Jurisdiction of what? You can absolutely have competing arbitrators/adjudicators in the same territory. To phrase such a situation as “competing laws” is intentionally missing the point.
Clayton -
What defines the jurisdiction? Why can we have different laws in the US and in Canada? Aren’t national border really arbitrarily drawn? So why not have different laws in the US? We seem to be comfortable having different laws in different states. Moreover, different police forces in different states as well.
Should be perfectly obvious. The jurisdiction of the law, which means the geographical extent or region(s) to which a body of law applies. Law by its nature must have a monopoly within its jurisdiction. It does not matter where the jurisdiction is or how the bounds of that jurisidiction was chosen, only that law, once in force, is the final say on legal matters in that region.
You’re missing my point. Law. Is a written body of rules with legal force to compel them to be followed. Arbitrators are outside law. Adjudicators are also outside law. Arbitration has nothing to do with law–it’s dispute resolution outside a court of law. Adjudicators are what carry out arbitration, but can also mean formal judges of law.
Nothing in law requires that arbitration be illegal. Even our own current system has arbitration. Arbitration works well for willingly partners with an honest dispute and generally does not require coercion on the part of the adjudicator to enforce a settlement.
But, there are kinds of legal disputs which cannot be entered voluntarily nor resolved voluntarily. Mostly these are criminal disputes. You don’t take a thief to arbitration, you take them to a court of law where they will have their rights transgressed, legally, by the court of law because they themselves have transgressed another’s rights. Only a law court can coerce legally, and arbitration court cannot.
Why do you insist on conflating the judge and the law the judge is enforcing? I’m talking about law. You’re talking about judges and dispute resolution as a process.
The nature of LAW is that is must have a jurisdictional monopoly. You cannot have two competing bodis of law making different rules about the same thing in a single territory.
Historically, that would be treaty, agreement of some sort. Or simply a claim, such as a city springing up with no others around–such would have jurisdiction to its extents and surrounding areas.
Because they are two different jurisdictions. Where laws are different there must always be differing jurisdictions. How is this not obvious tho?
They may be arbitrary, but that doesn’t have any bearing on the existence of a jurisdiction. A jurisdiction doesn’t care why or how it came into existence, only its extent.
Sure, they’re all different jurisdictions. And law at different levels (city, state, federal) have well defined categoricaly borders and hierarchies so they don’t step on each other’s toes. These could be called categorical jurisdictions.
What are you driving at tho?
The new legal system I’m developing treats jurisdiction in a new way. It allows you to willingly leave a jurisdiction, or reject a jurisdiction’s claim over you (which may obligate you to leave that territory, but if your property was on the edge of the jurisdiction you’re automatically out). You can then start your own jurisdiction or join another. This would create a system where jurisdictions would be forced to compete for citizens or face losing their entire populace and all power. How sweet would it be to just opt out of the California constitution and all law and start a new state within its borders, something like that.
You can’t have law competing in the same territory, but you can have them compete next door to each other if the jurisdictional boundaries are fluid. So, in this legal order, a jurisdiction is not defined territorially, but rather on something like a subscriber basis, with its physical jurisdiction being defined by the extent of the land holdings that its member citizens posses and none other.
These could be called categorical jurisdictions.
What could be the minimum area for such a categorical jurisdiction?
Can two farmers living and farming alongside have the complete freedom to have their personal laws in their jurisdiction? Let’s say farmer A and farmer B agrees that since their farms are alongside each other, if farmer A crosses Farmer B’s land, it won’t be termed as trespassing.
Do they need to oblige with the trespassing rules of the state in general? It is the law in their jurisdiction that if Farmer A crosses plot of B and vice versa, it won’t be trespassing. However, if anyone else crosses plot of A or B, it will be trespassing.
Does the otherwise state law against trespassing invalidates this contract law between these two farmers?
Also, what if Farmer A is living at this end of the state and Farmer B is living on other end of the state. Yet, they have a contract in between them that if Farmer A travels to that end and crosses the boundaries of plot of farmer B, it won’t be trespassing?
Why do you think that a contract law actually requires a jurisdiction? And will you allow people to have their specific contract laws going totally against the laws of jurisdiction of that city/county/country in which they live?
As for example, a state, a miniarchy may have a law that forbids growing cannabis. What if a property owner decides to grow cannabis? Will the law of his city/county/country overpass the law of his land?
Now let’s say that the same state has also a law against the selling and buying of marijuana. Yet, the farmer decides to not only grow marijuana at his land, he also gets a voluntary buyer for his product and he sells it. Both are going against the state law. Should the state punish them while ignoring the personal law of that farmer who grew marijuana on his private property, his JURISDICTION?
What about the buyer? He simply got involved in a contract law which needed no jurisdiction but voluntary decision. Why should the state’s law supersede his voluntary contract law according to which, he bought marijuana at a certain price?
I believe that the property of a property owner is his personal state, personal nation, personal jurisdiction. True, some laws requires jurisdiction because they pertain to property, hence, a person with no property cannot implement any such law because he has no jurisdiction (property). What about those contract laws which involves no property, no jurisdiction but voluntary decisions?
Contract laws do not require any jurisdiction; they are not based on boundaries, but on Non-aggression principle. If farmer A sells marijuana to B voluntarily and B buys it willingly, any state law forbidding growth, buying or selling of marijuana is either useless or it is coercive and is against NAP.
In a state where there won’t be any public property but only private property, the property owner will have their jurisdiction on their property and there will not be any need of the government because, the monopoly will be of the property owner.
Yes, there will be need of arbitration services, courts, police, which can be privatized as you agree.
Do they need to oblige with the tresspassing rules of the state in general? It is the law in their jurisdiction that if Farmer A crosses plot of B and vice versa, it won’t be tresspassing. However, if anyone else crosses plot of A or B, it will be tresspassing.
Does the otherwise state law against tresspassing invalidates this contract law between these two farmers?
Also, what if Farmer A is living at this end of the state and Farmer B is living on other end of the state. Yet, they have a contract in between them that if Farmer A travells to that end and crosses the boundaries of plot of farmer B, it won’t be tresspassing?
Why do you think that a contract law actually requires a jurisdiction? And will you allow people to have their specific contract laws going totally against the laws of jurisdiction of that city/county/country in which they live?
As for example, a state, a miniarchy may have a law that forbids growing cannabis. What if a property owner decides to grow cannabis? Will the law of his city/county/country overpass the law of his land?
Now let’s say that the same state has also a law against the selling and buying of marijuana. Yet, the farmer decides to not only grow marijuana at his land, he also gets a voluntary buyer for his product and he sells it. Both are going against the state law. Should the state punish them while ignoring the personal law of that farmer who grew marijuana on his private property, his JURISDICTION?
What about the buyer? He simply got involved in a contract law which needed no jurisdiction but voluntary decision. Why should the state’s law supercede his voluntary contract law according to which, he bought marijuana at a certain price?
I believe that the property of a property owner is his personal state, personal nation, personal jurisdiction. True, some laws requires jurisdiction because they pertain to property, hence, a person with no property cannot impliment any such law because he has no jurisdiction (property). What about those contract laws which involves no property, no jurisdiction but voluntary decisions?
Contract laws do not require any jurisdiction, they are not based on boundaries, but on Non-aggression principle. If farmer A sells marijuana to B voluntarily and B buys it willingly, any state law forbidding growth, buying or selling of marijuana is either useless or it is coercive and is against NAP.
In a state where there won’t be any public property but only private property, the property owner will have their jurisdiction on their property and there will not be any need of the government because, the monopoly will be of the property owner.
Yes, there will be need of arbitratory services, courts, police, which can be privatizes as you agree.
The -only- natural monopoly is the right of the owner over himself and his extended property.
There is quite clearly no natural monopoly in protection services, because each individual is responsible for their own protection and protection services are the hiring out of that need. Thus, the needs of protection services are as varied as the individuals that need it, and in a free market for protection you would get very many specializations and focuses. In the same way that there is no one car or monopoly on car making there cannot be a monopoly on protection, because everyone’s needs are different.