Can free enterprise be the sole provider of law and justice? Robert Murphy, author of Chaos Theory, writes that the idea is often dismissed out of hand. But think again. Most disputes in modern commercial society are not between an obvious innocent and an obvious malefactor. Rather, it is often the case that both parties to a dispute genuinely believe themselves to be in the right, and would be happy to make their cases in front of a disinterested third party. [FULL ARTICLE]
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/3917/the-possibility-of-private-law/
The Possibility of Private Law
Previous post: Galles on Commerce Clause (on C-Span)
Next post: Reviews of the Block Seminar
{ 66 comments }
← Previous Comments
Thank you, Ken. “The Voluntary City” is a fine book that is deserving of far more attention than it has received.
You’re welcome, David.
I quite agree about “The Voluntary City.” I would point out as well the essays by Spencer H. MacCallum (probably the most radical essay in the volume), Foldvary, Beito and Benson as well. They are quire excellent.
As an addendum, Beito and (now) Davies are co-bloggers with me on the Liberty & Power Blog: http://hnn.us/blogs/4.html
Cheers!
Just Ken
…the thing at issue is philosophy of law. The widely held mistaken ancap view is that no such thing is required, that there’s no reason for a constitution or uniform standards of due process.
I see no conflict between a philosophy of law and ancap. If anything, ancap would give people the freedom to experiment and try out various philosophies of law, instead of having any particular philosophy of law enforced upon them. The very concept of ancap helps to bring the philosophy of law into focus, because it asks people to reconsider the nature and value of law.
Uniform standards of due process would arise out of economic pressures and incentives. If anything, the result would probably be more uniform and consistent than what we have now with fifty states and innumerable local governments, and more just than what federal government is allowing to happen. Uniformity is desirable to a point, but not to the exclusion or diminishment of justice.
And since a constitution is a document that is intended to describe the structure and powers of a government, then no, ancap doesn’t call for a constitution. Guilty as charged.
How to say this politely? It’s vain to define away competition, asserting that all constitutions are intended to describe the structure and powers of a government. A fair discussion of laissez faire legal philosophy would address the Freeman’s Constitution. More importantly, I am not persuaded that Murphy or anyone else who advocates chaos and winks with approval at religious courts has the slightest scholarly acquaintance with the philosophy of law or Jeffersonian separation of church and civil judiciary.
Wolf DeVoon
Interesting concoction, this
some of the standard works are
‘The End of Law’ Pound, 27 Harv. L. Rev.
Ritchie, Natural Law
Hogue, Origins of the Common Law
see also
http://www.geocities.com/dv05131970/rule_of_law.html
http://www.geocities.com/dv05131970/principles_internet_law.html
http://wolfdevoon.tripod.com
on “final arbiter”
The Freeman’s Constitution does not ordain or establish a state. Rather, it is the organizational law of the laissez faire bar. It gives practicing lawyers the right to convene and the duty to pay for courts of first instance, and judges must command the confidence of a majority of their professional colleagues to remain on the bench. [Art. II Commentary]
Thank you for asking.
Mr DeVoon, How to say this politely? If it walks like a duck…
“A fair discussion of laissez faire legal philosophy would address the Freeman’s Constitution.” (Wolf DeVoon)
Is it possible to have this discussion moved to the forum?
Example:
http://austrianforum.com/index.php?showtopic=139
Is the Freemans’s Constitution an example of a Private Justice Service?
Controversial topics do not move along in as productive a manner in this comments section as they do in the forum section.
Example:
The resent Real Bills Doctrine episode lasted through a jumble of restarted topics with miss matched comments sections; cross postings etc. and that topic is now at the Forum.
I would really like to see, hear, or read a fair discussion of laissez faire legal philosophy from professional perspectives (Austrian and or Freeman). A discussion allows people to communicate in two directions so long as both are willing. Comments sections, for whatever reason, appear to work more like Ad Council ads or political campaigns.
I’d be glad to participate. Please email me if it happens. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson, enmity and ridicule are okay, cryptic innuendo is not. And anyway, you’re mistaken:
“There is no source of funding provided for the Supreme Court or for law enforcement. Taxation is nixed by Article V as a source of revenue. Laissez faire lawyers and judges certainly aren’t going to form themselves into a police squad. As the cynical Scottish phrase explains it, ‘Good talkers are nae good doers.’” [Defects in The Freeman's Constitution]
Mr DeVoon, Actually the ridicule was not okay. I’m sorry about that. It was completely inappropriate.
And I wasn’t trying to be cryptic. The expression “If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it’s a duck” is well-known. Obviously you now understand that it means that I thought any organization established by the Freeman’s Constitution was effectively a non-voluntary government. I shouldn’t have spoken, since I clearly didn’t take the time to understand.
Two examples of private law are the MAFIA and tribal law as practiced in Iraq.
Two examples of private law are the MAFIA and tribal law as practiced in Iraq.
Uhh, right. Well, ONE example of private law is what happens in eBay after you make a buy/sale: people judge you for your behaviour (good buyer, good seller) and rate yu accordingly. Other people decide if they buy from you or sell to you. Justice IS swift.
Second, one wino kills another wino who has no debtors, friends, or relatives. Who makes the com[p]laint?
The person that sold the wine to the second wino – he just lost a good customer.
At issue however are the irreconcilable conflicts, e.g., where one party is committed to prosecuting abortionists for murder, or where Muslims demand their right to kill the infidels.
The self-defense principle trumps these desires to murder. Muslims and anti-abortionists may demand anything they want until the cows come home, but if the infidels and abortionists are well able to defend themselves, the demand becomes mere wish.
With respect to my previous post, the thing at issue is philosophy of law. The widely held mistaken ancap view is that no such thing is required, that there’s no reason for a constitution or uniform standards of due process.
Mr. DeVoon, you beg the question, and also you are mistaken: the anarcho-capitalist view does NOT state that there is no need for uniform standards or due process.
You beg the question by assuming that the philosphy of law somehow equals having a constitution, and then using such premise to argue against the laissez faire philosophers.
This is like saying medical science is unnecessary and quack cures are no different than quality care.
This is called arguing from a bad analogy. And to boot it is also a straw-man argument.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.