Private Courts in AC land

[hmkpoker]

The basic idea of self-regulating property rights is that, in addition to the deterrent of aggression that prosperity provides, in the event of an act of aggression, other individuals have an interest in punishing the aggressor. This is how property rights evolved. As borodog wrote in this thread:

[ QUOTE ]
Think of a small tribe of human beings. Each must consumer, and in order to consume they must produce, and none wants to have his produce stolen. However, each is also continually tempted to steal from the other members, because it is easier than producing. In other words, this society is essentially a giant set of Iterated Prisoners’ Dilemmas, without foreseeable end. The proper strategy for such a “game”, is Tit For Tat, where the “players” (members of the tribe) cooperate (do not steal from each other), until such time as one of them “defects” (steals from someone else), at which time the victim punishes him by not cooperating in the future and/or “defecting” against him in turn (stealing his stuff back, maybe and then some). Essentially, because each member of the tribe does not want to be stolen from, he should not steal.

More importantly is the willingness by other members of the group to help the wronged by acting collectively against the individual who wronged him; i.e. they got his back. This tends to negate the power differentials that incentivize conflict and theft by the Alpha males and other strong members in a wolf pack type structure, because the entire group is willing to come to the aid of the victim. I.e. when the group “backs up” the victim because they don’t want their stuff stolen. I’m not sure what the game theoretical term for such a strategy is, if there is one. I’ll call it Backed Up Tit For Tat.

The Backed Up Tit For Tat strategy is exactly what is needed for the Persistence of Yours to get going, are again there should be powerful selection pressures favoring it. The Great Leap Forward represents the inevitable result of the falling into place of the other side of the coin that is private property, bringing “yours” and “mine” together in a kind of economic yin-yang relationship.

This is not to say, of course, that human beings don’t also still have their wolflike evolutionary heritage. When people believe they can get away with it, they steal, and the likelihood of the theft goes up with the perceived reward and down with the perceived risk. As David Sklansky loves to remind us, if an Angolan can steal a billion dollars from Bill Gates without getting caught, he’ll do it, and it doesn’t even make sense to ask questions about whether or not he “should” do it. It’s just that the Backed Up Tit For Tat strategy seeks to reduce the potential rewards of theft and increase the potential risks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Accordingly, there is an interest in the definition of aggression and the administration of restitution. Both require force, because what defendant wants to stand trial? An arbitrator is selected between security firms and citizens as a sound judge of aggression and non-aggression. Complaints brought to the court's attention must be responded by the defendant under threat of force, as not responding to a complaint is considered aggression (just like today). The guilty party pays restitution to the aggressed and fees to the court for their services. Lawsuits deemed frivolous are considered aggression and are charged. Continued unfair judgements result in unpopularity for the arbitrator, and a better replacement. Incentives in this system exist on every front to A) discourage what a judicious mind would consider aggression, B) discourage frivolous lawsuits, C) discourage arbitrators from rendering verdicts unpopular with a voluntary society, D) enforce restitution from the decidedly guilty to the aggressed.

Keep in mind, this is HIGHLY THEORETICAL. It assumes many variables that do not exist today (a voluntary society with different values, private security firms, a sufficient number of private security firms to ensure that they cannot cartel and appoint corrupt arbitrators that support their own interests so as to buy them protectism, etc).

It's also something that no ACist has any interest in implementing in the near future. We are far more interested in removing the causes of crime (reducing poverty, restoring economic stability, ending the drug war, alleviating tax burdens) that we are in creating radically new systems to deal with it. Private courts are basically the nexus of government decentralization; it's not the policy we want so much as it is the direction we want to head in. It's sort of like when some jackbooted thug like iron81 says he supports a nice big global government; it's not something he wants to implement, it's something he wants to work toward.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

What prevents universities from handing out diplomas?

Oh, some actually do that. But how many people honor diplomas from such universities?

[BCPVP]

For a New Liberty

Skip to about 1/4 of the way down the page for the section on courts.

[Nielsio]

I've tried to answer specifically these questions:

Market anarchy objections
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5077&page=