With no taxes, what about firestations and garbage service?

[FredericBastiat]

Logically, if there is a dispute that results in 2 militias fighting, the dispute ends when the battle is over and 1 militia is destroyed.

So there is only 1 militia left where there was 2.

If you have 200 militias in a society, that means that after a while, there will be just one left.  Of course there will be alliances, betrayals, etc but eventually, only one will prevail.

You draw some amazing conclusions. You wouldn't happen to have a crystal ball would you? Do you read palms too? I need some advice about my future.

[1713496610]

1713496610

[1713496610]

1713496610

[Hawker]

Logically, if there is a dispute that results in 2 militias fighting, the dispute ends when the battle is over and 1 militia is destroyed.

So there is only 1 militia left where there was 2.

If you have 200 militias in a society, that means that after a while, there will be just one left.  Of course there will be alliances, betrayals, etc but eventually, only one will prevail.

You draw some amazing conclusions. You wouldn't happen to have a crystal ball would you? Do you read palms too? I need some advice about my future.

Feel free to correct me.  My understanding, which is only based on shootouts between the IRA and the British Army, is that at the end of the battle, only one side survives.

Perhaps you have examples of battles where both sides win?

[The Script]

Logically, if there is a dispute that results in 2 militias fighting, the dispute ends when the battle is over and 1 militia is destroyed.

So there is only 1 militia left where there was 2.

If you have 200 militias in a society, that means that after a while, there will be just one left.  Of course there will be alliances, betrayals, etc but eventually, only one will prevail.

You draw some amazing conclusions. You wouldn't happen to have a crystal ball would you? Do you read palms too? I need some advice about my future.

Feel free to correct me.  My understanding, which is only based on shootouts between the IRA and the British Army, is that at the end of the battle, only one side survives.

Perhaps you have examples of battles where both sides win?

I remember reading somewhere about battles that some European city states would fight.  Often they were more like chess matches were the armies would try to outmaneuver each other and gain some strategic advantage and when one believed themselves to be in a losing position they would surrender or call for negotiations.  The loss of life was often nil or very minimal and conflicts were resolved without extermination of the enemy or even occupation of the opposing city.  I'll try to find the source I read about this so you don't accuse me of making it up.  

Edit:  It was in "The myth of national defense: essays on the theory and history of security" by Hans Hermann Hoppe.  He was talking about the Italian city states. Ultimately, though, the Italian city states are no longer around so I suppose you could still argue your point.  It's all about the time scale you look at things in.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Feel free to correct me.  My understanding, which is only based on shootouts between the IRA and the British Army, is that at the end of the battle, only one side survives.

Perhaps you have examples of battles where both sides win?

I remember reading somewhere about battles that some European city states would fight.  Often they were more like chess matches were the armies would try to outmaneuver each other and gain some strategic advantage and when one believed themselves to be in a losing position they would surrender or call for negotiations.  The loss of life was often nil or very minimal and conflicts were resolved without extermination of the enemy or even occupation of the opposing city.  I'll try to find the source I read about this so you don't accuse me of making it up.  

Edit:  It was in "The myth of national defense: essays on the theory and history of security" by Hans Hermann Hoppe.  He was talking about the Italian city states. Ultimately, though, the Italian city states are no longer around so I suppose you could still argue your point.  It's all about the time scale you look at things in.

Its a very relevant example.  But my concern is about the idea of independent courts and independent police forces.

For example, lets take an inheritance dispute over a house.  Court 1 gives the property to Jimmy and court 2 gives it to Johnny.  Each refuses to accept the other's court and each retains a police force.

At some point, the two police forces are going to have to fight it out.  If either backs down, they will lose all their customers as who wants a police force that runs away from danger?

After the fight, Johnny or Jimmy will have the house.  And there will be only 1 police force left of the 2 that "competed" as the other will be a list of dead and wounded.

Given how many legal disputes a civil society generates every single day, even if you start with 100 police forces, after 100 days you will be down to 1 or 2 and within a year you are down to 1.  And the guy who owns that police force and that court is effectively in control.  A dictator has been created.

[The Script]

...snip...

Feel free to correct me.  My understanding, which is only based on shootouts between the IRA and the British Army, is that at the end of the battle, only one side survives.

Perhaps you have examples of battles where both sides win?

I remember reading somewhere about battles that some European city states would fight.  Often they were more like chess matches were the armies would try to outmaneuver each other and gain some strategic advantage and when one believed themselves to be in a losing position they would surrender or call for negotiations.  The loss of life was often nil or very minimal and conflicts were resolved without extermination of the enemy or even occupation of the opposing city.  I'll try to find the source I read about this so you don't accuse me of making it up.  

Edit:  It was in "The myth of national defense: essays on the theory and history of security" by Hans Hermann Hoppe.  He was talking about the Italian city states. Ultimately, though, the Italian city states are no longer around so I suppose you could still argue your point.  It's all about the time scale you look at things in.

Its a very relevant example.  But my concern is about the idea of independent courts and independent police forces.

For example, lets take an inheritance dispute over a house.  Court 1 gives the property to Jimmy and court 2 gives it to Johnny.  Each refuses to accept the other's court and each retains a police force.

At some point, the two police forces are going to have to fight it out.  If either backs down, they will lose all their customers as who wants a police force that runs away from danger?

After the fight, Johnny or Jimmy will have the house.  And there will be only 1 police force left of the 2 that "competed" as the other will be a list of dead and wounded.

Given how many legal disputes a civil society generates every single day, even if you start with 100 police forces, after 100 days you will be down to 1 or 2 and within a year you are down to 1.  And the guy who owns that police force and that court is effectively in control.  A dictator has been created.

This is a real possibility.  But it could work out differently as well.  What if the two courts agree to submit their dispute (and abide by the ruling) to a third court?  This might be a pre-existing agreement or one they decide upon once they realize the only other alternative is war.  It certainly would be a cheaper alternative than fighting it out with the other court as war is expensive.  Or the court with the smaller police force might decide to submit to the larger force, but would compensate the victim who loses his property with the market equivalent + whatever inconvenience/emotional damage amount.  In that case they would still have their police force and might still keep their reputation as a just and able court.

It's hard to say how a situation like this would actually work out, and there will almost certainly be some situations where the case will work out as you anticipate: with war and one court and police force being eliminated.  However, it is just as likely that many (if not more) cases will work out as I've described with peaceful outcomes that leave both courts and police forces intact. Peaceful solutions tend to be less expensive and better for business than non-peaceful ones.

Also, if there is a market for arbitration and protection, any courts and police forces destroyed would likely be replaced by others as entrepreneurs enter the field seeking profits believing they can do better than the previous competition.  I see no reason to believe that there will be a fixed number, X, of courts and they will slowly bleed out to leave just one.  Why wouldn't new courts spring up to meet demand?

Finally, I'm not sure that all or even most of the civil disputes would end up in two different courts.  At least some of these disputes would end up in a single court.  For example, Hawker and Script have a dispute about the boundary between their avocado farms.  We might demand to go to different courts we might agree to go to the same court and abide by its ruling.  If we feel that the court has decided fairly in the past (and the courts that are most fair will be the ones still around) we might be likely to agree to abide by its ruling up front.  Furthermore, I don't think that all conflicts have to end with one side winning and one side losing.  Often disputes can be handled in a way that allows both parties some some measure of justice.  Personally, I think negotiating one on one will often end up in better results (as Coase demonstrated) but realize that everyone will have that mindset.

Anyway, that's my long ramble.  Feel free to point out things you think are unrealistic or inconsistent.  I'm still thinking through the idea of private courts and how/if they would work out.  I just don't think it's quite as simple a picture as you paint it where you start with a fixed number of courts and all conflicts end in one court being annihilated. 

(P.S. Sorry for the late response.  I'm not on this forum very much these days....too much going on in 'real' life.  )

[Hawker]

...snip...

Given how many legal disputes a civil society generates every single day, even if you start with 100 police forces, after 100 days you will be down to 1 or 2 and within a year you are down to 1.  And the guy who owns that police force and that court is effectively in control.  A dictator has been created.

This is a real possibility.  But it could work out differently as well.  What if the two courts agree to submit their dispute (and abide by the ruling) to a third court?  This might be a pre-existing agreement or one they decide upon once they realize the only other alternative is war.  It certainly would be a cheaper alternative than fighting it out with the other court as war is expensive. 

...snip...

The courts are in competition.  No-one in their right minds will go pay a court a fee to make a decision only for the court to say "We will let someone else decide since it would be expensive for us to tell you what the law is."

[Rassah]

We don't have a single large mining pool, despite strong incentives to consolitate. Why can't police forces and courts follow the same trends, with no one wanting to give a single entity 50%+ of control?

[Hawker]

We don't have a single large mining pool, despite strong incentives to consolitate. Why can't police forces and courts follow the same trends, with no one wanting to give a single entity 50%+ of control?

A mining pool can't be removed by force.  A court system that is in competition with another force will either destroy it or be irrelevant.  If its irrelevant, it will go out of business.  So the logic of the market is that there will be a monopoly.

[Rassah]

We don't have a single large mining pool, despite strong incentives to consolitate. Why can't police forces and courts follow the same trends, with no one wanting to give a single entity 50%+ of control?

A mining pool can't be removed by force.  A court system that is in competition with another force will either destroy it or be irrelevant.  If its irrelevant, it will go out of business.  So the logic of the market is that there will be a monopoly.

Unless people see more than 50% control as a threat and chose to go with competitors.
(Mining pools can't use their proceeds to buy DDOS attacks against competitors?)

[The Script]

...snip...

Given how many legal disputes a civil society generates every single day, even if you start with 100 police forces, after 100 days you will be down to 1 or 2 and within a year you are down to 1.  And the guy who owns that police force and that court is effectively in control.  A dictator has been created.

This is a real possibility.  But it could work out differently as well.  What if the two courts agree to submit their dispute (and abide by the ruling) to a third court?  This might be a pre-existing agreement or one they decide upon once they realize the only other alternative is war.  It certainly would be a cheaper alternative than fighting it out with the other court as war is expensive. 

...snip...

The courts are in competition.  No-one in their right minds will go pay a court a fee to make a decision only for the court to say "We will let someone else decide since it would be expensive for us to tell you what the law is."

Sorry, but this is pure assertion.  If two courts have a pre-existing arrangement to go to a third one for arbitration when they don't agree why wouldn't someone still pay to take their case to one of the first two courts?  The question is: Will it be more beneficial for you to have your court fight another court, in which case you may lose your property anyway as well as possibly your life, or have the case settled peacefully by a third court?  Neither option is a foregone conclusion.  There will almost certainly be instances of both, and to me, it seems likely that there will be many more of the latter case.

[Hawker]

...snip...

The courts are in competition.  No-one in their right minds will go pay a court a fee to make a decision only for the court to say "We will let someone else decide since it would be expensive for us to tell you what the law is."

Sorry, but this is pure assertion.  If two courts have a pre-existing arrangement to go to a third one for arbitration when they don't agree why wouldn't someone still pay to take their case to one of the first two courts?  The question is: Will it be more beneficial for you to have your court fight another court, in which case you may lose your property anyway as well as possibly your life, or have the case settled peacefully by a third court?  Neither option is a foregone conclusion.  There will almost certainly be instances of both, and to me, it seems likely that there will be many more of the latter case.

We are talking about competing courts which means different legal rules.  For example, if a will is disputed, one court may use the evidence of beneficiaries to judge if there was undue influence and another may bar the evidence of beneficiaries.  So a will that one court holds valid will be held invalid in another. 

Now, if the two courts have a pre-existing arrangement to go to a third one for arbitration when they don't agree, why does either of them exist?  People will go straight to the third court system and pay the fee there.  There can't be a market for courts that make legal decisions that even the court itself doesn't regard as valid law!

[Rassah]

We are talking about competing courts which means different legal rules.  For example, if a will is disputed, one court may use the evidence of beneficiaries to judge if there was undue influence and another may bar the evidence of beneficiaries.  So a will that one court holds valid will be held invalid in another. 

I think in your example, the court that the deceased chose to enter their will with will have the final say, and if any dispute does arise, both parties will have to agree on a court before proceeding. Yes, even if it's directly the third arbitrage one. Though I can't see two competing lines of law emerging. Just like today, some court will eventually settle the difference between then, and others will simply adopt it.

[Hawker]

We are talking about competing courts which means different legal rules.  For example, if a will is disputed, one court may use the evidence of beneficiaries to judge if there was undue influence and another may bar the evidence of beneficiaries.  So a will that one court holds valid will be held invalid in another. 

I think in your example, the court that the deceased chose to enter their will with will have the final say, and if any dispute does arise, both parties will have to agree on a court before proceeding. Yes, even if it's directly the third arbitrage one. Though I can't see two competing lines of law emerging. Just like today, some court will eventually settle the difference between then, and others will simply adopt it.

The whole concept is of ideas like Sharia law, Common Law, Roman Law and so on competing sine there won't be a legislature and there won't be any official body with law making authority.

And as a matter of law, in any system, if the argument is that the deceased was improperly influenced then it likely doesn't matter where they entered their will.

[Rassah]

The whole concept is of ideas like Sharia law, Common Law, Roman Law and so on competing sine there won't be a legislature and there won't be any official body with law making authority.

And as a matter of law, in any system, if the argument is that the deceased was improperly influenced then it likely doesn't matter where they entered their will.

Can you think of an example where one person wants to take it to a sharia court, the other wants to take it to common law court, neither can agree on a court, and someone's rights get infringedon due to lack of court decision?

[Hawker]

The whole concept is of ideas like Sharia law, Common Law, Roman Law and so on competing sine there won't be a legislature and there won't be any official body with law making authority.

And as a matter of law, in any system, if the argument is that the deceased was improperly influenced then it likely doesn't matter where they entered their will.

Can you think of an example where one person wants to take it to a sharia court, the other wants to take it to common law court, neither can agree on a court, and someone's rights get infringedon due to lack of court decision?

Courts will always give a decision.  The issue is that it won't be the same decision.

[Rassah]

The whole concept is of ideas like Sharia law, Common Law, Roman Law and so on competing sine there won't be a legislature and there won't be any official body with law making authority.

And as a matter of law, in any system, if the argument is that the deceased was improperly influenced then it likely doesn't matter where they entered their will.

Can you think of an example where one person wants to take it to a sharia court, the other wants to take it to common law court, neither can agree on a court, and someone's rights get infringedon due to lack of court decision?

Courts will always give a decision.  The issue is that it won't be the same decision.

If a court can't stay consistent, no one will trust it, nor use it.

[Hawker]

The whole concept is of ideas like Sharia law, Common Law, Roman Law and so on competing sine there won't be a legislature and there won't be any official body with law making authority.

And as a matter of law, in any system, if the argument is that the deceased was improperly influenced then it likely doesn't matter where they entered their will.

Can you think of an example where one person wants to take it to a sharia court, the other wants to take it to common law court, neither can agree on a court, and someone's rights get infringedon due to lack of court decision?

Courts will always give a decision.  The issue is that it won't be the same decision.

If a court can't stay consistent, no one will trust it, nor use it.

Exactly!  So if you have multiple competing courts to begin with, after a few conflicts where the one with the ability to enforce its decisions wins, it will end up being a monopoly.  The head of its enforcement agency will be an effective dictator.

[Rassah]

The whole concept is of ideas like Sharia law, Common Law, Roman Law and so on competing sine there won't be a legislature and there won't be any official body with law making authority.

And as a matter of law, in any system, if the argument is that the deceased was improperly influenced then it likely doesn't matter where they entered their will.

Can you think of an example where one person wants to take it to a sharia court, the other wants to take it to common law court, neither can agree on a court, and someone's rights get infringedon due to lack of court decision?

Courts will always give a decision.  The issue is that it won't be the same decision.

If a court can't stay consistent, no one will trust it, nor use it.

Exactly!  So if you have multiple competing courts to begin with, after a few conflicts where the one with the ability to enforce its decisions wins, it will end up being a monopoly.  The head of its enforcement agency will be an effective dictator.

The generally accepted law will be a monopoly. If there's a court that's a monopoly, and it starts being inconsistent with its decisions in order to manipulate outcomes for its own benefit, people won't trust it and won't use it. Two people having a dispute can easily go to their elder to help them decide the issue in front of a jury of their neighbors, based onestablished law they already trust. There's really no barrier to entry when it comes to setting up a court, besides trust, and that's already established in local communities.

Yeah, that. Monopolies exist when barriers to entry are high. Completely forgot about that. Courts dfon't have those.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Exactly!  So if you have multiple competing courts to begin with, after a few conflicts where the one with the ability to enforce its decisions wins, it will end up being a monopoly.  The head of its enforcement agency will be an effective dictator.

The generally accepted law will be a monopoly. If there's a court that's a monopoly, and it starts being inconsistent with its decisions in order to manipulate outcomes for its own benefit, people won't trust it and won't use it. Two people having a dispute can easily go to their elder to help them decide the issue in front of a jury of their neighbors, based onestablished law they already trust. There's really no barrier to entry when it comes to setting up a court, besides trust, and that's already established in local communities.

Yeah, that. Monopolies exist when barriers to entry are high. Completely forgot about that. Courts dfon't have those.

If you have created a situation where one private company owns the courts and the police, anyone who tries to set up against them has to face the likelihood of being killed in a legal dispute.

Being killed is a fairly high barrier to entry, don't you agree?

[Rassah]

...snip...

Exactly!  So if you have multiple competing courts to begin with, after a few conflicts where the one with the ability to enforce its decisions wins, it will end up being a monopoly.  The head of its enforcement agency will be an effective dictator.

The generally accepted law will be a monopoly. If there's a court that's a monopoly, and it starts being inconsistent with its decisions in order to manipulate outcomes for its own benefit, people won't trust it and won't use it. Two people having a dispute can easily go to their elder to help them decide the issue in front of a jury of their neighbors, based onestablished law they already trust. There's really no barrier to entry when it comes to setting up a court, besides trust, and that's already established in local communities.

Yeah, that. Monopolies exist when barriers to entry are high. Completely forgot about that. Courts dfon't have those.

If you have created a situation where one private company owns the courts and the police, anyone who tries to set up against them has to face the likelihood of being killed in a legal dispute.

Being killed is a fairly high barrier to entry, don't you agree?

Considering most disputes are about how much the one who screwed up needs to pay the other, I don't see why bloodshed would be involved. How would they prevent the two parties from going to their own arbitrator/judge, or even be aware of a dispute in the first place?