Justice is not afforded or bought in our current system. Yes, the rich have unusually light sentences, but they still stand in the same courts and have to answer to the same authority. It's not perfect, but it's better, I believe, than what you're suggesting. I believe a free-market court system will degrade into, like I said, a more-money-wins system. Here's a scenario: Company A runs a clean, respectable justice service. You cannot buy your way out of being announced guilty, and you cannot buy guilt onto another person. Company B allows you to spend more money to achieve more justice. Which court would you pick? If you're poor, A. If you're rich, B. Result? B gets more money, B buys A. Now the only court left is a money-buys-justice one. Does this system work? +1 for providing an interesting debate ;)

rosser 15y ago

Yeah, because for-profit courts will never be abused.

zmmz 15y ago

I'm having a hard time imagining what a free-market court system would look like and how it would operate. Can you elaborate on how the system would look like? I understand how law enforcement could work (and in some ways, it does, for example public transport officials that check if you have a ticket), but leaving arbitration to the "free-market" seems far fetched. Can you clarify?

ryandickherber 15y ago
Sure, I can tell you how I would think it would likely work, but of course people could be innovative and invent solutions that are better than what I envision. Basically, if you are the victim of a crime, you wouldn't want to just seek justice yourself, because your community might think you are the aggressor, and then your reputation would be damaged. So you would go to a court and pay them to rule on the issue. You would pick a court with a good reputation, so that everyone knew you're not just trying to cheat. The court would then rule, and if you won, you would be justified in paying some police to seek justice. The police would also want to make sure you had first sought judgement from a good court, since they have to worry about their own reputation as well. For instance, if someone stole something from you, you would bring your evidence to a court, and have them rule. If they rule in your favor, you could higher police to go retrieve your stolen property. Or if you are the victim of violence, you would follow the same procedure, and then be justified in having the aggressor locked up for a while. You'd probably want to have police/court insurance in case you are the victim of an expensive crime. For more info, here is a good video on this subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V0_Jd_MzGCw http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V... Also check out the works of Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio, and read the works of Murray Rothbard.
- wanorris 15y ago
  So then organized crime could just set up its own courts and its own police force, confident that they're rich and powerful enough to outgun other forces. And after all, if mobsters paid you a visit and "suggested" that you use their court system, you wouldn't be dumb enough to turn them down would you? And if you would, then I bet the next guy wouldn't, after he heard about what happened to you. Another obvious problem is that if you rob someone thoroughly enough, they won't have the resources to hire police to get their stolen property back. It's the perfect crime! I haven't read all your source material, but from what you've said so far, these ideas simply don't make any sense.
- notahacker 15y ago
  Rational people would much prefer a court inclined to rule in their favour (to a limited extent this already happens; patent trolls and other litigants tend to be selective about where they sue). Similarly, zeal for and efficacy in protecting my property will be a far more important criteria than reputation for fairness when I decide which police/defence force to pay. If I thought my kids are threatened by someone, I'd be looking for law enforcers who didn't care about maintaining a reputation for upholding the principle of innocence unless proven guilty. Inevitably the accuser and accused are going to disagree; the logical consequence is an impasse and no trial, unless the accused is incarcerated pending trial, in which case the accused is essentially coerced into accepting the terms of the accusers representatives, irrespective of their guilt. If parties are being paid by one party desiring a particular outcome, it's foolish to expect that "fairness" is going to be their prime motivation. One quality ultralibertarian capitalists seem to share with communists is excessive optimism about human nature. FWIW I don't think your post warranted the downvotes even though I disagree with it.
- andrewflnr 15y ago
  +1. I disagree strongly, but I don't think you should be down voted for honest explanations of your views. That's not what the button is for.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  A homeless person is found murdered, identity unknown. Who takes up this victim's case?
jhales 15y ago
There is actually already a lot of free market arbtration. It is just in the civil sector. Business tend to like them for their speed. David Freedman's "Machinery of Freedom" is a nice introduction to anarcho-capitalism which free market courts are a part of.
- lawnchair_larry 15y ago
  Actually, businesses tend to like them because the outcomes tend to favor businesses.
  - n09n 15y ago
    I hear this complaint a lot, but mostly from outraged consumers, who are surely biased. Do you know if there's any evidence that's true?

orthecreedence 15y ago

What this implies is that the more money people have, the better justice they can afford. Justice is not afforded or bought in our current system. Yes, the rich have unusually light sentences, but they still stand in the same courts and have to answer to the same authority. It's not perfect, but it's better, I believe, than what you're suggesting. I believe a free-market court system will degrade into, like I said, a more-money-wins system. Here's a scenario: Company A runs a clean, respectable justice service. You cannot buy your way out of being announced guilty, and you cannot buy guilt onto another person. Company B allows you to spend more money to achieve more justice. Which court would you pick? If you're poor, A. If you're rich, B. Result? B gets more money, B buys A. Now the only court left is a money-buys-justice one. Does this system work? +1 for providing an interesting debate ;)