Law without Government Part Three: The Bargaining Mechanism

The third part of my video series exploring a world with law but without a compulsory monopoly provider of it.

This part looks at a conflict between protection agencies about principles, namely a disagreement about whether the death penalty is a suitable punishment for murderers. It explains how, in a system of competing providers of security and law, consumer preferences for justice are reflected in the policies, decisions and agreements of the protection agencies.

This part is heavily inspired by David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom, chapter 29 "Police, Courts, and Laws - on the Market".

Previous parts of this video series:
Part One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo
Part Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0

Category:

Education

Tags:

• anarchy
• anarcho-capitalism
• libertarianism
• law
• government
• market
• monopoly
• courts
• protection agencies
• Dawn Defense
• Tanna Justice
• Alice
• Bill
• murder
• capital punishment
• death penalty
• competition
• arbitration
• negotiation
• bargaining
• bargaining power
• private courts
• private law
• market anarchism
• voluntarism
• David Friedman

[KeroroGunsouTX]

This system seems more brilliantly convoluted than any system of government created in the history of mankind. In our system as it is now, the citizens are already sovereign.If we don't like laws, we can petition our government to change them. If the laws are truly unjust, we have a constitution and a court system designed to protect us. The inefficiencies are produced because we all live under the same laws and must compromise in order to bestow authority to a single entity.

[grahampwright]

@KeroroGunsouTX It is actually far less convoluted than the monopoly system. "Public choice economics" is a whole discipline of study about who gets to decide on laws when you have a monopoly. In a free market system, there will be far more simplicity, transparency and accountability in the laws and courts, out of necessity (competition).

Petitioning government as a means of getting a law changed is far, far harder than simply switching to a competitor with laws more to one's taste.

[AdenineMonkey]

(part 2)... and even if it was, I don't think weighing votes by purchasing power does not seem like a very fair system of judgement to me. Minority groups can be completely swept away if their ideas are disliked by a wealthy majority (think atheists in many US states today) and there will be people who'll be left by the wayside, simply because their preferences do not form a profitable market niche or they are too proud to ask for help...

[grahampwright]

@AdenineMonkey These criticisms are much stronger when targeted on the State (particularly democratic States). Minorities are screwed in democracy. In this system, they would be far less under the sway of the majority. They could have their own system among themselves, and if they felt strongly about it, they could pay more and be able to outbid majorities who feel less strongly. So minorities would have much more of a voice in the legal system I present here than they do under the state.

[KeroroGunsouTX]

@grahampwright And if they couldn't pay?

[grahampwright]

@KeroroGunsouTX Then they're still even more screwed in a democracy than they in a free market law system.

[Otzmatron]

Then life is extinguished or kept at the mercy of the highest bidder. That is a horrible and immoral idea. States' rights and cantons are superior, different moralities and perspectives of people different democratic republics to reflect these views.

[grahampwright]

@AdenineMonkey This is not an argument against anarchy. Strong feelings about justice are a given... the State has all the same flaws, in fact they are amplified by the lack of accountability of the State.

The rich benefit from the State. Politicians/bureaucrats are cheap to bribe, so it follows that we would expect law to be less biased in favor of wealthy lobbiests absent the State.

[AdenineMonkey]

(part 3)... I thought this series was thought provoking and addresses a real problem with modern government systems, but I'm not convinced a free market anarchy is preferable to what we have now. I'd like to see a serious social experiment on this though.