I’ve always wondered which between the two was more libertarian. Neither is as libertarian as for-profit courts, but I was thinking inquisitorial was more libertarian.
I’m sorry if this was a stupid thread.
I would imagine the libertarian solution would be to allow both to exist and let competition eventually answer the question.
If you are paying a court to defend your rights, I would expect that court to want to find out the truth and not let you fend for yourself against a well-lawyered opponent.
A free-market system would probably result in a combination of the best aspects of both.
However, historically speaking, adversarial procedures have been associated with common-law (i.e. “Anglo-American”) systems, which have tended to be more individual-rights- and free-market-oriented than civil-law systems, which mostly use the inquisitorial system.
How has the common law system been more libertarian?
“Common law” properly refers to case law; laws propounded by states are civil law.