I am almost a Rothbardian, but the only thing, that I can think of that, makes me still question whether a society would function without a state (monopololized, centralized, coercively-funded legal system) is how a decentralized legal system would work.
In other words, what would a private defense firm do if one of its patrons was found guilty of aggression by a private court? Why would it accept the verdict of that court and not present that matter to another private court? If the (first) court didn’t get the private defense firm’s approval, the firm would defend him against any attempted punishment.
That is why both parties must agree to accept the verdict of the court before this verdict is pronounced.
It’s been used in Iraq lately in the “Anbar Awakening” where people have gone to sheiks to settle disputes instead of going to the Americans or the state courts.
Larger firms will probably be stock corporations with a large amount of free-floating capital, so it’s unlikely they will act at the will of a single man or group of men.
Say a man is accused of being the murderer by a murdered man’s insurance company. What if he’s guilty and doesn’t want to go to any court? Would his own insurance company have said that they wouln’t accept him if he doesn’t agree to go to court with his accuser(s)? What would keep insurance companies from protecting accused individuals? Threatened boycotts by consumers?
Suppose a large industrial corporation is convicted by a court of for a wrongful death. The CEO could plead innocence and call the judge a liar. The plaintiffs would foresee this and go to an arbiter that is renowned for its honesty and intelligence.
Still, the court does not have any firepower. The corporation can just continue killing people. Right?
Not so fast. Would you continue doing business with a corporation that was convicted of causing the death of a customer and refused to pay punitive damages? Probably not. The corporation would lose business pretty fast (and besides that, the CEO risks getting lynched).
Please don’t misinterpret that last remark as advocating vigilante justice (is/ought fallacy). I’m not saying that he should be lynched; I’m just saying that could happen.
Of course. A trial, with legal protections for the accused (no secret evidence, a fair hearing, a jury of his peers, no cruel or unusual punishment, etc. etc. etc.).
How did it work before the state monopoly? Every tribe/city/community could have its own laws and traditions.
I assume the current system would be replaced by private mediators who already exist. Personal defense companies of the parties would also try to settle the issues between themselves.
Would it be correct to say that the situation I have described would have no remedy under anarchy, but the situation is very, very unlikely to occur under anarchy?
Ethics of Liberty may have a chapter addressing this, and this might be the chapter which does ( http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/thirteen.asp ). But, if I’m wrong its because I haven’t touched this book in months. Hope it helps, but if not click on table of contents and search around.