Courts in an anarchist society

Hi,

I am a Libertarian. This is because there are currently a few issues for which I cannot see a stateless society come up with an answer for. So if anyone could please point me in the right direction, or answer, i would be very grateful for removing another obstacle in my mind.

The main problem for me right now lies in the justice system. By that I mean courts of law. I understand that if in theory we have very well defined property rights, then that solves a lot of problems, such as pollution and many negative externalities. However, what happens when someone commits a crime on your property. Surely you cannot just punish him any way you want, there are two reasons.

1. The criminal may be innocent. You need to prove his guilt, but in order to do this you need a neutral third party as a judge. Who would provide this service in an anarchist society? i don't see free-enterprise as providing a neutral service.
2. There is a known correlation amongst criminologists that the harsher the perceived punishment, the worse the crime. For example, if a criminal is faced with the same punishment for rape as murder, then after committing rape, he is far more likely to murder the victim to reduce the risk of witnesses and evidence, while not changing his punishment. This was evidencedin the Soviet Union when rape was equated with murder. The reason I mention this is that if each individual owning private property decides on his own form of punishment, this may lead to unpredictability (in the eyes of the criminal) and the consequence I mention above. Of course, at the same time, the possibility of severe and unpredictable crimes would deter many criminals. It's a two sided coin and i'm not sure which side prevails.

If someone could please answer this, I would be very greatful. So far I think I have found a solution to fires, policing, and all the rest.

IMO, some people would not be well-defended in an anarchist society. Racial minorities, unborn children, and animals, etc. would be killed by the KKK and stronger people. I think voluntary associations would provide neutral judges.

Since private property is omnipresent in a libertarian society, the degree of punishment is specified in a contract. Therefore, property owners may have the incentive to set less harsh sentences for rape. They may also prevent the initiation all violent acts altogether, by using technology.

David Friedman answered these questions quite well in his Machinery of Freedom. (In fact you can read the chapter on Iceland's non-governmental court system on his website for free). The Tannehills also had some good thoughts in their "Market For Liberty", which you can get through Amazon or interlibrary loan.

"Neutral" as opposed to what? Government courts? Both medieval Ireland and Iceland, as well as Somalia, have had sophisticated legal systems, arguably far more neutral than any modern day legal system. Private arbitration is already heavily relied upon to resolve contractual disputes. 

Fred Furash:

The criminal may be innocent. You need to prove his guilt, but in order to do this you need a neutral third party as a judge. Who would provide this service in an anarchist society? i don't see free-enterprise as providing a neutral service.

Who would provide a neutral third party in a governmental society?  I'm not saying that to be flip - I'm trying to make the point that the comparison ought not to be anarchy vs. perfection, but anarchy vs. state.  In a state, it is well known that there is no neutral service, since the courts will be inclined towards the state. 

Now, what does happen in anarchy?  Well, consider the situation.  In order for a case to appear before a particular judge, both parties have to agree to the judge.  So, a judge who routinely is seen to favor the prosecution will not have business, since the accused won't agree to appear before him, and vice-versa.  A judge needs to behave such that an observer would say "well, that seems fair."  So the system weeds out judges who are not neutral. 

It seems that as far as punishment, judges would form relationships with legal scholars, and this relationship would be well-known, so that the method of punishment would be predictable, and, as a result, but also be fair in order for both sides to agree.  Of course, I'm not sure "punishment" is the right word, since it seems unlikely that we'd take accountants who stole money, cage them, and have them make license plates.  Instead, we'd make them pay damages to the person they stole from - makes sense to me - and increase insurance premiums, or put conditions on insurance, such as not being allowed to engage in some business lines.  For a murderer, the condition on insurance might be living in a special house with guards, but work would be brought in so he could pay the premiums.

Bill, that article did a good job of convincing me, at least mostly. Thanks for all the other replies, now I have more material with which to argue in defence of anarcho-capitalism. 

libertarian:

IMO, some people would not be well-defended in an anarchist society. Racial minorities, unborn children, and animals, etc. would be killed by the KKK and stronger people. I think voluntary associations would provide neutral judges.

Since private property is omnipresent in a libertarian society, the degree of punishment is specified in a contract. Therefore, property owners may have the incentive to set less harsh sentences for rape. They may also prevent the initiation all violent acts altogether, by using technology.

Where do you get your material? I'm thinking of starting a stand-up comedy act....

 

 

Market For Liberty

 

http://www.mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf 

Fred Furash:

There is a known correlation amongst criminologists that the harsher the perceived punishment, the worse the crime. For example, if a criminal is faced with the same punishment for rape as murder, then after committing rape, he is far more likely to murder the victim to reduce the risk of witnesses and evidence, while not changing his punishment. This was evidencedin the Soviet Union when rape was equated with murder.

Yes, it seems to make sense that a difference in severity of punishment might discourage a person in the course of raping someone from killing them. But what about the disincentive to not rape at all? Wouldn't a more severe penality for rape discourage rape, thus eliminating the chance they'll murder the rape victim?

pairunoyd:

Fred Furash:

There is a known correlation amongst criminologists that the harsher the perceived punishment, the worse the crime. For example, if a criminal is faced with the same punishment for rape as murder, then after committing rape, he is far more likely to murder the victim to reduce the risk of witnesses and evidence, while not changing his punishment. This was evidencedin the Soviet Union when rape was equated with murder.

Yes, it seems to make sense that a difference in severity of punishment might discourage a person in the course of raping someone from killing them. But what about the disincentive to not rape at all? Wouldn't a more severe penality for rape discourage rape, thus eliminating the chance they'll murder the rape victim?

Rape is an effective way to reproduce in species who use r-selection. A majority of rapes are committed by African Americans, even though they make up a small minority. That's because of the extreme african climate: flash floods, famines, predators attacking Africans, etc. Thus the most effective way to survive in sub-Sahara Africa is to reproduce, this technique is called r-selection. Europeans live in a more stable K-selection environment, therefore they are less prone to rape. 90% of all rapes are committed by family member or intimate friends. Only 2% of all rapes are stranger rape. Rape is an involuntary instinct that Africans possess. Africans are more likely to use rape for reproduction. Therefore, murdering the victim after rape contradicts evolution. Murdering the victim would not make her have children. The reason that Africans murder the victim is because they don't want evidence. I am not a racist.