Who Should decide how disputed assets are distributed in Divorce, if not the government?
A judge.
An arbitration agency that has been mutually agreed upon in advance by both parties. Any legal contract would contain such clauses. A marriage is nothing but a contract.
That’s one of the rules I would like to see changed for sure. Women shouldn’t get a dime.
and what happens if one of the parties refuses to abide by the ruling of the private court?
She will appeal to yet another agency that has been mutually agreed upon in advance for precisely the case of appeal.
And before you ask the same question again, here is the answer:
The party will be obligated to abide by the rulings after he/she have exhausted all of their options according to the contracts they themselves agreed to. The course of action for one who refuses to abide by the rulings will also be determined in advance by the contract. I don’t know what these courses of action will be just like I don’t know what the market will have for us in the future. If I did, I would be rich. It may be a just a black list, or it may be a death sentence by public stoning. I think the latter is highly unlikely due to the voluntary nature of the market.
The court will seize the assets.
thank you for the reply…
I dug this up from lewrockwell.com
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed provided highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … provide if anything more effective than physical coercion.”[3] Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,
that arbitration caught on and developed a following in the American mercantile community. Its popularity, gained at a time when abiding by an agreement to arbitrate had to be as voluntary as the agreement itself, casts doubt on whether legal coercion was an essential adjunct to the settlement of most disputes. Cases of refusal to abide by an arbitrator’s award were rare; one founder of the American Arbitration Association could not recall a single example. Like their medieval forerunners, merchants in the Americas did not have to rely on any sanctions other than those they could collectively impose on each other. One who refused to pay up might find access to his association’s tribunal cut off in the future, or his name released to the membership of his trade association; these penalties were far more fearsome than the cost of the award with which he disagreed. Voluntary and private adjudications were voluntarily and privately adhered to, if not out of honor, out of the self-interest of businessmen who knew that the arbitral mode of dispute settlement would cease to be available to them very quickly if they ignored an award.[4]
How do you know? Are you a fortune teller?
so you think private courts could use force to seize assets?
i think the lewrockwell.com posting is disagreeing…
That’s what they are being hired to do.
No, a court is only hired to make rulings.
You don’t know what they will do until you allow people to decide on these matters among themselves in a free market. The courts will do whatever their customers tell them to do.
A ruling implies an execution, otherwise it is only an opinion.
The courts would probably have to outsource the collections part. There are repo agencies now that do just this sort of thing. I even think there was a show about it. Although the details were probably different. The courts would need some muscle to make sure their rulings were obeyed.
You fail to realize that the “execution”, whatever it is, is an economic good (or service). It is subject to the laws of the market. Today, this good is shaped by arbitrary and political value judgments. In the free society, it will be according to the values of consumers. You can’t presume to know in what shape or form this “good” will evolve into.
That is nearly a tautology, for who would hire a “court” without muscle?
Lol, not I. Otherwise it’s just a waste of time, imo.
‘Execution’ can take many forms. I could take that opinion and decide to never do business what that person again.
My point is that a court -is- hired for opinions. It’s possible that some people will be hired to retrieve some goods from a person who’s deemed fraudulent. But the court function is to judge; and it is a clear and separate function from other things.
Well then the court’s judgement would only be valuable to the extent that its opinion influenced your actions, which is another way to say that it executes upon its opinion.