Common law without govt? Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > Common Law is 'written' by every judge who issues opinions in
> > judgements in any common law system. Government is not 
> > necessary for this system to operate.
> 
> But forms of government from monarchies to republics did produce
> the common law (by appointing judges). The notion of their being
> a common wealth, some common ground to which all had a minimal
> stake, minimal rights, goes back at least as far as Hobbes Leviathan.

Further back to the Danelaw. Kings appointing judges was an authority
seized by the Conqueror in order to have control over judgements issued
in cases brought against him. Look to medieval Iceland and its
judge-priests for a good example that was stable for a few centuries.
 
> Without government of some form how would you maintain or further
> develop a common law system? Where would the judges come from
> and from where would their authority derive ?

Judges would come from the market. The private arbitration system is
well developed here in the US, more law gets practiced outside of
courtrooms than in them these days here. The courts call this
"Alternate Dispute Resolution" and there are private arbitration
organizations available. Like the UL, ETL, Consumer Reports, etc., each
relies for its income upon its reputation in the market for fairness
and objectivity. 

There are also some that do not, because they are tools of mercantilist
corporations (like the banks, etc) and they get away with this because
the federal government has distorted the market with its socialized
justice system, such that most people are not aware of alternatives and
don't look into alternatives because they figure they can go to the
government courts if need be. By the time a consumer figures out they
get screwed, because they didn't read the contract they signed, it is
too late, but that is one more example of caveat emptor.

In any event, in a non-distorted justice market, arbitrators would be
rated by the parties involved, as well as by legal consumer reports
issuers. Justices with higher ratings would be able to command higher
fees to judge, AND would constitute higher courts than rulings by lower
ranked justices, thus the market would create an automatic, and self
regulating, system of appeals and final arbiter. The problem of access
to justice for the poor would be solved by the fact that the best
justices would be able to command the highest fees, they would have the
financial wherewithal to do more pro-bono work than less qualified
justices. Because the justices are not beholden to any political party,
there would not be a limited supply of justices, and no judicial
immunity from the market, any one justice would not be able to get away
with giving bad rulings without a significant price being paid by them
personally for their lack of wisdom.

Such a justice system could be easily administered by an eBay-type
system of reputation brokerage.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com