Private Courts in AC land

[Dan.]

I've been able to entertain the ideas presented by AC'ers, at least I can see the supposed rational. But I don't understand how private courts would opperate uncorrupted in AC land. A firm must offer a product or a service, else why would it exist? For a court, justice is its product. But if every court is run privately, how can there be any universality of laws or enforcement? What would prevent the courts from adapting their product to their clientele? A court might begin being more "just" towards a certain group of individuals--say white people, if they're in the majority. What prevents this total destruction of minority rights here? And don't try to claim that white people--the majority--would chose not to use this court. They may be against this discrimination in principle, but when they need a court's services, you know where they're headed.

[iron81]

The way it works is, everyone will be expected to hire a security company. This security company will enter into contracts with other security companies. These contracts will include provisions where if the company's clients get into a dispute, the arbitration provision of the contract will go into effect and the two participants will go to the prearranged arbitrator.

The answer to most of your questions is, that a court that was unfair would lose business. People wouldn't agree to use courts where they wouldn't get a fair shake. This is supposed to protect against things like minority rights and judges on the take. I don't think this would work very well, but that's the theory.

[Propertarian]

I just don't see why anybody would ever agree to stand trial in a case at a private court that they thought would decide against them and enforce the ruling.

Disputes would be solved violently because neither of the participants would agree to go to the court that the other side wants the case to be adjuciated in (which is always going to be different, assuming decent information exists, because each side desires the opposite outcome).

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
A court might begin being more "just" towards a certain group of individuals--say white people, if they're in the majority. What prevents this total destruction of minority rights here

[/ QUOTE ]

Word gets out amoung the minority community that the court is skewed against them. they will be much more hesitant to do business with those that use the skewed court as they are more likley to be crooked themselves. People and companies run by whitey that don't use that court have access to the same white base (as that court gives no advantage to white on white disputes) AND they also have access to the minority markets. Therefore these companies will do better and the other companies wil either only fall into niche markets (serving racist white people) or go out of business.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
The answer to most of your questions is, that a court that was unfair would lose business. People wouldn't agree to use courts where they wouldn't get a fair shake.

[/ QUOTE ] This is just scary if this is their argument. People want to win the case in their own disputes; they don't want "fairness" in their own dispute.

Also, different individuals are going to have vastly different ideas about what is fair and what is not.
In fact, an individuals revealed definition of a "fair" court would be approximately equal to "a court that rules they way I want it to rule".

AC allows individuals to be judges in their own case.

[Propertarian]

But when the supposed dilemma is between upseting the majority group and the minority group, the answer is obvious.

If they don't do what the majority group wants, then they will lose the majority's business (whether or not the majority group is racist here is actually irrelevant; they definitely want to win the court cases they are in-otherwise they wouldn't be in them-hence the majority group would prefer the courts that were biased against the others).

Also, I think you drastically underestimate the ammount of subtle racism the subverts the judgement of most people someof the time.

After that, your argument might hold some water if:

1) People are rational
2) Near-perfect information is available
3) Transaction costs are low.
4) Most people strongly prefer profit to some other goal.
5) Most people own their own business.

Heroic assumptions.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


Also, I think you drastically underestimate the ammount of subtle racism the subverts the judgement of most people someof the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly don't, but there is no system that can eliminate this as ultimately there will be a human being passing judgment.

[ QUOTE ]

But when the supposed dilemma is between upseting the majority group and the minority group, the answer is obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course your correct when you start with the assumption that all white people will try to screw over minorities whenever they can, thats not the case. Whenever there came along a company that didn't screw over minorities they would automatically gain a competitive advantage because minorites would switch their business over to them- hence they will have access to a larger market and make more money and have more to spend on advertising and R&D and in general do better than those that use corrupt courts when settling disputes.

[Dan.]

I think you're wrong in assuming people won't seek a court biased in their favor. If a person is charged with murder and they are given the choice between a "fair" court and one that is biased towards his own group of people, do you really believe the person will chose the "fair" court? Maybe some, but certainly not a majority of people, and what firm would want to give up a majority of its clientele?

[Propertarian]

I revised my post. You have to keep in mind that over 90% of people don't own their own business, and that your argument still isn't going to apply to the most important court cases (companies that might lose hundreds of millions in a case are going to try and win that case by any means necessary).

[ QUOTE ]
Of course your correct when you start with the assumption that all white people will try to screw over minorities whenever they can, thats not the case.

[/ QUOTE ] This is irrelevant. I'll I have to assume is that all people want to win their own court cases for this to be true.

[valenzuela]

I think AC will evolve into towns that are directed by private businesman. Each businessman will have incentive to have a good court system on his town.
Court systems are one of the reasons why AC will evolve into towns that are directed by private businessman.