--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, Chris Edes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can appoint another person or body as arbiter, by contract.
But, if
> that arbiter itself violates its contract ("Before hearing the
evidence,
> I'm going to find in favor of my friend Bob!"); or one party is able to
> simply ignore the arbiter (by virtue of being inaccessible, stronger,
> smarter, etc.); or in the situation where there is no contractually
> established arbiter, then some constituted authority must exist to
> handle the situation. Furthermore, there's no reason not to have
> municipal courts elected by local residents. It is only required that
> all such courts recognize a final authority.
>
> Without such an authority, disputes become a contest of strength
between
> the disputants and their allies, if any.
Allow me to address these points one at a time.
First is the accusation that a private arbiter may show favoritism
when making decisions. Since an arbiter's success depends ENTIRELY on
how fair they are perceived to be, it seems to me that an arbiter
would want to avoid favoritism at all costs. You can also expect to
see an arbiter refuse to handle certain cases simply because there may
be a conflict of interest.
Corruption is a product of POWER, and arbiters have no power. They are
simply performing a service under contract. Courts, however, DO have
power and are therefore corruptible. This is the difference between
VOLUNTARY and COERCIVE systems.
Second is your assertion that the decision of the arbiter may be
ignored simply because one party may be stronger than the other. Are
there no market forces that would prevent such a situation?
In a voluntary society your reputation is EVERYTHING. Without a solid
standing in the community you will find it very difficult to survive.
How do you think that your reputation will be affected if it becomes
known that you do not honor contracts?
Third is your implication that arbitration must be forced onto the
disputants or else the conflict will become a "contest of strength".
You seem to be forgetting another market force which keeps such
situations in check: TRADITION.
In the absence of Government intervention, traditions develop over
time to provide guidelines for a civilized society. In a voluntary
society, tradition will dictate that disputants must first attempt to
resolve conflicts through peaceful means such as arbitration. The
price for violating tradition is a tarnishing of your reputation, and
as we discussed before, the Court of Public Opinion is a tremendous
market force.
I mentioned is a previous post that the technique most often used by
those in favor of Governments is to identify all of the worst-case
scenarios that may occur without Government. While all of these dire
predictions are technically possible, one thing is absolutely clear:
forming a criminal protection racket (Government) does absolutely
NOTHING to prevent these problems.
Governments are highly proficient at CREATING conflicts, not resolving
them.
---Sasan
