A Question For the Anarcho-Capitalists.

[The_Orlonater]

Why would people who already know they are guilty of an action go to a private court on their own will?

[Truth Warrior]

Why would people who already know they are guilty of an action go to a private court on their own will? An ENTIRELY moot point, as long as the state still grows.<IMHO> ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

Why would people who already know they are guilty of an action go to a private court on their own will?

Because the plaintiff can simply hire a bounty hunter if the defendant does not show up. Problem solved by the free market once again. :D:);)

[The_Orlonater]

An ENTIRELY moot point, as long as the state still grows.<IMHO> ;)

I'm curious. I agree with most of what anarcho-capitalists have to say. I just want to have a discussion about private courts/aggression in a free market.

Just want to learn some more. ;)

[The_Orlonater]

Because the plaintiff can simply hire a bounty hunter if the defendant does not show up. Problem solved by the free market once again. :D:);)

A force of aggression? Wouldn't this violate the non-aggresion axiom? I did not make the case specific in our semi-hypothetical example, but not all court cases are involved with murder or theft.

Your offer a good example, nonetheless, but you can say aggression will always exist. Whether we have a free market ,or not. What's the difference whether the private market initiates force or maybe the government?

Also, couldn't it be argued that the private courts would not set up bounty hunters because it would be wasted money?

[The_Orlonater]

Bump for relevance and an upcoming intellectual discussion? ;)

[The_Orlonater]

There are surely more anarcho-capitalists on this forum. Don't worry, I won't bite or use the roll eyes emote after every sentence. ;)

[wizardwatson]

Why would people who already know they are guilty of an action go to a private court on their own will?

It is not necessary in an anarcho-capitalist society for the defendant to show up in court. If he doesn't want to defend himself the trial can be held without him.

Action can be taken without him ever participating in the process. Though I think he should get 'served' before any process should start. If he won't even allow himself to be served, then you'd have to treat him as if he was a whole other country.

[Truth Warrior]

I'm curious. I agree with most of what anarcho-capitalists have to say. I just want to have a discussion about private courts/aggression in a free market.

Just want to learn some more. ;) Accurate prediction about a POSSIBLE hypothetical situation VERY far in the maybe future, is most difficult.<IMHO> Who knows what the marketplace THEN will decide?

However, that said, carry on. Whatever. < SHRUG >

[The_Orlonater]

It is not necessary in an anarcho-capitalist society for the defendant to show up in court. If he doesn't want to defend himself the trial can be held without him.

What's the point of the trial then?


Action can be taken without him ever participating in the process. Though I think he should get 'served' before any process should start. If he won't even allow himself to be served, then you'd have to treat him as if he was a whole other country.

So are you saying that if a person, say the supposed perpetrator is "taken care of"(using mafia terms here). Let's say that person successfully defends himself against a hit man, then what? Try again? Why waste all that money and effort?

[heavenlyboy34]

A force of aggression? Wouldn't this violate the non-aggresion axiom? I did not make the case specific in our semi-hypothetical example, but not all court cases are involved with murder or theft.

Your offer a good example, nonetheless, but you can say aggression will always exist. Whether we have a free market ,or not. What's the difference whether the private market initiates force or maybe the government?

Also, couldn't it be argued that the private courts would not set up bounty hunters because it would be wasted money?

Counter aggression does not equal aggression. ;):) If the private sector "initiates violence" as a policy, it would be done as a means of enforcing contract/natural law. When the government initiates violence, it is purely aggression.

Courts don't have to have salaried bounty hunters. They work when a bounty is issued, of course. :) When not employed for this purpose, they find other ways to fulfill their needs (just like in real life!).

[wizardwatson]

What's the point of the trial then?

The point of the trial is to legally determine what actions can be taken against the agressor, or accused aggressor. If illegal action is taken in response to the aggression then further legal action can be taken against the enforcer on behalf of the accused aggressor.


So are you saying that if a person, say the supposed perpetrator is "taken care of"(using mafia terms here). Let's say that person successfully defends himself against a hit man, then what? Try again? Why waste all that money and effort?

What you are making clear here is the fact that there is no theory of international law. Anarchy in whatever form, ultimately boils down to the premise that all government is voluntary. If this is the case then the logical conclusion is that everyone is essentially their own country. What then is the meaning of 'law' between countries.

What are the fundamental rules of cooperation? The base dynamics of all human cooperation. If you solve this problem let me know.

Hoppe I know has done some work dealing with how private defense would work in an anarcho-capitalist society, I haven't but glanced at it though, so I don't know how useful it would be for answering the question you're driving at.

[UnReconstructed]

The truth is that we don't know what a free market ecosystem would provide. All we can do is consider what might happen.

It would, imo, be better than what we have since what we have is shit. Its not the 'best thing running' its the same thing as every other option... some person or group of people decide what is best for someone else without their consent.

I would imagine though, that in a voluntary society like we hope for, that people will be more educated and more responsible than what we have now being absent of the government to remind them that 'its not your fault'.

[Brassmouth]

Why would people who already know they are guilty of an action go to a private court on their own will?

It's not a matter of them "going to court." If they skip out of town or whatever (basically admit guilt) their DRO will either drop them, charge them, or blacklist them. The latter case is the anarchist version of prison. Unless the person comes clean and settles the dispute, he will be ostracized from doing business with the majority of society.

[The_Orlonater]

It's not a matter of them "going to court." If they skip out of town or whatever (basically admit guilt) their DRO will either drop them, charge them, or blacklist them. The latter case is the anarchist version of prison. Unless the person comes clean and settles the dispute, he will be ostracized from doing business with the majority of society.

In an anarchist society, no one is there to force the convicted felon into a jail. He can just leave. Same with the whole "fine" thing.

[The_Orlonater]

The point of the trial is to legally determine what actions can be taken against the agressor, or accused aggressor. If illegal action is taken in response to the aggression then further legal action can be taken against the enforcer on behalf of the accused aggressor.

This makes sense, but what's the point to the aggressor or accused aggressor if he doesn't go to the court ,or doesn't pay the fine, or maybe just escapes. I am am aware this act of escape happens in our court system, but at least once we do catch them, they go to jail.


What you are making clear here is the fact that there is no theory of international law. Anarchy in whatever form, ultimately boils down to the premise that all government is voluntary. If this is the case then the logical conclusion is that everyone is essentially their own country. What then is the meaning of 'law' between countries.

I wouldn't call such voluntary organizations a government. For, then it would not be anarchy. I would call it voluntary minarchism within an anarchic environment.



What are the fundamental rules of cooperation? The base dynamics of all human cooperation. If you solve this problem let me know..

Something like this lies within us every single day, whether it's a business, corporation, family, etc. Human cooperation is about humans working together to do a specific task or set of task. At least that's what I think it is. :confused:


Hoppe I know has done some work dealing with how private defense would work in an anarcho-capitalist society, I haven't but glanced at it though, so I don't know how useful it would be for answering the question you're driving at.

I understand, the defense thing. I'll make a thread about it another time. Maybe my mind will change, but for now I'm stressing the issue of private courts.

[The_Orlonater]

Counter aggression does not equal aggression. ;):)
True dat.


If the private sector "initiates violence" as a policy, it would be done as a means of enforcing contract/natural law. When the government initiates violence, it is purely aggression.

What if it's in the same scenario as the private sector? Let's say someone brings an accused theif to trial and the theif doesn't go and the accuser set's a hunter for him and still can't find and alas, one day finds him and they accused one engages in self defense. In a minarchic society, the same thing would happen.


Courts don't have to have salaried bounty hunters. They work when a bounty is issued, of course. :) When not employed for this purpose, they find other ways to fulfill their needs (just like in real life!).

Of course not, killing the person is of no use to them unlesss they are paid.

[Pericles]

Because the plaintiff can simply hire a bounty hunter if the defendant does not show up. Problem solved by the free market once again. :D:);)

Blackwater will just add that service to their web site. See how easy that is.

[Conza88]

http://mises.org/Community/forums/

For real, more detailed answers to your question.

[Brassmouth]

In an anarchist society, no one is there to force the convicted felon into a jail. He can just leave. Same with the whole "fine" thing.

Did you even read what I said? If so, you clearly didn't understand.

[The_Orlonater]

Did you even read what I said? If so, you clearly didn't understand.

I'm misunderstanding it. Also to add to respond to your previous proposal, I wouldn't think there would be an anarchist prison.

[The_Orlonater]

http://mises.org/Community/forums/

For real, more detailed answers to your question.

I have an account there, but I can't sign in. I've tried every password I could think of and have done the whole recovery thing and asked them to email it to me. No response.