Private Courts in AC land

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are 2 sides to every court case, correct? For every murderer trying to get off there is a family trying to get justice (or an insurance agency trying to get away from paying a premium or what not). One person can't decide unilaterally but there will have to be an agreement between the parties.

[Propertarian]

[ 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 ] Obviously. But in AC-land people get to choose their own court i.e. make a judgement in their own case, which is obviously going to be a more biased judgement than a judgement which is handed down by somebody who is NOT a party in the dispute.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whenever you entered into a contract you would agree to an arbitrator at that time, so people who refused to accept fair arbitrators wouldn't get contracts and wouldn't make any money and would lead generally miserable existances.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are 2 sides to every court case, correct? For every murderer trying to get off there is a family trying to get justice (or an insurance agency trying to get away from paying a premium or what not). One person can't decide unilaterally but there will have to be an agreement between the parties.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how do they decide which court to hear the case in? Sounds like it'll devolve into chaos and violence.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
There are 2 sides to every court case, correct? For every murderer trying to get off there is a family trying to get justice (or an insurance agency trying to get away from paying a premium or what not). One person can't decide unilaterally but there will have to be an agreement between the parties.

[/ QUOTE ] Exactly-disputes will be decided violently outside of the court!!!

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Whenever you entered into a contract you would agree to an arbitrator at that time, so people who refused to accept fair arbitrators wouldn't get contracts and wouldn't make any money and would lead generally miserable existances.

[/ QUOTE ] Why not just forget the whole AC thing so we can avoid this massive transaction cost?

More fundementally, most court cases are not disputes over things which required a contract; in fact, most probably aren't over trades at all!!! They are disputes between strangers (e.g. theft and other crimes) or between former roomates or romantic partners.

Also, it seems pretty obvious that this would lead to chaos and violence once again (who would voluntarily go to court and voluntarily accept the ruling if they knew that their lives would be ruined by it??? The fact that the agreed to at the time of the contract does not mean that they will actually do it at this point) At best this only helps to solve minor disputes.

[WordWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whenever you entered into a contract you would agree to an arbitrator at that time, so people who refused to accept fair arbitrators wouldn't get contracts and wouldn't make any money and would lead generally miserable existances.

[/ QUOTE ] Why not just forget the whole AC thing so we can avoid this massive transaction cost?

More fundementally, most court cases are not disputes over things which required a contract; in fact, most probably aren't over trades at all!!! They are disputes between strangers (e.g. theft and other crimes) or between former roomates or romantic partners.

Also, it seems pretty obvious that this would lead to chaos and violence once again (who would voluntarily go to court and voluntarily accept the ruling if they knew that their lives would be ruined by it??? The fact that the agreed to at the time of the contract does not mean that they will actually do it at this point) At best this only helps to solve minor disputes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that failure to adhere to your side of the contract would likely result in a default judgment against you, thus ruining your life even worse? No one will stick up for the outlaw who fails to adhere to his contracts, so you either accept the jurisdiction of the court, or live your whole life as a fugitive, constantly watching over your shoulder. Just like criminals currently do when they don't submit to the jurisdiction of courts. How many criminal defendants show up to court, knowing they'll probably be found guilty and get a long prison sentence, rather than jumping bail? A huge percentage. Refusing to accept a court's jurisdiction is costly.

[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.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
No one will stick up for the outlaw who fails to adhere to his contracts, so you either accept the jurisdiction of the court, or live your whole life as a fugitive, constantly watching over your shoulder.

[/ QUOTE ] Once again, more blind faith. You assume simply that: people will know that he is a fugitive, he can't simply leave AC land to go to another country, that every court will agree that he is a fugitive (ludicrous, given the fact that the courts are competitors!!!; none of the courts are going to admit that another court is a reliable courts, that would cost them business!!! They want the other courts to look bad and unauthoritative. The courts will not be cooperating, they will be competiting).

[ QUOTE ]
Refusing to accept a court's jurisdiction is costly.

[/ QUOTE ] But none of the courts have jurisdiction, because all of the courts have jurisdiction. Their is no authority because everyone is an authority.

[hmkpoker]

You don't even know what you're talking about.