You're Saying that everyone has to fund their own personal court of civil procedure. (Which is already possible btw) That's definately expensive and unaffordable for ordinary people who have no concept of law beyond the minimum drinking age or speeding ticket. You also haven't opined on how to handle criminal matters.
The great thing about non-hierarchical, de-centralized approaches to human organization is that we don't have to have a one-size-fits-all answer for dealing with our inter-personal issues. Some communities will deal with things one way, others in a different way. There would be a variety of DROs, court systems, mediation systems, unitive/restorative justice programs, and so much more available without people with guns claiming a monopoly on all dispute resolution.
Neither minimum drinking age or speeding have anything to do with law, they are both matters of corporate rule, and do not apply to humans, only "legal persons". The fact that so many humans have been tricked into operating as "persons" is one that could not exist without the violence of government.
Criminal matters (meaning there is a victim) would again be handled in a vast array of different manners by different communities. I mentioned this in a different comment, but it would be very worth reading "Atlas Snubbed", as Ken plays out a variety of voluntary criminal & civil disputes, ways to resolve them, and even ways to respond to those that ignore/challenge the decision.
I can't say that I have, very little of my writing is actually about anarchy; I tend to focus on mindfulness, self-improvement, building communities, emotional development, healing trauma, etc. I could go through my links library and start throwing things out, I just generally try not to be that guy (unless asked to)
Have you ever been involved in complex business litigation (not involving any government) where the parties have serious disagreements over the terms and whether or not they were violated? Where mediation and arbitration failed repeatedly so many times it would never be resolved without binding arbitration that the contracts never considered; where the losing party ignored the "binding" judgement? How would you gavels that? Because it's actually happening and I was an expert witness in the case.
First, most "business litigation" has to do with corporations, which cannot exist without the state. Second, these things would, as always, be handled differently by different communities, based on their agreements and moral standards.
This is also one of those areas where smart contracts can & will do better than anything we've seen so far, and are opening the door to many possibilities we can't even imagine yet.
Those involved, and/or anyone else that was involved in the agreement process as a mediator, DRO, etc.
Sounds expensive. A private system of civil procedure. And if you disagree with the results? War?
It might be, but it would necessarily be less expensive than doing the same thing through force, coercion, and monopoly.
If you disagree with the results then you suck it up, because you voluntarily agreed to how those results would be come to.
You're Saying that everyone has to fund their own personal court of civil procedure. (Which is already possible btw) That's definately expensive and unaffordable for ordinary people who have no concept of law beyond the minimum drinking age or speeding ticket. You also haven't opined on how to handle criminal matters.
The great thing about non-hierarchical, de-centralized approaches to human organization is that we don't have to have a one-size-fits-all answer for dealing with our inter-personal issues. Some communities will deal with things one way, others in a different way. There would be a variety of DROs, court systems, mediation systems, unitive/restorative justice programs, and so much more available without people with guns claiming a monopoly on all dispute resolution.
Neither minimum drinking age or speeding have anything to do with law, they are both matters of corporate rule, and do not apply to humans, only "legal persons". The fact that so many humans have been tricked into operating as "persons" is one that could not exist without the violence of government.
Criminal matters (meaning there is a victim) would again be handled in a vast array of different manners by different communities. I mentioned this in a different comment, but it would be very worth reading "Atlas Snubbed", as Ken plays out a variety of voluntary criminal & civil disputes, ways to resolve them, and even ways to respond to those that ignore/challenge the decision.
Have you published anything I can read on this subject?
I can't say that I have, very little of my writing is actually about anarchy; I tend to focus on mindfulness, self-improvement, building communities, emotional development, healing trauma, etc. I could go through my links library and start throwing things out, I just generally try not to be that guy (unless asked to)
Have you ever been involved in complex business litigation (not involving any government) where the parties have serious disagreements over the terms and whether or not they were violated? Where mediation and arbitration failed repeatedly so many times it would never be resolved without binding arbitration that the contracts never considered; where the losing party ignored the "binding" judgement? How would you gavels that? Because it's actually happening and I was an expert witness in the case.
First, most "business litigation" has to do with corporations, which cannot exist without the state. Second, these things would, as always, be handled differently by different communities, based on their agreements and moral standards.
This is also one of those areas where smart contracts can & will do better than anything we've seen so far, and are opening the door to many possibilities we can't even imagine yet.