Private Courts

[ksvanhorn]

I don't understand the theory of courts without government force.

A court's job is not to provide force; it is to provide social sanction.  Consider, for example, the U.S. courts.  They don't track people down and arrest them, nor do they imprison people after conviction.  That's the job of the executive branch.  All the courts do is give their stamp of approval to these actions.

It works the same way in non-State legal systems (as used in ancient Ireland, medieval Iceland, ancient Israel, various Amerind tribes prior to European conquest, much of present-day Somalia, etc.)  When is it socially acceptable to use force? (1) in self defense, (2) when both parties agree (duel or fist fight), or (3) with the approval of a court, to the degree needed to carry out the court ruling.  Often no use of force is necessary to enforce a court ruling -- the threat of ostracism does the job.  For example, merchant's courts in medieval Europe had only economic ostracism to back up their rulings, but that was quite sufficient -- if you refused to pay a judgment against you, then doing business with you was viewed as a risky proposition to be avoided.  In ancient Ireland, a person who refused to pay a judgment against him was declared an outlaw and lost all recourse to the court system.  In other words, if you turned your back on the legal system, it turned its back on you.

At this point you may be wondering about kangaroo courts chosen by the plaintiffs.  There are a couple of different ways non-State legal systems protect against this.  One is by prior arrangement: you agree in advance who will try any case between you and some particular other person.  Miner's courts in the American West in the 19th century worked this way.  (These were private courts, for the simple reason that there weren't any government courts around.)  Another way is by having both parties to the dispute agree on an arbiter.  If they can't agree, they each pick their own arbiter and those two pick a third arbiter.  (The arbiters have a strong incentive to come to an agreement on a third arbiter, as failing to do so is a professional disgrace.)  This method was used in ancient Ireland.  As I understand it, elements of both methods are used in the Somali customary legal system.

[David]

I'd like to emphasize your point about the merchant courts of europe. 
Today when people get into contracts, or buy things they do so confident if the merchant screws them than they can be taken to court.  Without a monopoly court, no such confidence occurs, unless you're foolish.  In every society where there is a weak court system, or one in which the gov't has broken down, you see a return of the 'old fashion' due diligince on seeking merchants. 
In todays world this is happening right now.  Good or bad, in many Islamic countries Sharia law is making a resurgence.  It isn't a grand fundamentalist conspiracy, it is a workable crude private legal system that is taking the place of innefician, broken, and corrupt gov't law.  Notice Sharia law is stronges in so called failed states, and corrupt nations. 
Japan has never had a strong court system, nor does some of europe.  When I was younger I remember hearing about how the Japanese have different 'culteral' ways of doing business.  USA business courses would include this subject because It was so important.  The japanese have a strong emphasise on 'trust', and 'friendship'.  One Japanese businessman was quoted as saying if he can't trust someone in the beginning, how does he know if future problems will be taken care of when they arrise. 
Notice that courts never come into the equation.  Contracts are important here, because we have strong courts, but friendship and trust are important in japan because they have weak courts. 

[error]

Frankly I would rather have friendship and trust than a "court" which gives its "stamp of approval" to "force."

[David]

I think at some point we will not really have a choice.  The more gov't screws up on the promised entitlements and such, the sooner they run out of money to do these things. 
A good example is in health insurance.  A 'health savings account' is nothing more than a fancy named form of high deductible insurance.  When gov't finally screws the money up, alternatives will be found, usually a foreign currancy instead of silver, but always something better than before.  When the old age benifits go start running out of money(already happening), they will have no choice but to cut the benifits.  They will never stop, the largest voting group in the nation will see to that, but they will reduce.  when that happens, the quaint 'old fashioned' methods will become popular. 
Some of the overseas militias gain influence by filling in the gaps from broken gov't, hamas, hezbolla, the prison gang in brazill that launced massive riot/millitary assault, and the badr militia in Iraq, which is Iraqs largest charity. 

[error]

Does that mean we should encourage the communist programs, so that the state collapses faster?

The difference between there and here is that here, we aren't advocating a violent overthrow of anything. In fact, we specifically and loudly reject "the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals."

[Pat McCotter]

Japan has never had a strong court system, nor does some of europe.  When I was younger I remember hearing about how the Japanese have different 'culteral' ways of doing business.  USA business courses would include this subject because It was so important.  The japanese have a strong emphasise on 'trust', and 'friendship'.  One Japanese businessman was quoted as saying if he can't trust someone in the beginning, how does he know if future problems will be taken care of when they arrise. 
Notice that courts never come into the equation.  Contracts are important here, because we have strong courts, but friendship and trust are important in japan because they have weak courts. 

Cause and effect.

Are you sure friendship and trust are important because the courts are weak; or is it that the courts are weak because the people have relied on friendship and trust instead of using the court system?

[David]

I would never encourage statism.  It will collapse under its own weight.  If, If, there is a community of people already living free of statism, then we can help its victims before it restrengthens itself.  This is definately a priority when I move later next month.

Japan has a constitution similar to ours.  And I believe they are supposed to have a strong court similar to our 3 branches of gov't.  Culterally Japan has long had a strong central gov't, which discourages a divided gov't.  Chicken or the egg?  But I'd have to say culture came first and formed gov't.  Though I'm guessing the courts have never been strong.  That's my laymans view.   

[Sweet Mercury]

I would never encourage statism.  It will collapse under its own weight.  If, If, there is a community of people already living free of statism, then we can help its victims before it restrengthens itself.  This is definately a priority when I move later next month.

Japan has a constitution similar to ours.  And I believe they are supposed to have a strong court similar to our 3 branches of gov't.  Culterally Japan has long had a strong central gov't, which discourages a divided gov't.  Chicken or the egg?  But I'd have to say culture came first and formed gov't.  Though I'm guessing the courts have never been strong.  That's my laymans view.   

If I understand correctly, Japan and in fact much of Asia does not see personal liberty in the same light as we do in the West. (Granted, for much of our country freedom has lost any meaning other than a buzzword that "the terrorists hate" or for which we should give up our rights as citizens one by one  ???.)

But, wasn't that one reason why Japan thought they could defeat us in WWII? Because we were so individualistic and self-absorbed, as compared to the Japanese which sere self-sacrificing and thought as a unit?

[David]

That's a question I really can't answer.  My opinion is that they attacked trying to deter us from interfering with their war in asia any more than we already were.  They underestimated our resurgence of nationalism.  I say deter because I don't think they were trying to beat us.  One of their admirals is widely quoted as saying he was well aware of our gun ownership, and the immense difficulty of ever taking over the US. 

[Sweet Mercury]

That's a question I really can't answer.  My opinion is that they attacked trying to deter us from interfering with their war in asia any more than we already were.  They underestimated our resurgence of nationalism.  I say deter because I don't think they were trying to beat us.  One of their admirals is widely quoted as saying he was well aware of our gun ownership, and the immense difficulty of ever taking over the US. 

Well, I don't know as much about WWII as I should, but I do know that some of their military leadershit didn't want to start a war because they saw no way to defeat us. I would say, if anything, they wanted to cripple our ability to challenge their pacific empire building, and force us to sign a treaty.

But yeah, what was this thread about again? 

[David]

In relation to the getto-anarchy thread was the story of the pastors  providing mediation.  That sounds like free market justice to me. 

For anything in life to really go in a positive direction, there must be a natural consequence to violating the natural rights of mankind.  If you steal from me, I'm not likely to beat you over the head, but you have lost a potential partner, a friend when hard times occur, and an allie when someone wrongs you in some way or another.  This decentralized form of actions and consequences and rewards are the basis of almost all human interaction. 
It will never be possible to protect yourself from all harm cause by others, no matter how justice is organized.  But it becomes much easier when the contradictions and hypocracy is rooted out.  Rather than tell kids it is wrong to steal, but they still must pay their fair share of taxes, teach them it is wrong to steal, period.  Many kids today do not see any fundamental difference between schoolyard fighting, or stealing a candy bar, than to smoke weed.  There is a huge difference, but there is an entire culture that grew up and became our parents. 
Of course our parents largely can only teach what they know.  It has long been a way of life in this nation to use legal aggresion to right perceived wrongs.  It is normal for almost all.  That is why libertarianism is so foreign to most people.  You are challenging their foundation of what is normal. 
Of course outside of the 'acceptable' use of (gov't or majority) force, the behavior of most is almost textbook libertarianism.  This is why despite the incredible cultural acceptance of gov't force, or majoritarian force, I am opptomistic about the potential success of private justice. 

[lordmetroid]

Alright, let me straight some things out regarding Japan.

Their juridical system is weak. Because it's weak trust becomes a major factor doing business because you don't go and sue to settle twists hence trust becomes a very important concept in Japanese business.

Prior to World War 2, western culture had tried taken advantage of Japan's trusting business and the Japanese rulers felt they had been the underdog in deals. They was tired of this and wanted to establish themself as a power in the pacific region. The reason why Japanese did not surrender during World War 2 to the U.S.A. was because Americans didn't take Japanese war prisoners. So the only chance to survive a battle for a Japanese soldier that had clashed with an American was to kill or be killed. This lead to further propaganda from the U.S.A. portraying Japanese to be lowly ape-humanoids.

The whole Peral Harbor incident was forged by the U.S. Government. They had prior to the attack been sinking Japanese freighters in the pacific. There was no other way for the Japanese than to strike at U.S.A. or see all their freighters sink. Of course the people of U.S. didn't know that was happening. The first report of Japanese activity was when Pearl Harbor was attacked. Declassified documents have shown that U.S.A. had all along decrypted the Japanese radio communication and knew about the upcomming attack. U.S.A. staged an incident by forcing the navy to align a big portion of the fleet in the harbor. The first general refused this order as it would be naval suicide to do so. He got replaced by the president for another guy who would do this. This to get the American civilians would go along with joining the fray and mayhem from previously being told that U.S.A. stays out of other countries affairs.

[David]

The other BIG reason japan never actually surrendered, (they tried to negotiate prior to the two nukes) was roosevelt demanded unconditional surrender.  That horrified the Japanese, so they had no choice but to keep fighting.  I agree that we knew and provoked japanese attack.  The Chinese flying tigers were funded by the US prior to Pearl harbor.  In the 1990's some of the tiger veterans sued for US veteran benifits in the supreme court, and won.  Due to the flying tigers, we started the war with Japan.

Question? did the Japanese even have an official gov't courts prior the the US establishing one after the war. 
I think you are right about the Japanese feeling like they were being taken advantage of.  In the 70's I think, The US businesses were complaining the Japanese would not to business with them in Japan, but would in the US.  They blamed the Japanese gov't, but I bet it was more of a defense against potentially dishonest US business persons. 

[Sweet Mercury]

Plus, the the Japanese lived in an honor/shame society for centuries before the West came to their shores, so honesty in life was a huge factor. Whereas the people who came to spread Western interests were devious, clever, and by Japanese standards, without scruples.

[KBCraig]

Prior to World War 2, western culture had tried taken advantage of Japan's trusting business and the Japanese rulers felt they had been the underdog in deals.

That predates WWI, but you're correct. And the feelings were mutual, due to totally foreign concepts of honesty and morality.

The reason why Japanese did not surrender during World War 2 to the U.S.A. was because Americans didn't take Japanese war prisoners. So the only chance to survive a battle for a Japanese soldier that had clashed with an American was to kill or be killed.

Errr... Bushido held that death was preferable to capture. Americans captured many Japanese prisoners, but many chose suicide over capture.

Conversely, because of Bushido, Americans who surrendered to Japan were considered beneath contempt for choosing surrender over death, and "fair game" for any and all abuses.

Yes, American forces killed potential and actual prisoners of war, and I do not offer excuses for them. The Japanese abuses of captured enemy combatants was far, far worse. For evidence, see the treatment given the mainland Chinese 3-4 years prior to Pearl Harbor.

Kevin