“Usually, justices of the peace were poorly schooled in law, politically corrupt, and depended on assessing fees and fines to make a living. The better ones ruled by common sense and experience, but could be inconsistent as they did not resort to statutes to guide their rulings. Only federal judges tended to be the highest quality and followed written law. Honest jurors were hard to find and most jurors were biased by their personal relationships and acquaintances.”
I doubt its truthfulness, as it may be the official version of it. Any ideas?
Sound plausible to me, but not a case of market failure or even an argument against anarchy. To interpret it that way would be to violate ceteris paribus conditions in several ways. The system was still nascent, and the population of the Old West was tiny in comparison to the eastern US at the time. Also, the passage doesn’t say whether comparisons were made directly between judges in the same area.