Whoever takes a case to them.

6/10/2008 3:14:07 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration

That wouldn't be any different than the current system of legally binding Arbitration already used in many forms of contract dispute today. (For example, Architectural contracts as produced by the AIA mandate that any dispute go to Arbitration first.)

It seems logical that the party deemed at fault would pay for the court fees.

6/10/2008 3:15:00 PM

Actually, I've just given an example of a very powerful incentive for feuds and revenge killings. I've also identified a really good reason that you're either going to pay outlandish rates or not be able to get insurance. Personally, I wouldn't feel good about being an insurance company here.

This belief that everyone cares about your fair treatment makes little sense. You'd have an incentive to demand an arbitrator, but the insurance company (and every insurance company) has as much incentive to deny you that, and can probably continue to exist when you get mad and go somewhere else by being a cut-rate insurer for less discerning customers. You've also continually cited that justice in this situation is entirely dependent on being able to pay for it, rather than on any conception of rights.

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 3:20 PM. Reason : I didn't edit it yet.]

6/10/2008 3:18:39 PM

How is an insurance company that denies its clients arbitrations and refuses to pay out claims going to attract customers?

6/10/2008 3:22:55 PM

^ With a cute little Lizard as it's advertising mascot?

6/10/2008 3:23:46 PM

Quote :

"I don't know, $100/year (Gold equivalent, or whatever) to subscribe to a security protection plan and a court access plan to protect their rights vs. spending vastly more (probably $thousands) on a firm that aggressively policed its subscribers for any signs of drug use, most people would probably choose the bare-bones plan. "

What about homeless people with no family under your system? Would people get prosecuted for killing them?

6/10/2008 3:45:37 PM

A restitution based justice system is organized on the principle that aggressing against the rights of another gives them a just claim to restitution that can be enforced against you.

A homeless person with no family, no less than any other person, has certain rights, among them the right not to be murdered. Thus, doing so would bring into being a just claim for restitution. Since the homeless person is no longer alive to claim restitution, and there are no next of kin to do so in his stead, anyone can "homestead" the unowned claim and take first possession by doing the legwork of finding the killer and bringing them before an arbitrator.

6/10/2008 10:11:05 PM

Would this world consist mostly of gum drops or happy thoughts?

6/10/2008 10:16:06 PM

Hard-nosed realism with an ample dose of cold, hard cash.

6/10/2008 10:18:30 PM

definitely not happy thoughts, then.

6/10/2008 10:22:37 PM

It looks like it consists of gangsta-ass shit and doing what you please. Just for the sake of argument, why is someone actually going to show up to your independent arbiters when charges are brought?

6/10/2008 11:10:03 PM

Quote :

"definitely not happy thoughts, then."

But also a sense of optimism about the ultimate potential of individuals working together to better serve their own interests, a live-and-let live respect for the sovereignty of others, and a deep understanding the necessity of protecting the life, liberty and property of every individual who is willing to accord others the same protection in return.

Quote :

"It looks like it consists of gangsta-ass shit"

I'm going to have to ask you to substantiate that.

Quote :

"doing what you please."

The word is "freedom." If I'm not violating your rights, I can do whatever I damn well please, subject only to the requirement that I bear the consequences.

Quote :

"why is someone actually going to show up to your independent arbiters when charges are brought?"

Since there would be no sub-poena power, they wouldn't strictly have to. It would, however, be to their benefit to show up and speak in their own defense, or, if they didn't like the choice of arbitrators, to appeal the decision to an arbitrator of their choosing.

[Edited on June 11, 2008 at 3:47 AM. Reason : ']

6/11/2008 3:37:40 AM

Quote :

"It would, however, be to their benefit to show up and speak in their own defense"

This shows us one of the big fundamental flaws in archy-capitalism. How do you assert authority over an alleged criminal who does not have a contractual relationship with the victim?

And how would you force someone to contract with a private arbitor without first asserting non-contractual authority over him?

As a free-man, I have the right to not recognize your arbitor or your authority over me if we have no contractual relationship. The result? All non-contactual disagreements and crimes devolve into brutish violence...the law of the jungle.

[Edited on June 11, 2008 at 10:40 AM. Reason : .]

6/11/2008 10:39:59 AM

this is all assuming humans are rational beings.

which is not true.

6/11/2008 11:39:10 AM

Ecchh!

All of this arguing in favor of a gov't is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

6/12/2008 12:42:53 AM

Quote :

"This shows us one of the big fundamental flaws in archy-capitalism. How do you assert authority over an alleged criminal who does not have a contractual relationship with the victim?"

If someone is posing an immediate threat to another's person or property, defensive force is perfectly justifiable.

If the immediate threat has passed, ostracism can be used to enforce the payment of restitution. Just as it is now used to enforce the payment of debts.

It's conceivable that someone would decide to just not play by the rules, no matter how many judgments for restitution were assessed against them. They would ultimately be cut off from most of the benefits of living at peace with society, including legal and security protection, and would soon reach an untimely end at the hands of one of their victims or another criminal.

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 10:02 AM. Reason : ']

6/12/2008 10:00:04 AM

Quote :

"this is all assuming humans are rational beings. which is not true."

6/12/2008 10:13:29 AM

Quote :

"Ecchh! All of this arguing in favor of a gov't is leaving a bad taste in my mouth."

Haha! I was just thinking how odd this thread was getting reading posts by you in defense of government.

6/12/2008 10:28:43 AM

Quote :

"this is all assuming humans are rational beings. which is not true."

That's not an argument. Furthermore its not true.

Humans are rational, at least in the limited sense that economists mean when they use the term.

Furthermore, you do nothing to explain how an irrational government would be better than irrational people without one.

6/12/2008 10:39:49 AM

Quote :

"They would ultimately be cut off from most of the benefits of living at peace..."

But the evil Dr. No is living a life of luxury on his private island fortress, guarded by hundreds of well-armed mercenaries. If he holds the world ransom with his outer space death ray, who is going to stop him?

Assuming Bond, James Bond is busy...probably a group of people will try to get a larger army together to protect themselves. What you end up with is a return of the feudal Lords of yore. Small, less powerful people living within the protection of a group of people paid to protect them.

What you got there..eventually..is a government.

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 8:05 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2008 8:04:51 PM

Even feudalism would be an improvement over the perverse combination of majoritarian democracy and special interest politics we have now. People think of the dark ages as a time of slavery and oppression. This is true in many respects. However, that's not the whole picture. Though society was rigidly stratified, each class had rights that the others couldn't easily violate. That's what magna carta was all about. The king's power was far from absolute. He had to succor his nobles, do them favors, grant them lands, and still had to deal with their constant scheming and rebellion. If he overstepped his bounds, they can and did unite to put him back in his place. The nobles, for their part, had responsibilities to their serfs and were strictly limited in their power over them. If they got carried away, the serfs could take their grievances to the king or the church for help against their lord. The numerous free, independent cities pretty much did their own thing. Even the church was its own sovereignty, with its own lands, its own military forces and its own laws and courts.

Hell, a vassel serf only had to hand over 10% of his produce to his lord. If the chains of government rested that lightly on me, I would be a damn sight better off than I am today.

For an interesting discussion of the topic check out Martin van Crevald The Rise and Decline of the State or Hans Hermann Hoppe Democracy: the God that Failed.

However, it's a mistake to assume that feudalism would reemerge from a market anarchy. Your absurd Dr. No scenario could be solved in any number of ways. A single assassins bullet, anti-satellite laser or kinetic kill weapons, a mercenary invasion of his island or something else entirely could put a stop to his plans real quick. It would be much easier to organize the amount of force required to stop a lone megalomaniac than it would be to successfully impose state-like controls over the entire population or a sizable subset thereof.

6/13/2008 4:34:18 AM