I’ve always had questions about this part of an anarchist system; simply put how would private courts work? What would gaurantee that all the courts that come into existence remain consistent with NAP? Would one court’s decision take precendence over another? What would prevent a rich company refering a case to a court that has slightly different law that favors them just because they have money? For example, a company is sued for polluting and damaging property, so they immediately go to a court that’s known to be lax with laws concerning property damage and pollution. How do you even get two groups to decide on which court to use and they make sure the ruling is carried out and legally binding?
I don’t doubt that there are solutions, I just can’t see them, so anything you can do to cast some illumination onto my muddled thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Pretty much anything I could grap off of Lewrockwell or Mises, although they didn’t satisfactorily answer my questions. Perhaps I’m obtuse and I just couldn’t understand it, so I’m hoping someone can lay it out in simple terms; for my benefit as well as the people I debate with in the future. This has always been a sore spot for me when debating. Anyway, I’m also open to any literature you can refer me to.
can you explain what about private courts isn’t satifying you? I can answer some of your questions in the OP
simply put how would private courts work?
Just like any other business in the market works
What would gaurantee that all the courts that come into existence remain consistent with NAP?
The free market… The market never fails
Would one court’s decision take precendence over another?
What would prevent a rich company refering a case to a court that has slightly different law that favors them just because they have money? For example, a company is sued for polluting and damaging property, so they immediately go to a court that’s known to be lax with laws concerning property damage and pollution. How do you even get two groups to decide on which court to use and they make sure the ruling is carried out and legally binding?
Well, this is fraud. it is in the business best interest not to engage in fraud because of the market.
I can’t see your images, sorry if you they answered this, but I don’t think the free market would always come up with NAP consistent courts. The only way I could imagine that coming about is if everyone followed, believed in, or possibly even knew about NAP. I don’t think that’s realistic even in a complete anarchist world/society.
Anyway, how would rulings be made legally binding and how would two parties reach a consesus on what court to use?
can you provide an example where a legit court would rule something inconsistant to NAP?
to answer your second question…voluntary contracts…
to take you concerns about private courts further I would say this: There are articles here that have answered most, if not all, of your questions, if you are confused about a certain answers an article provided, then ask us to explain the answer a little further.
The whole idea of Anarchy is to live how you want without interference in your life from a coercive force, right? So a society comes about that practices something incositent with NAP (Say home building regulations) and their court systems develops to reflect this. What prevents that court from forcing these regulations on people whose family has lived in that community since time immorial but doesn’t want to participate?
But if you can just walk away from contracts, which I’ve seen suggested many a time, what’s to prevent someone from just walking out if they don’t like the court decision?
Sorry Nielsio, I’m on my school’s computers and they block all videos and images, so I’ll have to watch it later.
By deciding to live in that society and signing a contract, you abide by the society’s rules… that is consistent with the NAP.
You are right, anyone can walk away from a contract, but you just proved to the rest of society that you have a reputation in breaking contracts. It really doesn’t matter if you broke the contract because you are still obligated to abide by it until the situation is resolved.
