Comment Thread for Debate: The Merits of Anarchocapitalism

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still waiting for some sort of explanation as to why a defendant would show up at a private court, chosen by the guy who's suing him.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you did not show up, you'd probably have a default judgement entered against you. Then the plaintiff's PDA would come for your monies.

In general, I would imagine that if you and the plaintiff contracted the same PDA, you'd be required as a condition of your contract to appear before an appropriate DRO when you get sued. Otherwise, you'd lose the services of the PDA, and you'd have no defense when they came for your monies.

If you had a different PDA, then it would be in the economic best interest of the two PDAs to agree upon a neutral DRO to adjudicate disputes between customers.

Otherwise the PDAs themselves could just SHOOT IT OUT, but that's just plain bad for business!

[LinusKS]

Alright.

So, Joe sues me in Joe's court. I counter-sue in Linus's court, and he counter-counter sues in his court. Each of us gets an order from our respective courts saying it has jurisdiction.

Who wins?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright.

So, Joe sues me in Joe's court. I counter-sue in Linus's court, and he counter-counter sues in his court. Each of us gets an order from our respective courts saying it has jurisdiction.

Who wins?

[/ QUOTE ]

The lawyers.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright.

So, Joe sues me in Joe's court. I counter-sue in Linus's court, and he counter-counter sues in his court. Each of us gets an order from our respective courts saying it has jurisdiction.

Who wins?

[/ QUOTE ]

It wouldn't work that way. Part of the service a DRO provides is to find an alternate DRO when you and the other party cannot agree on the DRO. A DRO wouldn't assert that it has jurisdiction over non-paying customers, but two rival DROs would work together to find a neutral DRO to hear the case.

ETA: Oh, and by the way, part of your contract with the DRO is to agree to submit to the rulings of this negotiated DRO. If you failed to abide by the rulings of this other DRO, it would be as though you failed to abide by the rulings of your own DRO. This would affect your credit rating.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html

Under "Dispute Resolution"

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Part of the service a DRO provides is to find an alternate DRO when you and the other party cannot agree on the DRO. A DRO wouldn't assert that it has jurisdiction over non-paying customers, but two rival DROs would work together to find a neutral DRO to hear the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the other party does not recognize your claim and has no wish to contract with you period?

[LinusKS]

Ok, so... it's the DRO that prevents me from choosing my own court, and enforces judgments against me.

But what if I don't join Joe's DRO?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Part of the service a DRO provides is to find an alternate DRO when you and the other party cannot agree on the DRO. A DRO wouldn't assert that it has jurisdiction over non-paying customers, but two rival DROs would work together to find a neutral DRO to hear the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the other party does not recognize your claim and has no wish to contract with you period?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question.

The more I read these debates, the more I lean towards thinking that British common law is superior to arbitration for purposes of settling disputes. At least everyone can know in advance what British common law is. An arbitrator may just decide based on his own view of what is "fair" or his preferences or whatever (the same goes for an arbitration "firm"). I really wouldn't want some group just deciding what they think is "fair": I want a known-in-advance framework which I may be aware of (and which may then be applied with an eye towards any particular merits or any special considerations of the case).

What are the AC objections to British common law, anyway? I would think it's probably a pretty good system overall for deciding civil lawsuits and so forth.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]

What are the AC objections to British common law, anyway? I would think it's probably a pretty good system overall for deciding civil lawsuits and so forth.

[/ QUOTE ]

ACists here have pointed to Common Law as organic law that developed without a central authority (legislature) creating it, and imo it would likely be the basis for a system of private arbitration in ACland. Why is "private arbitration" exclusive of British Common Law in your view?

[Skidoo]

An obvious incompatibility with anarchy arises from the central position given to judicial precedent under common law.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What are the AC objections to British common law, anyway? I would think it's probably a pretty good system overall for deciding civil lawsuits and so forth.

[/ QUOTE ]

ACists here have pointed to Common Law as organic law that developed without a central authority (legislature) creating it, and imo it would likely be the basis for a system of private arbitration in ACland. Why is "private arbitration" exclusive of British Common Law in your view?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know enough about either to say that the two are mutually exclusive. I just presumed that AC-ists didn't want to use any currently existing legal system, although I might have been hasty in that presumption.