The ancap proposal that in order to benefit from a society's legal system one would would have to be insured against crime never sat right with me. First, such a system would be unworkable in a primitive society, where insurance has not yet developed. Second, it just doesn't seem right to me that everyone - from the poorest of the poor (the homeless, the elderly, and the children) to the richest of the rich (the Warren Buffets) - would have to pay insurance rates or find someone else to pay for them (charity). So, instead, I began thinking about an alternative legal structure that could be funded without direct payments from the general populace.
The legal system I thought out isn't a new idea at all - I heavily borrowed from historical precedent from Ireland, Iceland, Somalia, and English common law as well as writings by notable anarchists such as Spooner and Rothbard.
Basically, I believe that there should be three sources of funding for the legal system:1. Charity - direct charity payments as well as charity bingo, charity lotteries, charity poker, etc.2. Compensation Payments From Criminals - people who commit crimes should compensate their victims as well as the court system.3. Compensation Payments From Wrongful Suitors - people who maliciously and wrongfully sue others ought to pay the defendant as well as the court in order to compensate them.
Such a legal system would sufficiently fund a legal system in a free society, thereby providing free legal services to those who have done no wrong.
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju:The ancap proposal that in order to benefit from a society's legal system one would would have to be insured against crime never sat right with me. First, such a system would be unworkable in a primitive society, where insurance has not yet developed.
Anarcho-capitalism is a system of capitalism, which implies a society much more advanced than primitive societies.
Hoppe has done some work on how protection under a division of labor develops in primitive society. It involves natural elites and monarchy.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
A very poor society can switch from being feudal to being capitalist. Such a society would not yet have insurance; it would only be in the very early stages of capitalism.
Besides, the idea that everyone has to pay insurance premiums is ridiculous. How high of premiums would the poor living in high-crime areas have to pay? What about the homeless? What about travelers/tourists? etc. A much more sensible system is one that is funded by those who actually use the courts.
krazy kaju: A very poor society can switch from being feudal to being capitalist. Such a society would not yet have insurance; it would only be in the very early stages of capitalism. Besides, the idea that everyone has to pay insurance premiums is ridiculous. How high of premiums would the poor living in high-crime areas have to pay? What about the homeless? What about travelers/tourists? etc. A much more sensible system is one that is funded by those who actually use the courts.
I would argue that a feudal society is already advanced far beyond the primitive, and has substantial capital investment.
You do not "have to" pay insurance to receive protection, simply having relationships with people who want to defend you can do the job. However, being insured means that you are compensated for your loss of property before the criminal is caught, (much like under capitalism you are paid for your labor before the product goes to market) and, working up the entire structure of the insurance industry, re-insurance companies can invest capital in very expensive crime-fighting operations, such as fighting pirates.
krazy kaju:A very poor society can switch from being feudal to being capitalist. Such a society would not yet have insurance; it would only be in the very early stages of capitalism.
Indeed. Capitalism is post-feudalism.
krazy kaju: The ancap proposal that in order to benefit from a society's legal system one would would have to be insured against crime never sat right with me. First, such a system would be unworkable in a primitive society, where insurance has not yet developed. Second, it just doesn't seem right to me that everyone - from the poorest of the poor (the homeless, the elderly, and the children) to the richest of the rich (the Warren Buffets) - would have to pay insurance rates or find someone else to pay for them (charity). So, instead, I began thinking about an alternative legal structure that could be funded without direct payments from the general populace. The legal system I thought out isn't a new idea at all - I heavily borrowed from historical precedent from Ireland, Iceland, Somalia, and English common law as well as writings by notable anarchists such as Spooner and Rothbard. Basically, I believe that there should be three sources of funding for the legal system:1. Charity - direct charity payments as well as charity bingo, charity lotteries, charity poker, etc.2. Compensation Payments From Criminals - people who commit crimes should compensate their victims as well as the court system.3. Compensation Payments From Wrongful Suitors - people who maliciously and wrongfully sue others ought to pay the defendant as well as the court in order to compensate them. Such a legal system would sufficiently fund a legal system in a free society, thereby providing free legal services to those who have done no wrong.
Well, I don't think inability to pay is such a big deal for two reasons. Let's say you're accused of a crime but have no money to hire a defense agency or even a court. It would likely be in the interests of your victim's PDA to give you a trial and provide some minimal representation for you as a CYA measure. If their client has lied to them, they may be in the uncomfortable situation of being liable to suit by you for everything from false imprisonment to robbery, assault, battery, you name it. Any bigshot lawyer would be dying to pick up your case to get a piece of the big settlement action which is sure to result. So, they will want to make sure their i's and t's are appropriately ornamented for their own safety. Your situation if you can't afford to pay may be no better in a private law society than it is now but it wouldn't be any worse, either (public defenders aren't exactly renowned for their enthusiasm). And, in special situations where false accusations of the poor are common, there may just be a charity willing to make sure you are represented.
Let's say you're the victim of a crime but you have no money to hire a defense agency or a court. This is even easier and a problem which has already been solved by the medieval Icelanders... just take your claim to a for-profit court who specializes in serving non-paying customers and let them buy your claim from you as payment for their services. You might even get a kickback. Someone steals your big-screen TV that you bought instead of paying for crime insurance. You know who did it and you have proof. So, you go down to your local bounty-hunter/adjudicator and show him your evidence. He buys the rights to the judgment in your case and part of that goes to paying for the court case. You get some compensation (not the full value of the TV, of course, but better than nothing) and the bounty hunter goes off on his merry way to repo the television once the court case is closed or settlement reached.
Clayton -