Private Justice

Who would exert control?

Dear Mister and Missis Doe,

That is what most people ask when an anarcho-capitalist tells them there must be no state in order to have a prosperous society.

Control of what? What do you, personally, need to control? Do you need approval to eat, to wash, to sleep? What do you need to control for? Why do you need to have written on a piece of paper what you are allowed to do and what you are not allowed to do? Why can't you use common sense to think things through?

If you don't have any personal needs to control others, why do you let others tell you that control of people is necessary? Necessary for what? Obviously, control of people is necessary for them to maintain control, control of you, control of your family and friends.

So, you believe criminals must be controlled, right? Then, if you consider yourself a honest man, why don't you get together with people like yourself and make an organization which teaches others about right and wrong, ON YOUR MONEY? Why do you believe theft (through taxation) and control are necessary? Is it because you know that otherwise nobody would care about your opinions, and therefore you need to force people to obey you?

Why don't you make an organization which, based on reputation, makes people voluntarily pay for private justice? Just like they would go to the market, they would buy justice. Ah, but you have been told that you can't buy justice! Why not? If money is not the drive of justice, what is? Is it a vote? A vote for an individual who will be bought by criminals, by groups of interest which will make laws in their interest (and make you believe it's in your interest)? You can buy justice, others can buy justice. It's a tie, it's a balance.

Why would you want to cast a paper vote when you could take your money and go shop for every service you need? Vote with your money! And if you believe private business would not do such and such thing, why don't you do it? Why would you want to make other people pay (by robbing them through taxes) for what you think is "right"?

You think that private justice would only mean there would various hitmen, right? Don't hitmen exist under state provided justice, anyway? But how about this: you get together with your honest buddies and create an insurance for justice. No theft through taxes, just insurance. Then, you make sure that when your clients need justice, you keep them satisfied by providing them with what they need: compensation.

So, the other party from a dispute would, perhaps, use another private justice organization. Obviously, your organization would have to settle with the other organization in a way which keeps both parties satisfied. If you can't reach an agreement, you can go beat each other up and see who's stronger. Of course, this would mean that you would have to pay dearly, especially if you lose. If would also mean that you would lose business because your other clients (current or future) would see that you are unable to provide justice. Alternatively, you could just close that particular case and tell your client that you can't solve his case. It's that client's decision if he would continue to use your justice services or not, for other potential problems.

But in reality, there would be a clear separation between private courts of law and private enforcement agencies, exactly because enforcement of decisions, when there is a disagreement, could mean losing business. So, in fact, the private court of law of each party involved in a conflict can issue a decision which is opposite to the decision of the other court. However, the more decisions a reputable private court of law makes in stark contrast to the decisions of other reputable private courts of law, the more business it would lose, until it would no longer receive enough business to sustain itself.

Why would such private courts lose businesses? Because you could start a newspaper and tell the world about their constantly wrong decisions.

So far, this means nothing. It's disagreement, it's losing business. What really matters is the next step: would anybody, any enforcement agency, enforce the opposite decisions of the two private courts of law? Anybody could, just like anybody can do what they want under state provided justice. The problem, in both cases, is the cost of enforcement.

In the case of the state provided justice, if someone would do something which is against the pleasure of the state, the state would send its people to force the rebels pay (through whatever means).

In the case of two private enforcement agencies, each agency would be faced with the costs of a possible physical fight and also with losing future business. Most people don't like physical violence, so they would avoid those who use it.

Such private enforcement agencies would also lose their reputation in their dealings with private courts of law. You see, there is a strong connection between private courts of law and private enforcement agencies. Each group depends on the other for completing the act of justice. A reputable private enforcement agency would never enforce the decisions of a private court of law it doesn't trust.

You might be concerned that such private courts of law and enforcement agencies would be too many and too small to prove effective. But think of the few huge corporations which sell all kind of things throughout the world. They are few and they are huge because this is how the laws of Nature work: very few people will always be incredibly better experts at various things than most people are. This is why there would be a few huge international private courts of law and enforcement agencies.

Trust is what binds together people and businesses. This is how justice can be bought, not in the sense of an imbalance among people who need justice, but in the sense of equilibrium of power among those who provide justice, and thus a balance among the people who need it.

No matter about what situation you think that "private business can't do this, so we need someone to rob people and provide other people this and that", think like this instead "I'll get together with my honest buddies and build a reputable organization which would receive either business or charity funding, and we would provide people with what others don't. We will not rob people of their money and freedom, we will not rape the minds of their children to make them obey us, we will not kill those who do not obey our system and instead make their own system which doesn't rob, rape or murder".

Do you now know that robbing people (through taxation) of half of what they produce, raping the minds of millions of children to make them obey the system, and killing those who defend their life against theft and rape, is not the path to a prosperous society?