I am NOT a fan of Rothbard

[mczerone]

The problem is the concept of "crime." It doesn't exist in a voluntary society. You can't commit a crime, you can only commit aggression. And the only question is what is appropriate restitution for that aggression. And then you go down the private courts rabbit hole.

So, would there be debtor's prisons in a free society? Would there be slavery? I doubt it; I believe the market would come up with better systems. A true free-market society itself would be a hell of an incentive to live productively. No one is collecting restitution from slaves or prisoners. And at the end of the day I think people want restitution much more than revenge.

You are absolutely correct that there is no "crime" without the state - there are only torts (actions brought by a victim for restitution and possibly punitive damages).

Though I think you underestimate the latent tendency for violent revenge that people harbor. Many people consider fist-fights for looking at their wife or daughter the wrong way. Many people would want to run your car off the road if you accidentally spilled coffee on them. Many people want to "turn the Middle East into glass" for what 19 Saudis did over a decade ago. Many people forget the New Testament "turn the other cheek" and angrily perpetuate the Old Testament's "eye for an eye".

The best way to handle this is, of course, through competitive courts issuing judgements open to appeal to other independent courts, not through courts beholden to the political pressures of mob-rule. But we can't fool ourselves into thinking that people aren't currently still in battle-mode (mostly due to the fact that the govt system is effectively saying "here's a paddle, you can go wherever you like, but we're all in one canoe, and we all have our own paddles.")

 

[bolil]

I have the same catch up with Murray Rothbard. While I can understand private police perfectly well (as for cost reasons they would likely end up being local police). I even like the idea of private arbitrators for contract disputes. However, I do believe a supreme law, that is to say supreme court, is absolutely necessary to the protection of EVERY ONE's liberty, at a basic level. The question is: What bite does a supreme court have without an enforcement arm? One example that comes to mind is: What happens if a person can't afford to pay a security company or a court of arbitration?

With solely private courts, what is to be done if someone has a lot of money and chooses to keep appealing?

 

[bolil]

Oh, and the OP has likely gleaned his Rothbard knowledge from y'all... so complaining about his lack of knowledge is complaining about your own earlier statements. Just saying.

 

[kuckfeynes]

What bite does a supreme court have without an enforcement arm?

None, that's the point. No one body should have that much centralized authority (at least without having competed in the market to acquire it).

What happens if a person can't afford to pay a security company or a court of arbitration?

What happens if a person chooses not to carry health insurance? Is it my responsibility to make sure he doesn't die?
Some people make responsible decisions with their money, and some do not. That's life.

With solely private courts, what is to be done if someone has a lot of money and chooses to keep appealing?

This is what we have now. More money = better lawyers = more influence = better chance of successful appeal. Besides, remember we're talking about a system where you have to directly aggress against someone to the point that they want to pay for the prosecution. Just like health care and finance, market-based insurance is really the only system that is totally fair across the board, that you can't really get "tangled up in" the way you can with a bureaucratic system. Don't aggress against people, and your rates stay low. Be convicted of aggression, rates go up.

 

[Travlyr]

This is what we have now.

Right. Private courts are what we have now. The courts are owned by the bankers. They do not obey the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

 

[erowe1]

The government should be there to protect and ensure contract rights, when they need to be protected. If there aren't laws to support property rights, there wouldn't be any property rights, because one would not be defined. Therefore, what's stopping the strong from taking advantage of the weak?

Again, what's the difference between "the strong taking advantage of the weak" and the state?

Isn't the only thing that separates the state from every other criminal gang that it's stronger than them?

 

[bolil]

I guess I am more concerned with how we make the government respect the constitution and do what it was supposed to: protect liberty, than I am concerned with eliminating the government. For you that say "If we follow the constitution we will wind up in the same place again." I say that human beings precede the constitution and that the dawn of man saw anarchy... which developed into tyranny. I guess that is why they say the constitution was to be restrictive chains on those who would be tyrants. You say: "The chains don't work, lets get rid of them." I say: "The chains don't work, lets fix them". For more on the fix, ask some questions.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I am not too much of a fan...I haven't read any of his books...Now, I already know what I am going to hear...I would ask people to be respectful and have a good discussion and I hope some can change my mind.

Umm, I would recommend that reading his books is the best way to change your mind. Or to keep it. Basically just to get to the point of having your opinion be worth anything.

Why would you change your mind based on anything I wrote? Just read what he wrote.

 

[mczerone]

I guess I am more concerned with how we make the government respect the constitution and do what it was supposed to: protect liberty, than I am concerned with eliminating the government. For you that say "If we follow the constitution we will wind up in the same place again." I say that human beings precede the constitution and that the dawn of man saw anarchy... which developed into tyranny. I guess that is why they say the constitution was to be restrictive chains on those who would be tyrants. You say: "The chains don't work, lets get rid of them." I say: "The chains don't work, lets fix them". For more on the fix, ask some questions.

I think you're missing the point. We're not saying "get rid of the chains". We're saying that the chains are only as good as what the other end is attached to.

Govt law enforcement is taking the chains and attaching the law makers to the law judgers to the law enforcers. And then we're all chained to them.

Market law enforcement would attach chains to each of these groups, but would allow each individual to hold the reigns. The individual would be free to give as much authority to each group as he best sees fit, subject to market pressure.

It doesn't matter how well the chains are designed if you're going to give the govt the key; you become their slave instead of them being your servant.