I'm trying my best to become an anarcho-capitalism. And I like the concept of having private judges and courts. But when it comes to law binding, I am confused.
Rothbard, in his For a New Liberty mentions that it would be impractical for society if there were appeals over and over again. He says that there must be some cutoff point, which he sees as the role of the Supreme Court today. But in a world without the Supreme Court, with no established monopolistic cutoff point, Rothbard says, "it seems most sensible for the legal code to declare that a decision arrived at by any two courts shall be binding."
What legal code are we talking about here? If there is no monopolistic government, what legal code would exist? Common law is no answer here since its principle is the absence of established codes.
Also, does anyone have a plausible answer to this libertarian dilemma of cutoff points in judiciary appeals?
Dr. Long discusses the issue a bit here:
http://mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf
It starts with "(5) Robert Bidinotto: No Final Arbiter of Disputes "
I also recommend in general Chaos Theory by Murphy: http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
I think that what Rothbard means by "the legal code" is interacting court firms. But I could be wrong. I've never actually read Rothbard's full ideas.
The legal code will be whatever is contracted ahead of time. We will agree beforehand on arbitration process, cutoff points, etc.... In this way, different legal codes can evolve (and compete!) on the market as a result of demand and contracts can simply refer to legal code this or that.
I'm afraid Rothbard is rather weak on presenting it in this way, leaving the reader wondering precisely about what you just asked.
Law could also mean privately made law, individually adopted, not forced on society as a whole, with similarly minded people living in enclaves.
This. Even if the decisions were not "officially" binding, there would be a natural cutoff point in the eyes of the general public. Say if someone is found guilty and appeals a dozen times, eventually after one of those decisions is made people will say "this guy is guilty" and respond accordingly. If he is guilty according to courts A B C D E F and G, the reputation of those courts will determine the amount of respect their decisions have on the bulk of society. And it would seem an obvious cutoff point is when he visits every court. If the guy is determined guilty by all of the courts all the way up until the last one, then I think that would be an obvious cutoff point. But I don't think it would get to the point of visiting every court.
This makes me wonder. What about someone who is found guilty by say 5 courts, and then on the 6th found innocent? I think, assuming the courts are all reputable, that unless there is clear evidence of innocence on the 6th, people will probably look at the previous 5 as "officially" binding.