Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
Arbitration of civil disputes is one of the very few functions most libertarians, left or right, assign as legitimate duties of the State itself. However, there is no certain need even for this. Anarcho-libertarian theorists have argued for the feasibility of private arbitration, the outcomes enforced by social pressure and shunning for those found liable for damages.
|
So we'd be left to just hope that BP changes it's ways because otherwise people will be mean to them? What happens when large organizations that control resources vital to the operation of the economy figure out that they are impervious to social pressure and shunning?
Quote:
|
The crucial difference is that beyond certain easily-controlled and enumerated court costs, the Government has no financial stake in a dispute, and has a markedly lessened ability to utilise the coercive power of the State in order to further the ideology in power at the time. With the State itself, with all its' corrupt, inefficient, wasteful, sluggish larcenous tendancies in charge of the fines, the amounts demanded, and most importantly the -recipient- of the fines, the power and temptation for abuse are tremendous.
|
Judges are just people who think silly outfits are a crucial part of sharing their opinions. Their opinions don't mean shit if no one is going to make sure their opinions are followed. This is where the coercive power of the state comes in. Even if the state just concerns itself with upholding court rulings, courts are filled with judges who are either elected by the people or appointed by the politicians. Wouldn't these judges, in a sense, be dictated by the ideologies in power? Isn't coercive state power, the kind that is at least partly defined by the ideology du jour, unavoidable?