Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Courts in an anarcho-capitalist society?

rated by 0 users
This post has 163 Replies | 17 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 61
Points 1,175
aludanyi replied on Wed, Oct 10 2007 2:50 AM


I agree. However, unfortunately I don't believe there is any free country left right now on the globe. :( even if you can buy and own property, freedom means a lot more.

Etatism (statism) rules these days, big time. :(


Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 24
Points 390
MrJekyll replied on Wed, Oct 10 2007 4:30 AM
There is no STATE in a A-C society. Not in the sense that there is today anyway. The whole ideal is that society will shun someone who creates an offense of physical coercion of person or property. So in your example, the person stealing the car would have little reason to do so. Society would shun him if he tried to sell a stolen car. Which equals no money. You obviously would report it to your insurance right away. If he tries to use it for personal use, he would not be able to insure it and it would be flagged in an insurance system. You would file a claim with an arbitrator. They would try to contact the individual that you are accusing. If no response is given, the arbritraiter would go to a judge and ask for a judgement against the accused person's property for damages. If the accused has no property, then a police force or you could go after him and arrest him. Or hire a PI. Most likely the insurance would do that as they would be the one's paying out.

I liked the answer someone before gave ( I think Rothbard). That being shunned by society is a lot worse than being in jail.

An A-C society is not some hippie mentality. If you wrong someone, they have every right to take action against you. But if they are wrong that it was you and it was someone else, you can take them to court. Hatsfield kills McCoy. McCoy's son has every right to kill Hatsfield. But if Hatsfield's son takes son of McCoy to court because father Hatsfield didn't do it or was in self defense, McCoy would pay the price. There also would be some sort of enterprise that you could notify that would make it known who the theif was. The free market would make all kinds of things for any need that would arise. Plus, even now you can lowjack your car doing it DYI for under a hundred bucks. Let him drive it away and track him on Google Maps. Work smart not hard.
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 49
Points 740
Brett_McS replied on Wed, Oct 10 2007 4:44 AM

Yes indeed.  In "Origins of the Common Law", the author (Arthur Hogue) gives some background on English courts - essentially local affairs which operated in such ways as described in A-C, until they were subsumed by the introduction of the Royal Courts of England.  Whether or not that was a tragedy at that particular time, they do give a nice historical example.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,175
Points 17,905

Brett, I think it's ultimately a matter of semantics. I use rights to designate those things a person may do without being hindered and which should never be violated, provided they violate no one else's rights, with self-ownership and consequently a right to appropriate unowned resources being the only such rights. Being allowed to dispose of your property (including in yourself) in whatever fashion you please, provided you harm no one, is how I would define liberty (e.g. the "right" to free speech.)

Mr Jekyll, definitely. Something companies often do, is when they cannot get their client to pay up a debt, they hire a debt collection agency. It would be interesting to see what similar sort of services arise in a free market.


  • | Post Points: 5
Page 5 of 5 (164 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 | RSS