Let's put the question this way.
Is there a demand for shoes? Yes.
Well, we're talking about a free market, so other people or organizations by definition cannot compel you by force to purchase their services, they have to offer you something worth your money. Many people buy insurance in case of property damage, loss, or theft. It likewise makes sense to "subscribe" to a system of laws, courts, and dispute resolution.
But what if you're not already subscribed, and there's a dispute?
Perhaps territory can be used. Whose territory did the dispute happen on?
While the judge(s) and jury (if there is a jury) will be provided by the third party firm, perhaps lawyers will come from the firm to which you are subscribed. Or not, maybe the third party firm provides their own lawyers. Maybe they have their own variation of laws that their lawyers are more familiar with.
And what stops an arbitration firm to which both parties are subscribed to from favoring one over the other, based on money (maybe one party's subscription is more expensive). Likewise, in the scenario where a third, pre-agreed arbitration firm takes over, what stops them for judging based on which of the two arbitration firms pays more?
Are humans capable of making shoes? Yes.
Do they have the freedom to make, sell, profit from, and buy shoes? Yes.
Therefore we have a market in shoes.
Do people want Laws, Justice, or recourse to arbitration when wronged? Yes.
Do people want Laws, Justice, or recourse to arbitration when wronged? Yes.
Can people provide a legal system with courts, judges, and lawyers? Yes.
Do they have the freedom to do so? No.
There you have it folks. The government doesn't allow for competition with its legal system, for obvious reasons (it would lose power, and its indispensability in the eyes of people). Remove this restriction, and the laws of economics say it should be there.
But what would it look like?
But what would it look like?
Let's call it an Arbitration firm. Some like to call it a DRO (Dispute Resolution Organization). Private firms are already often invoked in contractual disputes.
With contract law it's particularly simple, since both parties agree to go to a particular arbitration firm beforehand to settle all disputes, and agree to hold to the judgements of said firm. If they don't, they don't sign the contract.
It's a little more complicated, but no less doable, with tort and criminal law. First, let's cover how one "subscribes" to an arbitration firm.
With contract law it's particularly simple, since both parties agree to go to a particular arbitration firm beforehand to settle all disputes, and agree to hold to the judgements of said firm. If they don't, they don't sign the contract.
It's a little more complicated, but no less doable, with tort and criminal law. First, let's cover how one "subscribes" to an arbitration firm.
Subscription
It could be as easy as going to their office and signing a contract, saying you agree for them to arbitrate all of your disputes for you. Perhaps there's even a clause in their agreement allowing the firm to use force in case you do not comply. Maybe force is authorized after a certain number of appeals, to detain you and exercise whatever punishment was ruled.
It could be as easy as going to their office and signing a contract, saying you agree for them to arbitrate all of your disputes for you. Perhaps there's even a clause in their agreement allowing the firm to use force in case you do not comply. Maybe force is authorized after a certain number of appeals, to detain you and exercise whatever punishment was ruled.
In a free market there will be countless variations on how many appeals, what level of force, and whether force is used at all (or instead ostracism), and you can choose whichever one works best for you.
But what if you're not already subscribed, and there's a dispute?
Perhaps territory can be used. Whose territory did the dispute happen on?
Perhaps certain properties will have signs saying "If unsubscribed, disputes will be arbitrated by 'Justice For All' firm."
Maybe you can subscribe at the last moment to a sort of arbitration charity run by intern lawyers. Maybe last minute contracts with for-profit firms will involve mandatory minimum subscriptions of 12 months, so that you're not just being a cheapskate by subscribing at the last possible moment, only to unsubscribe the moment the proceedings are over.
You can be sure there will be plenty of solutions to this problem, just like there are plenty of different shoes in the shoe store.
You can be sure there will be plenty of solutions to this problem, just like there are plenty of different shoes in the shoe store.
Arbitration
If both parties are subscribed to the same arbitration firm, then it's simple. They've already both agreed to hold by the judgements of said firm.
If both parties are subscribed to the same arbitration firm, then it's simple. They've already both agreed to hold by the judgements of said firm.
But what if person A is subscribed to arbitration Firm A, and person B to arbitration Firm B? Surely Firm A would have a vested interest in ruling in favor of person A, and so on.
It's actually quite simple: Firm A and Firm B, foreseeing the inevitability of such a scenario, contract between each other that in all cases where their clients' disputes involve a clash of interests between the two firms, they both go to a third arbitration firm, Firm X.
And person A and B will know this beforehand too, since in their subscription contract there will be written that any disputes involving other firms will be handled by: and then a list would follow. Between Firms A and B, handled by X. Between firm B and C, handled by X, etc. Maybe Firm X specializes in arbitrating disputes between arbitration firms. And perhaps all appeals to firm X are taken to another firm, Y.
You can read over the laws of the third party Firm X, and if you don't like them, subscribe to another firm that doesn't use them as a third party. (See below regarding competing legal codes.)
While the judge(s) and jury (if there is a jury) will be provided by the third party firm, perhaps lawyers will come from the firm to which you are subscribed. Or not, maybe the third party firm provides their own lawyers. Maybe they have their own variation of laws that their lawyers are more familiar with.
Justice and fairness
And what stops an arbitration firm to which both parties are subscribed to from favoring one over the other, based on money (maybe one party's subscription is more expensive). Likewise, in the scenario where a third, pre-agreed arbitration firm takes over, what stops them for judging based on which of the two arbitration firms pays more?
Reputation. They are accountable, to you and all of its current and potential customers. This is a pluralistic, competitive system. One such scandal, and they've just lost half their clients. Sure there will be scandals anyway, but pretty soon firms will realise that they have a vested interest in being fair to all parties if they want to stay in business.
If a judge gives out an unfair sentence in a State-run court, the worst that will happen is it will be overruled a few months later by a court of appeals. His job is never at risk. If a judge gives out a corrupt sentence in a market system, he could very well be fired by the arbitration firm, which by now is seeking to mend its reputation and show it had nothing to do with the unfair ruling.
It's like the difference between a unionized teacher in a State school, and a private tutor that you invite over to your home. We all know who does a better job, and we all know who's going to get fired if they screw up, and who has virtual immunity.
It's all about the right incentives, which stems from competition.
State provided law has none.
Competition
When firms compete in legal systems, there won't be the kind of illegibility and obscurity of laws today. If you have the choice of subscribing to a firm whose laws are roughly the thousands of pages of your country's legal code; or a set of laws that clearly and concisely elaborates a few crimes and punishments, which would you choose?
Speaking for myself, I want laws to be legible enough that regular mortals are able to read them without needing a lawyer.
And I want there to be few of them. There are few real crimes in the world, and this brings me to my next point.
Victimless crimes
In a free market legal system, there would be no victimless crimes. The very idea is ludicrous in a system where dispute resolution requires two parties, one of which is not the State arbitrarily imposing regulations masquerading as laws.
The only time you would be requiring dispute resolution for say, drug use, would be when that drug use has caused you to harm someone else, perhaps while driving a car. Drug use, per se, would in no way be regulated, since there is no victim to take you to court. (Assuming you are using drugs on your own property, or with the consent of whoever's property you are using.)
Competition of legal codes
That competition will be not only for price and quality of arbitration, but for the very legal systems that we use, is very interesting.
I have just assumed so far, for reasons of simplification, that each arbitration firm has its own set of laws. But this is unlikely. Likely there will be competing systems of laws to which arbitration firms can themselves subscribe. Maybe arbitration firm A sees that 'The Fair Code' is quite popular among the people, and subscribes to that. There would probably be significantly more arbitration firms than legal codes.
The way legal systems are now, they always tend towards greater complication and more laws. It reaches a point where the laws and regulations stifle life and business so much that there is a revolution, and then the process begins anew.
In a free market, legal systems will instead tend towards greater ease of use and clarity, and it is interesting the extent to which this will improve living conditions and reduce crime. Proceedings would also be significantly faster. It is absurd that some proceedings can easily go on for years.
Just imagine if all the human energy currently expended on complicating the legal system for corrupt purposes, will instead be directed towards its simplification.
Perhaps the entire legal code will fit into a small pocket-sized book.
Ostracism
Ostracism is an interesting area to explore, since it involves punishment for crimes that does not necessitate any use of force. As it stands, governments are far too willing to imprison millions of people for victimless 'crimes', creating out of non-violent offenders a steady stream of recidivists.
Perhaps your subscription contract with an arbitration firm will include an ostracism clause, listing a number of businesses that have agreed not to let you in or sell you products if you do not comply with a judgement. After all, why should a bank give you credit for a car, when it knows full well that in the case of non-payment and the resulting dispute, you're not going to hold by the judgements of your own court.
If you then sign the contract and agree to be bound by the judgements of that particular court, and then after the judgement is pronounced you decide you've changed your mind, then the ostracism clause kicks in.
A life of crime becomes much more difficult when supermarkets and restaurants won't sell you food, airports and train stations won't let you travel, your landlady is evicting you, and your credit card doesn't work anymore.
Sure some businesses won't agree to ostracize people, because they want more clients. But that's going to give them a poor reputation with all the law(s) abiding people, and there are a lot more of them.
Geographic limitations
The idea that a legal system, or jurisdiction, has to have a monopoly based on geography is ridiculous. It is equivalent to saying that should Tea and Coffee be sold in the same area, there would be chaos. Why? How is it that people living in the same building can be subscribed to different insurance firms, but competition in legal services is inconceivable?
It has been made inconceivable by The State. The State is primarily defined as an entity with a legal monopoly on the use of force within a particular area. Without such a monopoly on the use of legal force, it's just an armed gang.
The State's job is to appear indispensable to you, lest you think the dangerous thought that maybe, just maybe, it's not a necessary evil.
The State's job is to appear indispensable to you, lest you think the dangerous thought that maybe, just maybe, it's not a necessary evil.
It really comes down to this: Would shoes be better if a single firm had a monopoly on making them? Why do we assume legal services would be?
(Please note that my ideas on the subject are just one of many interpretations of how a free market in legal services would work. One could spend weeks thinking up systems.)
______________
Reading material:
No comments:
Post a Comment