Libercratic Justice System

Libertocracy1.gif (2508 bytes)

Home
Government
Courts
Security
Culture
Society
Economy
Education
Index
Table of Issues

E-Mail

Join the Libertocracy Association

Feedback

Contact

Discussion

Glossary & Spelling

Gregory Flanagan Director, Libertocracy Association

Libercratic Justice

The Libercratic Justice System is a polycentric system of courts. Cases; criminal, civil and private may be heard in private, civil or superior governmental courts or the parties in a dispute may choose arbitration. Anyone may organize a court and offer their service to others. In a dispute both parties should have signed a contract agreeing on a mutually acceptable court or other method of resolution. Most individuals will probably belong to a civil government which insure their civilzens against any illegal trespasses against other individuals, and by providing a trusted court system, with the persons interacting within that jurisdiction agreeing to accept it's courts as the legitimate authority.
   There can be no monopoly over the justice system because people involved in a dispute must be able to mutually choose the court that they believe will best be able to protect their rights.
Also; there are different common law courts in different nations and communities, these are for settling disputes in way's that only those who belong to that society may be willing to accept. Some of these courts may be held before tribal elders, a panel of community leaders or before an ecclesiastical judge, any method is acceptable and consistent with Libertocracy as long as it is consensual.
   If a civilzen of one government commits a crime against a civilzen of another government, their governments should have signed a treaty stipulating where the trial would be held, or the party's contract insurance company may determine the court, if there is none or both parties can't agree, then the case may be handled in a number of other ways.
   If it's a criminal case in FSUTO jurisdiction between a FSUTO member and an alien and they can't agree on a court then the alien would have to pay up front costs for the case to go before a FSUTO Court, this creates an incentive to find an acceptable private court. If the accused refuses to accept any court or other fair settlement procedure then the FSUTO Joint Police would have to use force and the accused would have to pay the court costs and attorneys fees up front or borrow the money, plus pay for a bail bond, part of which wouldn't be returned even if found not guilty. That's quite a disincentive against being recalcitrant.

When a person without a government commits a crime within the jurisdiction of another government, then that person is fully subject to that government's laws and may be compelled to appear in court, just as a trespasser is subject to the right of the property owner to defend one's property. The visitor is likewise subject to civil and common laws by one's implied acceptance of them when one enters into that jurisdiction.

For individuals who are in a dispute between jurisdictions or outside of any jurisdiction and they have no prior agreements the case could settled as follows:
   When two parties have a dispute they also have an incentive to find a mutually acceptable court, otherwise they will be faced with the threat of violence to resolve the dispute and may include the threat of each individual's friends and protection agencies taking up arms to fight a limited war against each other. Because the protection agencies don't have an interest in resorting to violence over a personal matter which would not only cost themselves a loss of resources and lives, it would also cost them business for not finding a peaceful solution. And because security firms have an interest in maintaining peace, they will use their power to prevent any violence which may threaten innocent people, so the disputants will be left to their own devices in which they may choose a duel or more likely a non-violent means or resolution. If the disputants can't settle on mutually agreeable method then there are other recourses.

Anyone dealing directly with individuals who do not belong to a civil government or have contract insurance will have to accept the risk or sign a contract stating the jurisdiction of any potential litigation. There is an incentive for the insurance companies to be fair on both sides because if the prosecution doesn't have enough evidence or charges an innocent person who is acquitted the company that loses has to pay the courts costs. Also the insurance companies have to attract customers who trust that they will get fair representation.
There may not be any up front court costs for either side since insurance companies or civil authorities may underwrite the court costs. People accused of crimes may not have to pay anything now but would charged on a bail bond. If the accused flees, the felon would be liable for the full amount of the bond, the bondsman would then hire a bounty hunter to bring back the felon, the same as traditional bail bonds. If the accused (who has not fled) is found not guilt the bail bondsman would receive a fee for assuming the risk from the insurance company backing the prosecution and the accused would be fully compensated for any expense.

If the dispute is among two or more non FSUTO persons entirely outside of FSUTO jurisdiction then it is none of FSUTO's business, they will be left to themselves to settle there own disputes.

When the dispute is between a FSUTO member and an alien person and FSUTO is not able to arrest the trespasser in FSUTO jurisdiction one of two procedures may be followed, either, the alien's property may be blockaded (with permission from the surrounding property owners) which will effectively render the alien suspect captured and detained, this punishment will continue indefinitely until the suspect surrenders to the authorities, if the suspect doesn't then that person will be imprisoned on one's property for life with utilities and necessary supplies cut off. Other sovereign governments or treaty organization's may use the same strategy to capture and detain suspects without violating the sovereignty of the property owners, as long as they get permission from surrounding property owners. If permission can't be obtained from other property owners then those property owners may be blockaded and boycotted by the larger surrounding property owners, if a community or a country harbors felons then the civilized world may exclude them from access to those territories owned by civilized people.
This standoff may be resolved in a manner that is fair, non-political and should be acceptable to anarchists because it allows people to agree on a settlement procedure without the imposition of any biased political influence, the manner of settlement may be in one of two forms, either; (1) a random arbitrator will be chosen from the names of people who register to be arbitrators, with registration being open to all people in the world, the person chosen as arbitrator would have total power to render any judgment that is consistent with common law and is appropriate to the usual punishment under most legal systems with the decision being final. Or, (2) the two disputants would each pick an arbiter, the two arbiters together would pick a third, and the judgment of the three together would be binding by a majority vote.

Information about various justice firms, their courts, judges (their rulings and fairness and accuracy ratings, as determined by various independent sources) and law enforcement agencies (their performance and fairness ratings) and the records of criminals will be on a database which will be sold to other firms, the police and the public.
In the Libercratic free market, justice providers (the courts and arbitrators) should be separate from law enforcement. Individual governments will of course have their own courts and police, people who are its civilzens or visitors to that jurisdiction have given their prior consent to accept that government's system. When there is a dispute between people who have no prior contract it is only fair to expect that there will be a complete separation of adjudication and law enforcement. When a trusted court makes a ruling, though the court has no power to enforce the ruling, the market will provide the enforcement in free market police who will take over and obey and carry out the court's decision. It's their job to do so, their only concern is following the court ruling and their credibility will be determined by the degree to which they do it. Rulings by disreputable courts should not be recognized or enforced and any agency who does try to enforce such a distrusted decision will soon go out of business. What's more, any person who had been previously convicted by a corrupt court is entitled to a rehearing and protection should be extended to any person who is wanted by irresponsible enforcement agencies. The decisions over what courts and enforcement agencies are legitimate and respected will be determined by the market by independent firms who study their performance, rate them and certify them as competent, a few major rating firms will emerge with a general rating system worked out between them, this will signify legitimacy more fairly that any political stamp of approval.

A good historic model of a free market for justice is the court system of ancient Ireland in which freelance jurists, brehons, offered their expertise to settle disputes. Brehons were private professional jurists who provided the service of judging and arbitrating disputes between entities and individuals who chose a brehon based on his reputation for wisdom, knowledge of law and the integrity of his decisions. There were no public, government judges in ancient Ireland as there was no state. There was no monopoly over the courts, anyone could become a brehon by gaining knowledge of law and a good reputation that lead people to trust in one's decisions. The legal system was enforced through insurance or sureties. The brehons were not enforcers, they simply provided the service of judging a case and leaving enforcement to the system of sureties backed by one's kinsman.(1)

The only court which may be trusted is one which has no interest in the outcome of the case in favor of either side. That neutral court must not impose the laws that it would prefer but must instead judge the laws under which the two disputants have chosen to live, in the absence of explicit contractual laws then the court should judge the implied contractual acceptance of common laws or social or economic rules of behavior that both parties appear to have accepted through an implied consent. In judging common law, the court must not make up its own preferred definition of common law, but must instead, judge what is considered to be the existing common law within the community or association in which the two disputants were engaged. While the court may establish common law precedents it should not be viewed as manufacturing or imposing law, these precedents may or may not be used in the future within the community for whom they were given. Courts must make judgments over the ambiguous or gray areas that exist within common law standards, however, if the community rejects that precedent then they may explicitly state in their contracts a rejection of that interpretation or they may collectively create a different environment that commonly rejects the interpretation. While future courts may use earlier precedents to apply to similar cases, because the court is judging the common law of the community in question, the court must judge the community's acceptance or rejection of any prior precedents. So, just courts must never impose their own preference of law but must judge the law under which people live who had consented to them.

by Gregory Flanagan

1 - For a New Liberty - Murray Rothbard; p. 232-233

Human Liberation Alliance

Liberation Journal

18545_1.gif (2176 bytes)

Introduction to Libertocracy

Principles of Libertocracy

How to a Build a Better Civilization

Free Enterprise Government without Taxes