Take a look at water rights in the western states. It’s flawed I think, but a good template.
That’s prior appropriation which I mentioned earlier in this thread. I think both principles have some merits.
You are in the right here. A dam will have no adverse effects on a watermill further downstream, no more than a traffic jam is going to lower the density of traffic. A damn is only an issue for the volume of the river when it is coupled with an irrigation system. I should have thought about it more.
How much space? You are arguing for arbitrary rules**.**
There is no overriding right to do whatever you want on your property. Not in the sense that it can override rights stemming from prior homesteading. You can not build a wall that is going to deny someone his previously recognised right of passage nor can you divert a whole river into your irrigation system leaving older irrigation systems downstream defunct.
"Most of us think of homesteading unused resources in the old-fashioned sense of clearing a piece of unowned land and farming the soil. There are, however, more sophisticated and modern forms of homesteading, which should establish a property right. Suppose, for example, that an airport is established with a great deal of empty land around it. The airport exudes a noise level of, say, X decibels, with the sound waves traveling over the empty land. A housing development then buys land near the airport. Some time later, the homeowners sue the airport for excessive noise interfering with the use and quiet enjoyment of the houses.
Excessive noise can be considered a form of aggression but in this case the airport has already homesteaded X decibels worth of noise. By its prior claim, the airport now “owns the right” to emit X decibels of noise in the surrounding area. In legal terms, we can then say that the airport, through homesteading, has earned an easement right to creating X decibels of noise. This homesteaded easement is an example of the ancient legal concept of “prescription,” in which a certain activity earns a prescriptive property right to the person engaging in the action.
On the other hand, if the airport starts to increase noise levels, then the homeowners could sue or enjoin the airport from its noise aggression for the extra decibels, which had not been homesteaded. Of course if a new airport is built and begins to send out noise of X decibels onto the existing surrounding homes, the airport becomes fully liable for the noise invasion." Rothbard, Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution
You can use as much water as you like as long as you leave enough for the existing users downstream. You do not only homestead physical things, like the water collected in a barrel, if you have a collecting-water-into-barrels operation you can also homestead the right to extract an X amount of barrels of water from a river every day. Exactly the same way as Rothbard`s airport homesteaded the right to emit a certain level of noise pollution every day. It is no different from hunting rights - the right to take an X number of game in a given season.
Wouldn’t everyone prefer the court that uses rules which are most beneficial to their own claims? How do we agree which court to “hire” for our dispute? Can I sue you in my court (which I paid for), and you sue me in yours (which you paid for)?
Also, would it be “illegal” to be a hypocrite and propose rules that you may not “feel” to be fair and just but benefited your claim nevertheless?
Would there be a body legitimizing courts or anyone can hang a “COURT” shingle in front of their door? If the former, how is this “body” established, and wouldn’t that comprise a meta-monopoly on law? If the latter, can my wife open a Court shop in the garage and handle all my claims against you?
Z.
Sure.
I don’t see why. Such bias wouldn’t do you much good though.
The “body” would be the market.
Everyone would prefer to do this, but a decision couldn’t bind unless it was the decision of a mutually agreed upon arbiter. So the tendency of both parties should be towards fairness.
Probably not. Nothing can compel me to appear in your court, nor you in the court of my choosing. (Right now, any disputes with the Government are settled in a government court, so this is a case of “the worst possible outcome is exactly the same as we already have!”)
There could not be any body officially “legitimizing” courts, but there could be independent rating agencies like J.D. Power and Associates, Underwriters Laboratories, Good Housekeeping, etc.
Anyone could hange a “Court” shingle in front of his door, but he’d have to prove himself fair and equitable if he wanted to be successful at that endeavor.
Then why even bother going to “court(s?)”? Each of us holding firmly our conflicting “court rulings” in our hands, we’d be right were we started.
Why? Would “being liked by others” or “sharing the same beliefs and sense of fairness with others” be necessary? Would my opinion of you (or “your” court) being “unfair” or a “hypocrite” have any bearing whatsoever over legal matters, such as accepting court rulings?
Hmm… If you’re rich and can afford to sue a poor defendant at a more “expensive” (thus voted by the market as “better”) court, what happens if the poor guy can’t pay his share for the “service”? If you “nicely” agree to pay 100% of the “court fee” wouldn’t that present a conflict of interest for the court? It would be in their best interest to keep their best “customers” happy, after all. In a free “legal” market, more money would simply buy more “justice”. Is that an ideal you’d be willing to defend?
If I disagree with you about the “legitimacy” of “your” court, then the courts would have no purpose (or legal power) whatsoever. My motives for disagreeing with you about this legitimacy may seem as “unfair” to you as my very claim which you were originally disputing. But without a uniform legal system, all you are left with is your FELLING that I’m being unfair and a “total a**”. Good luck resolving the dispute with that.
Z.
David, if both parties tended toward “fairness” (or, at least, the same perception of it) they wouldn’t be having the original dispute to begin with. The whole point of going to court is to prove that the other side is in some way “unfair” to you.
Not quite. The worst possible (or most likely) outcome doesn’t even come close to the benefits of a uniform legal system and enforcement. Even a “wise elder” (with his own personal biases and quirks) appointed by the village to have MONOPOLY over village legal matters is better than allowing each villager to chose their own “courts” and legal systems. At each group level, and through out history, humans have quickly figured this out and converged to the best (or most optimal) solution. It’s really not that hard to come to this logical conclusion.
The only thing a “court” would have to prove is that it is “amenable” to providing more “service” (wink, wink) for more money. Just like any other successful business in a free market.
Z.
The tendency of both parties should be towards choosing a fair and impartial arbiter. Not the tendency of the parties per se, but they are both searching for a fair and equitable outcome. Assuming no criminal wrongdoing has occurred (i.e., most of the times where there is a disagreement/conflict) both parties are looking for an equitable outcome. They just have differing opinions on what an equitable outcome will look like. So they choose an independent arbiter whose record of judging disputes satisfies both of their appetites for fairness and agree to abide by the decision. There are mechanisms to prevent reneging on this sort of agreement, too.
You tell me then, what is the worst possible (and according to you, the most likely) outcome of polycentric legal order?
This is a straw man. Nobody ever said that each person will have his own unique court and legal system. What I reject is that the “optimal” solution for anything is a monopoly. That is all. There are circumstances wherein a monopoly is the only possible solution, but in most cases where resource scarcity or immobility does not apply (i.e., everything we’re talking about here) it’s ludicrous to suggest that a monopoly is the optimal solution.
Yes, every business in the free market is willing to sully a reputation established through years or decades of hard work, for a few dollars more. (This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read on this forum.)
Exactly. That it why an unbiased independent arbitrator is necessary to resolve the dispute. Courts that constantly rule that their clients are right won’t be taken seriously.
You answered your own question: accepting court rulings. Nobody is going to accept the court ruling as being fair and impartial (outside of the one party of course).
The idea that a court would be willing to just “throw out” their reputation, which is what their business depends on, is silly. Their best interest is looking fair and impartial.
Easy. Third court.
Let’s see this uniform legal system resolve your FELLING that the jury was rigged, that the judge was an activist, that they are a branch of the the state (obvious bias), etc…
“Fair and impartial” according to what law or legal code? If one (wise and well respected) court felt that a land owner can do whatever he wants with the river that flows through his land, while another (also wise and well respected) court felt that the water is not part of the owners property thus not at liberty to handle it as he pleases (as it was discussed on this thread) which ruling would have precedence in resolving a water dispute? Depending on which side of the dispute you are sitting you are likely to prefer the legal logic (thus the ruling) of “your” court. I’ll prefer the legal logic of “my” court.
No legal order. Order = uniform legal system.
Why not? Would that be forbidden? If so, by whom and by what legal system?
You’re merely a prisoner of nomenclature. You’d feel better if you free yourself from absolute statements like that. If law and justice are just SERVICES (like house-cleaning) to be freely traded on the market, then, of course, a monopoly in law would be as bad as a monopoly in house-cleaning. The problem is that law (and a legal system) are not services but the very foundations for regulating relationships within any group of self-interested agents larger than ONE. For law, uniformity IS existence.
What’s the reputation of Nike, McDonalds, Goldman Sachs? For every person thinking someone is “bad” there are at least as many thinking they’re “great”. Can you base the viability of a whole social structure on such a quaint and goofy concept as “reputation” and “likeability”? Haven’t you EVER dealt with anyone in your life that you haven’t liked or that you didn’t respect? For such banishment from society to be effective wouldn’t you have to assume uniformity in opinion on large enough scale (everyone agrees on what constitutes a proper system of law and fairness) to make it equivalent to uniform law, anyway? Sometimes I do question what kind of charmed life and on what planet one must have lived to have expectations such as the above.
Z.
This has been disproven to you several times already. A legal system does not provide order, it provides law. They are two different things.
Please read this essay by Hasnas, particularly section XII
Judged “unbiased independent” by whom? Not taken seriously by whom? And how did we just skip over crime in this discussion? Would anyone who has a “court” shingle on their door be given the power to imprison other people? Or only the courts Consumer Reports ranks with 4 out of 5 stars? Why not 3 stars? Who decides how reputable a court must be in order to be given the power to take away freedom from others?
So the validity of the ruling would depend on what the majority of the people thought about it? Sure you want to go there?
“Fair” according to what legal code or codes? Their own?
Why not fourth? Best of five?
Agreed. Nothing’s perfect. You can always go to a higher court in the hierarchy (to be judged by people with ever increasing reputations for fairness and wisdom.). At least with a uniform system cases WOULD get resolved and enforced one way or another, so people can go about their business. Basing the validity of a court ruling on someone’s FEELINGS is just untenable. And feelings are all you’ve got without a uniform legal code.
Z.
What if some sort of rating system were to evolve? Maybe something similar the Credit Rating’s we use today…
Consumers and Company’s might simply refuse to do business with courts or individuals that have a low rating. Would a rational person associate with someone who had a reputation for harming or cheating others and then refusing to defend themselves in “court?”
The parties in dispute and their representatives. Generally, with property disputes both parties to consider themselves to be right and would be willing to appeal to a third-party arbitrator.
Validity would first and foremost, depend on what the participants and their arbitration agencies agreed to, But common law will certainly play a part, there isn’t any escaping it
The parties in dispute and their representatives.
3 is all thats needed. One for you, one for me, one for you and me.
Well it seems that polycentric legal systems should fulfill your desire for resolution swimmingly. Just as the Supreme court has the final say, so too does the third arbitrator. Once your defense company and my defense company agree to a third party, their decision is final. Further, it leaves out demagogs politically-backed schills that can only exist due to monopoly.
Just ignoring the argument won’t help you win, there isn’t anything more about feelings in polycentric system than in a uniform system. On the contrary, there is far more in terms of reputation, unlike in a uniform system.
What’s “common” law?
What if there’s no party they both find agreeable?
Which argument am I ignoring? That fear of ostracism and loss of reputation would be THE driving force for aligning a society into order? There’s NOTHING about vague concepts such as feeling or reputation in a uniform system. That’s exactly what differentiates it from a “poly-centric” one. That’s the whole point, actually.
Z.
I felt that quite the contrary was disproven several times, as well.
I read the link a week ago when it was posted in the other thread. Honestly, wasn’t impressed and refrained from commenting on it. Far from proving or disproving anything at all, the claim that “states” (worldwide and over hundreds of years) have undergone some coordinated brainwashing campaign to convince the masses that the “law market” is different from the “shoes market” ringed a bit on the far-fetched side. I acknowledge your freedom to buy into it, though.
Z.
You mean the fact that it can streamroll its decisions onto its participants willing or unwilling makes it less… ‘vague’? More… ‘orderly’? I forget, your reputation matters naught if you’re a monopolist by force of law, as it is the Final Decider TM. Again, Mr Roboto, what is ‘vague’ about reputation?
Body of law based on customs and precedents.
Their two representatives pick one.
Please notice how you contradict yourself:
As has been pointed out, there is nothing more about “feeling” in a polycentric system than in a uniform one. Its the reverse in fact. A uniform systems creates and rewards demagogues, while a polycentric ones only rewards the judicious.
If I used Moody’s or S&P ratings as guides for the quality of sub-prime mortgage bonds I’d be bankrupt many times over by now. Not sure if you want to go there with this. And that’s all ASSUMING that such a system does at all “evolve” there.
Again, this obsession with reputation. Are you REALLY sure that fear of losing reputation can be constitution-strength material for patching up a functioning society? Based on what?
Z.