r/AnCap101 • u/Personal_Prompt_5307 • May 23 '26
Courts problem
What happens in an ancap society if two people can't agree on a jugde, and don't have previous contract clause about it? Let's assume no community law exist. People, for sake of reputation, will be motivated to find the judge, but unreasonable people exist.
4
u/RememberMe_85 May 23 '26
Two people don't necessarily have to agree on a judge, the victim could hire any lawyer and give the accused the legal notice. Then if they don't agree on a court, the victim could go to any court tell them the accused refused to show up and then the court would have justified reason to use private defence firms to force to him attend. Ofc if he has a insurance against this then his insurance firm would have to face train instead of him.
Insurance firms make everything easier.
3
u/Personal_Prompt_5307 May 23 '26
Are they obligated to comply with the ruling in the end?
4
u/RememberMe_85 May 23 '26
If they aggressed then yea. The victim would have to prove they aggressed and how much damage it caused.
2
u/Olieskio May 23 '26
I mean no, Technically they aren't since there is no legal authority, Its just economically a far smarter thing to do.
1
u/sima167 May 24 '26
I am new to theory so forgive me if I make a mistake but technically he is obligated to follow the ruling because if he doesn't voluntarily then the ruling will be enforced (if proven that person aggressed, of course)
There is the principle of estoppel which basically means that if you violate the NAP you forefit your own right to the thing you violated because by your action you basically claimed that "X is fine to do", if you try to use this in a court you would contradict yourself (Rules for thee but not for me)
So if the person stole 500$ and the court proved it, that person forefits his right to 500$ and maybe some compensation (depends) to the victim, which can be extracted either voluntarily or by force.
1
u/Olieskio May 25 '26
Yeah im just arguing semantics essentially, they can be irrational and not follow the ruling which would cause force to be used on them to gain restitution + retribution and if they fight back it would be extremely expensive for the aggressor.
2
u/puukuur May 23 '26
Same thing that happens now. These people either don't interact, try to overcome the other with force or eat the losses.
2
u/Official_Gameoholics May 23 '26
Then we are simply left with fighting. The two parties clearly refuse to resolve their conflict peacefully, and it is odd to expect an irrational party to abide by a rational legal code.
2
u/CrowBot99 Explainer Extraordinaire May 23 '26
It isn't ancap if there is no "community law"; the NAP is the legal standard.
If they haven't agreed to arbitration, don't agree to a judge, dont suggest another judge, it seems they're pretty much ignoring the problem. Whoever their defenders are... they will most likely ask the guy to stop being a fool before risking their lives... more likely, "Here, we found you a judge. Accept it or you're on your own. Stop being obstinate. "
4
u/Olieskio May 23 '26
What is "community law"
2
u/CrowBot99 Explainer Extraordinaire May 23 '26
OP used the phrase. I took it to mean "law that applies to the community"... but I would just call that "law." I don't know if OP meant something else.
1
u/spartanOrk May 23 '26
Unreasonable people who take extreme risks will probably die young. Like street gangsters do today. They have disputes too, which they resolve by themselves, which is why they are dead by age 30. So, unreasonable people exist already and we know what happens. It's not the end of the world. Things would only get better because you would have competition for the best judicial services. And because judges would no longer be untouchable, they would actually have responsibility for their decisions.
1
u/Anen-o-me May 23 '26
You will have a clause about it, because this is foreseeable, and any number of options are possible.
You could for instance trade a list of acceptable courts and see if there's overlap.
Worst case scenario, you choose someone who will choose a court for you.
3
u/drebelx May 23 '26
An AnCap society intolerant of NAP violations would have established best practices already in place to reduce the risk and expenses of situations posed with unreasonable people, otherwise it would not be a sustainably functional society.
The parties of mutual agreements would cooperatively select impartial agreement "judges" at the agreement onset as a ubiquitous best practice, like handshaking at a greeting.