Private Courts in AC land

[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?

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

You may be tried in absentia.

[Propertarian]

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

[/ QUOTE ] Thanks for pointing that out. Now I know, and knowing is half the battle.

Seriously, Although you are well aware of the fact that AC presupposes a massive change in human nature/behavior, the people I'm debating with have never brought this up before at all-nevertheless in this thread, so I'm assuming that we're not using that as a presupposition in the debate

Since their is no good evolutionary reason to believe that transformation would occur, their would be no reason for me to post otherwise.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

A-

[valenzuela]

you are supposing AC will consist on everyone living on their own.
In AC HOA, towns or private neighbourhoods or whatever you want to call a group of ppl voluntarily making an association will exist. So if you do a crime there, good luck dealing with angry neighbours.
If you stab someone in Lincoln Street, everyone associated with the privately owned street and the family will want a punishment for the stabber.
You are somehow making the assumption that the Graham street owner will want to make Lincoln street look bad so they will defend the stabber. Graham street owner has two choices. A) profit bitch! or B) Get involved in some stupid fight while losing lots of credibility on the process.

If you do steal something on a bus, the bus owner will be on the victim side and so on.
Thats why the good side will always be stronger than the bad side.

If multiple private courts are not working( which is an option) then my Valenzuela Town theory will naturally develop.
My Valenzuela town theory consists on an economic group buying lots of land and making a town. That town runs preety much like it does today only that the town is privately runned so if the major screws up he loses cash instead of going down in the polls.( For instance everyone will want to live on a town that has a great court system.)

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

A-

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty good iron. You've also figured out the "the problems that the government intends to solve are acutally caused by government" formula, well done [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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=

[tolbiny]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Now your getting it (accidentally/sarcastically). Causing problems with other people carries a massive transaction cost, therefor people who don't cause problems will have lower costs, make more profits and will do better in AC land. Under a government the transaction cost is spread out to all people so that those who don't have problems with others pay for the courts and lawyers and enforcement for people that do. You cut out the finacial incentive toward good behavior and you get bad behavior (not from everyone though,most people are still decent to a certain extent).

[Girchuck]

I don't want to stab any one. But perhaps I'll just ride around and rob banks, because thats where the money is.
If I rob a bank in your town, and move on to a different town, who is going to stop me?