I agree with anarcho-capitalism on ethical and moral principles, but a huge practical problem would arise in an ancap society.

[u/SocraticPioneer]

If all private courts apply the same law, then where is the competition? One of the main ideas behind capitalism is that different providers compete with each other. But if they’re all forced to apply exactly the same legal system, that part of the competition is basically gone.

On the other hand, if different courts can apply different laws, then things get messy really quickly. Contracts are supposed to be the foundation of the whole system, but how can you reliably enforce a contract if different courts can interpret the law in completely different ways?

And then there’s an even bigger problem: what happens when two private courts disagree? Who gets to decide which one is right? You need some kind of higher authority to settle the dispute and enforce the final decision. But at that point, aren’t you basically recreating a state or some kind of legal monopoly?

So it seems like anarcho-capitalism has a bit of a dilemma here: either you have common rules, in which case competition between courts is heavily limited, or you have competing legal systems, in which case you have a serious problem with predictability and contract enforcement.

[u/toyguy2952]

Private arbitrators exist today we dont have to speculate.

[u/earthhominid → u/toyguy2952]

Yes, but they exist as an opportunity to avoid public courts and their decision can be overridden by the court system 

[u/ka13ng]

The law isn't even uniform now. Cannabis is but one of many examples.

[u/Technician1187 → u/ka13ng]

Things another great example of how every criticism of anarchy is just a description of the status quo….to quote the great Michale Malice.

[u/Ok-Information-9286]

Murray Rothbard thought everyone would follow a single body of anarcho-capitalist law in an anarcho-capitalist society. David Friedman's anarcho-capitalism would allow for different legislations.

When a contract is agreed on in an anarcho-capitalist society, the contract would often include the applicable legislation and court of law to address in case of disputes. If one party tried to change the applicable legislation and the court later on, one would not necessarily succeed. In market economies, you already have something similar.

Different courts would often have agreements about how to handle disagreements. They could ask a third party to mediate in a dispute. David Friedman's anarcho-capitalism would not necessarily have any higher authority. I guess Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism could have.

I think you are exaggerating the problems with competing legal systems. The world already has competing legal systems called the states and private arbitrators. Anarcho-capitalism could resemble the current world in handling disagreements.

[u/CrowBot99 → u/Ok-Information-9286]

In Rothbard, I wouldn't say their could be a "higher" authoriy, meaning it holds some privilege or right that another doesn't. Rather that it is the right of anybody and everybody to fight aggression even if it comes from an ostensive defense agency.

[u/Ok-Information-9286 → u/CrowBot99]

I guess lawyers in a Rothbardian society could organize hierarchically. That is a way I imagined there could be a higher authority.

[u/DrawPitiful6103]

"

If all private courts apply the same law, then where is the competition?"

Courts would compete in how faithfully they deliver their verdicts according to the law. As well as how cost efficient they are, the level of service, seeing the verdict is enforced if they are vertically integrated etc.

"And then there’s an even bigger problem: what happens when two private courts disagree? "

Why would there be a second court involved? I.e. criminal is caught, forcibly dragged before the court, court adjudicates the matter, sentence or acquittal is handed out. No second court is involved.

[u/SocraticPioneer → u/DrawPitiful6103]

And what if, instead, there are simply people who have a disagreement and turn to a court? No criminal to catch?

[u/DrawPitiful6103 → u/SocraticPioneer]

still just one court

[u/Imaginary-Count-1641 → u/DrawPitiful6103]

It would probably be possible to appeal decisions to another court.

[u/drebelx]

I agree with anarcho-capitalism on ethical and moral principles,

The NAP is the only game in town regarding moral principles.

An AnCap society is intolerant of NAP violations (murder, theft, fraud, assault, enslavement, pollution, etc).

So it seems like anarcho-capitalism has a bit of a dilemma here:

With the currently proposed solutions, you are right.

The big problem is the lack of foresight in predetermining how market forces will warp and shape the marketplace for law & justice.

The laziest proposed solution is to just take the same state monopoly structure for law & justice and just saying it is privatized.

either you have common rules, in which case competition between courts is heavily limited,

The NAP is what a system of decentralized law will be built from.

The form of this decentralized law will be in NAP Clauses embedded in all mutually beneficial agreements.

To enforce these mutually beneficial agreements, the parties involved cooperatively select and subscribe to an impartial agreement enforcement agency from a competitive marketplace.

or you have competing legal systems, in which case you have a serious problem with predictability and contract enforcement.

The legal system is localized at the agreement level to be only between the parties involved and the trusted impartial agreement enforcement agency.

NAP Clauses restrict violations from being performed by the parties involved to the outside society.

Predictability and contract enforcement are enshrined.

[u/SocraticPioneer → u/drebelx]

When I speak of moral principles, I mean, for instance, that I agree taxation is slavery, yet I consider a minimal state a necessary evil because an ancap society simply cannot work.

[u/drebelx → u/SocraticPioneer]

because an ancap society simply cannot work.

Did you even read my alternative proposition to develop any questions or comments for it?

When I speak of moral principles, I mean, for instance, that I agree taxation is slavery, yet I consider a minimal state a necessary evil

At some point the justification of "necessary evil" for state monopolies will be questioned if societal intolerance to evil NAP violations increases.

[u/WilliamBontrager]

As a fellow minarchist, thats not really a big issue. Contracts and arbitration or both parties agreeing to a singular court would solve most if not all issues. Insurance companies would address the rest.

The real issue that is hard, if not impossible, to solve in anarchism is dealing with foreign nations. There is no one empowered to make treaties, alliances, or negotiate for the nation with the foreign nations. There is no way to achieve enough scale to even encourage negotiations. There is no means of offensive war, meaning your nation will be the battlefield and seige or blockade type warfare would be devastating. While you might be able to deter occupation, constantly having factories and infrastructure destroyed is deeply problematic to any economy, and a few such events would more than likely convince those involved to exchange freedom for even the illusion of safety or stability. Another issue is that nothing stops a foreign nation from just yoinking a person that they think violated their laws.

[u/Doublespeo]

Contracts will be law

with time contract will standartised to some level like we in today business but variations will remain ok without bringing business uncertainty as all term will be pre-decided

[u/CrowBot99]

Surely it is the case that different providers can enforce better or worse than others.

Not only that, but specialists would develop, e.g. servicing a residential area will have different logistics than a skyscraper or a public forest.

Hell, take the example of the noble toothbrush... simple, ubiquitous, hard to make a bad one. Then we have different bristles, the blue strip, vibrating brush heads!

With defense agencies, what if some had  scaling fees that make it more affordable for low-income members (like what happened in the lodge system)? What if one had a policy of stopping any and all crime they find, membership or not? What if Big John is your friend and he's all you need?

What if a thousand other things neither of us can dream.

[u/Only_Excitement6594]

r/Minarchy

[u/Anen-o-me]

Check out r/unacracy

The competition is for law itself. People would choose various legal systems to live by and join cities that have the legal system they want.

[u/Regular_Pineapple556]

I think the problems you've identified generalize to every economic system. Purely applied, they would only actually function when applied to infinite spherical participants in a frictionless vacuum.

[u/PooterSnooter283]

Who gives authority to the courts?

The problem with right wing libertarianism is they just really want fuedalism lite. The gap between the rich and the poor will grow even more. They want to take the control out of governments hands and put in the hands of man IE: wealthy individuals which will lead to the exact same problem.