What I mean by that is, what if he damaged my property and I wanted to sue him in a private court, but he refused to ever show up when appointed. Basically, the question is what do you do in a case where one party won’t cooperate with the defendant?
If he refuses to show up and the courts believe there is a case to answer he will likely find his premiums rise and a worsening of his credit score and analagous attributes
I’m not sure why you can’t use force?
If there’s a decent case that they have committed a crime of aggression, then any force used against them can be classified as self-defence, even if it isn’t directly in defence, but in order to get them to show up in court and be judged,
If later the court judges them to be innocent, then you will be the one to repay any moral and/or physical damage from coercing them into showing up for the court.
You are asking us to figure out what solutions hundreds of millions of people could come up with in a free market.
Really, there is no way to know until it is tried.
The whole social structure of an an-cap society would be vastly different. Non-cooperative offenders would find themselves stigmatized…it would be hard to find people with whom to do business with if they know there’s this stigma attached to a person.
Kinsella (and I imagine others) has a great example of this. Say there was state-organized marriage. Libertarians would propose to take it away, and critics would ask “well, how would people get married then?” People will just simply get married. The market (AKA, free people) will just adapt to the change. Like Spideynw said, it will “just happen” one way or another.
There are legitimate uses of force and then there are illegitamate uses of force. If someone steals from you, then you have the right to use force to retrieve your property, within the confines that it is proportional.
A world without government is not a world of pacifists. Force would be used, the only difference would be the justifications of using that force.
He would be tried in absentia.
Unless it is decided that it is wrong to use force.
Unless it is decided that it is wrong to use force.
In all cases or in a case by case basis?
Solutions would arise in a market system You might see an increase in shunning. People who refuse to pay their debts to individuals they have harmed could see themselves labeled as outlaws and therefore no PDA would agree to protect them until such debts, whether in terms of something like weregeld or restitution of property, were sorted out. Also don´t see why bounty hunters wouldn´t exist in such a system.
Take your pick. Either way, it is the same for the defendant.
Take your pick. Either way, it is the same for the defendant.
Sorry dont think I follow.
Without a government or at least some exempted class, wouldn’t the decision that the use force is wrong in all cases be completely unenforceable?
I guess my point was only that force could be legitamitely used to enforce your property rights. Of course it would be totally up to the person who was wronged. But if the wronged party wished to pursue that route it would perfectly acceptable for them to use force or hire someone else to use force. So I do beleive it would (in most cases) be more desireable for the one accused of wrong doing to agree to go to court (arbitration). At least that way things could be resolved peacefully and they wouldnt have to worry about looking over their shoulder.