Comments (11)

• qdqwd

• qwdqw

  Wall Street Slammed After China Stock Woes

• Published: February 27, 2007 7:11 PM

• Kenneth R. Gregg

• Robert,
  Having been a professional mediator for a decade and a half, I would recommend this: http://www.mediate.com/articles/grayE1.cfm?nl=123
  This is the approach that I've taken in mediation sessions. It gives the parties greater control over the process as well as the conclusion, and I feel that it more information from each party and has a better success rate than when an arbitrator tells the parties how the results are divided. Whether elected or not, an arbitrator hands down the decision, and does not have as high a success rate than a successful mediation, whether it's a private arbitrator or a judge.
  Best to you,
  Just Ken
  kgregglv@cox.net
  http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com
  http://charlestsprading.blogspot.com
  http://spencerheath.blogspot.com

• Published: February 27, 2007 9:59 PM

• RogerM

• Private courts might work well, and they might not. It's hard to tell. Even if they work, I don't see any reason to assume that they would work better than government courts. I can see a situation in which a criminal organization has judges on its payroll and refuses to accept the jurisdiction of any other judges. Also, I can't see any reason that private judges would be more honest than government judges. Corrupt judges are corrupt because they think that people won't find out about it.

• Published: February 28, 2007 8:22 AM

• flix

• "I can see a situation in which a criminal organization has judges on its payroll and refuses to accept the jurisdiction of any other judges."
  Like that doesn't happen now? What do you call US judges refusing to extradite kidnappers and murderers that work for the US govt? What do you call Sudanese judges refusing to try genocidal govt. ministers? What do you call colombian drug lords protected by govt. judges?

  And all these just in this week's news....

• Published: February 28, 2007 9:34 AM

• Dan Coleman

• Roger M wrote:

  "Private courts might work well, and they might not. It's hard to tell. Even if they work, I don't see any reason to assume that they would work better than government courts."

  They would for the same reason that any and all other goods and services (shoes, medical care, housing, food, etc. etc. etc.) are better taken care of through voluntary exchange. Private ownership ensures that efficient services are provided so as to please consumers rather than arbitrary political interests.

  
  "I can see a situation in which a criminal organization has judges on its payroll and refuses to accept the jurisdiction of any other judges."

  Perhaps. But this is not unique to private courts. After all, what keeps government judges in check? The system of 'checks and balances' that supposedly guides our nation's legal and moral institutions is, largely, a myth. Corruption is never far away from political institutions, and the public courts are not an exception.

  What check and balances might individuals have in the free market? Obviously the consumers can cut off their support of corrupt judges at any point, and society can refuse to acknowledge corrupt judges once they are found out.

  Since honesty and integrity are a part of the brand of a good judge, it is easy to imagine how the free market could handle difficulties of corruption in many ways. Certainly judges could compete to be certified through independent organizations for their transparency and integrity, given "ratings" as judges either by experts or by an organized survey of consumers.

  "Also, I can't see any reason that private judges would be more honest than government judges. Corrupt judges are corrupt because they think that people won't find out about it."

  In addition, one characteristic of a free market is that those who seek to punish others are liable for punishment themselves if their punitive efforts are unwarranted and unjust. In our current system, lawyers, police, and judges are given general immunity from prosecution on the basis that they are the ones making the system 'work.' Surely no individual should be placed higher than a system of just laws.

  Again, what keeps judges in check currently? They are placed in power through a political process, often for life, and often not by the consent of the general population. Their position in society, like most of the government bureaucracy, is not a reflection of representation but of political power exercised over the masses, whether they like it or not.

  Are public courts not subject to the same problems of economic calculation that cripple every other government agency?

  Take your objections, Roger M, and replace every instance of the word "courts" or "judge" with "hospitals" and "doctors." We now have the exact objection against private health care that libertarians must continually deal with. Is there something "special" about health services that make them subject to the rule of a coercive government monopoly? What places health services in a different class of goods and services than providing food, shelter, or religious organization? Does not the socialized health care system suffer a crisis of economic calculation?

  So why must we assume that private courts would not function more efficiently and morally than public courts? It doesn't seem to me that public courts are any more a standard bearer of purity and justice than any other public institution. Further, we know that private courts will have the advantages of utilizing voluntary exchange and economic calculation in ways that will ensure the well-being of consumers, rather than of a political overlord or radical ideology.

• Published: February 28, 2007 9:49 AM

• Nick Bradley

• A point oft-overlooked is the benefit of a restitution-based legal system in general. Imagine if our statist system forced car thieves to reimburse the onwer of the car the value of the vehicle plus 20%? GTA would become uneconomical and would wither away.
  

  
  In the past, this is how most systems worked; if your rights were violated in some way and brought suit, your were reimbursed by a judge. Even if a family member was killed, restitution can be made to the family and the murderer could avoid the death penalty. The Old Testament is filled with great examples of this system. If you were heavily indebtted to a person for violating their rights, you could sell yourself into their intentured servitude for seven years as compensation.
  

  
  In a 21st century version of this model, in which most citizens carry restitution insurance, the policy would pay out to the victim and the policyholders' rates would rise; if the policyholder proves himself to be a good person again, his rates will go back down (just like car insurance).
  

  
  If the policy paid out a large amount, such as for murder, the policyholder may have to voluntary enter some form of corrective custody (i.e. prison) in order to prove to insurance companies that he is reformed. Otherwise, he may be uninsurable and without adequate legal protection. Insurance companies would probably support correctional facilities that had a proven track record of reforming individuals. For, say, a manslaughter charge, the individual could be placed on house arrest, able to only go to work and back, until he has proven himself to insurers that he is worth the risk.
  

  
  If said murderer decided to forgo being insured and murdered again, the victim's family would be completely within their rights to exact "biblical justice" upon the violator.
  

  
  Despite the obvious merits of a private, restitution-based system of law, a hole I see is in the area of family law. If a parent decides to murder their child, how will justice be served? Perhaps the parents' insurer will find out about the incident and raise their rates/drop them? I don't know. Maybe they will conduct and investigation of the parents to determine what exactly happened; After all, If a parent kills their child, what would stop them from killing a stranger (a big problem for the insurer)? Perhaps the insurer would insist on the parents going into corrective custody in order to be insured. If they refused, the insurer can release the results of the investigation to the insurance community, ensuring that the parents would not be able to get coverage. It's a little dicy, but I think it could work.
  

  
  Working within the current statist system, I think that libertarians should lobby for more restitution and less punishment in our current legal system. I'm sure that a victim of theft would be far happier if he was compensated for the full value of what was taken, plus a monetary penalty; and I'm sure that the theif would prefer to pay a penalty to the victim instead of going to prison. It's a win-win.
  

  
  If we had a restitution-based legal system, crimes rates would plummet and our prisons would be 1/10th as full. All perpetrators of victimless crimes, such as violations of drug laws, would be released. Thieves and perpetrators of violent assault (most of them, at least), would be released as long as they could make proper restitution to their victims. Prisons would only be filled with murderers, and even that could be solved via restitution in time.

• Published: February 28, 2007 10:32 AM

• Francisco Torres

• I can see a situation in which a criminal organization has judges on its payroll and refuses to accept the jurisdiction of any other judges.

  Criminal organizations usually exist because of government intervention. No government, few (if ever) criminal organizations would exist.

• Published: February 28, 2007 2:35 PM

• averros

• If a parent decides to murder their child, how will justice be served?

  Rothbard discussed that issue in "The Ethics of Liberty".

  His solution is very simple: obviously, a criminal cannot inherit the rights of his victim. Therefore the right of self-ownership of a child who is victim of his parents becomes unowned property - so any person capable of homesteading this property gets it.

  This creates opportunity for a business of extracting retribution for killing of victims having no inheritors - and protecting children from murderous parents.

• Published: February 28, 2007 11:27 PM

• Nick Bradley

• Averros,
  

  
  What on earth are you talking about? Are you saying that there would be a market for firms to exact retribution for crimes against children in exchange for the dead child's stuffed animals, etc.?
  

  
  

• Published: March 1, 2007 7:16 AM

• Richard Garner

• Nick, No... the firm would extract restitution from the criminals that murdered the child.

  Beyond that, I certainly wouldn't want people to get away with murdering kids, would you? Why don't you put the money up, then?

• Published: March 1, 2007 4:38 PM

• Nick Bradley

• I agree. I'm just saying that the issue gets a little fuzzier when there is no Next of Kin (NoK).
  

  
  But now that I think about it, there would be an incentive to investigate the deaths of individuals without NoK and without Protection insurance. The firm who first finds the killer and successfully prosecutes him/her will reap the reward (perhaps sharing the reward with NoK for the P.R.). However, if firms do investigate the deaths of the non-insured, it will provide a disincentive, however small, to people obtaining insurance (especially criminals); if they are killed, at least justice will be served on their behalf.
  

  
  In addition, non-profit organizations could also fund the initial investigation fees.

• Published: March 1, 2007 7:30 PM