Private Courts in AC land

Dan. · #1 10-31-2006, 08:24 PM

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 · #2 10-31-2006, 08:31 PM

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 · #3 10-31-2006, 08:39 PM

[ 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.

WillMagic · #4 10-31-2006, 10:36 PM

[ 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-

hmkpoker · #5 10-31-2006, 10:53 PM

[ 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]

Propertarian · #6 10-31-2006, 08:35 PM

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 · #7 10-31-2006, 09:01 PM

[ 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.

Propertarian · #8 10-31-2006, 09:09 PM

[ 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 · #9 10-31-2006, 09:15 PM

[ 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.

Propertarian · #10 10-31-2006, 09:26 PM

[ 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.