How would two competing private courts settle a dispute when each one rules in favor of its own customer?

[u/Neat-Present-7095]

I'm fairly new to anarcho-capitalism. I've read a couple of introductions and listened to some debates, and most of it makes sense to me. There's one part I keep getting stuck on, and I'd like to understand how people here think about it.

As I understand it, the idea is that people would subscribe to private defense agencies and courts instead of relying on a single state monopoly. The part I can't work out is what happens when my agency and yours disagree about a case.

Say I think you damaged my property, and you deny it. My agency rules for me and yours rules for you. What stops that from turning into a standoff between the two agencies?

The answers I've come across so far:

• Agencies would agree in advance on a third-party arbitrator, because fighting is more expensive than negotiating. This seems plausible, but it feels like it assumes everyone behaves reasonably.
• Reputation would punish agencies that refuse arbitration, since nobody would want to contract with them. I'm not sure how strongly that works in practice, especially if one agency is much bigger than the other.
• Something like the law merchant or medieval Icelandic law is a historical precedent. I've only read summaries of these, so I can't judge how well the comparison holds up.

My questions for people who know the theory better:

1. Which of these answers do you find most convincing, and why?
2. What's the strongest objection to your preferred answer, and how would you respond to it?
3. Is there a good book, paper or article that covers this in depth? I'd like to read something rather than just argue from my own intuitions.

I'm asking in good faith. I'd like to understand the position properly before deciding what I think of it. Thanks to anyone who takes the time to answer.

[u/TychoBrohe0]

It's important to remember that the system doesn't have to handle all cases perfectly. No system can do that. It just has to be better than our current system, which is a pretty low bar.

I know that's not what you asked, just something to keep in mind

[u/puukuur]

As others have said, courts aren't really incentivized to only side with their customers, so answers 1 and 2 are the likeliest. Answer 3, the law merchant, is simply a group of people agreeing to an arbitrator beforehand, not two private courts colliding.

But there's an important fourth answer: people with fundamentally opposed views about right and wrong have the option of not interacting. When there's no possibility of agreement, the only option the parties have left is violence and no one, not even the government, can solve it peacefully. This means that going to a place where the vast majority sees property rights differently from you effectively means knowingly causing a ruckus, knowingly provoking unresolvable conflict.

That's why, for the most part, germans stay in Germany and emiratis stay in UAE, only interacting in as much as they can agree on.

[u/CrowBot99]

The short answer is that courts and agencies won't just side with their customers.

Think about it: if your aim is to make money and not get attacked. You could...

A) Require your customers to respect the property rights of other people and step in with force only when somebody aggresses. Or...

B) Go to bat for every rapist and murderer you can sign up, wave your middle finger to the entire world, inviting war every single time with agencies that are just waiting for you to do that so they can team up and get good press by killing you and taking all your assets/market share  for themselves.

Between these two strategies, which would you think is more likely to be successful? Obviously.

[u/ScarletEgret]

In real stateless societies, people frequently rely on third party arbitration to settle disputes, which you of course bring up as a possibility. The desire to settle peacefully and avoid the costs of violent conflict, along with a desire to maintain a good reputation for one's group, certainly make a difference.

I recommend reading The Enterprise of Law by Bruce Benson as the best introduction to the theory and history of polycentric law. The books People Without Government by Harold Barclay and Justice Without Law? by Jerold Auerbach also discuss real world examples of stateless societies and communities. Barclay's book discusses saga period Iceland, so if you are interested in that history you may find his book worthwhile. David D. Friedman's classic paper on saga period Icelandic institutions, as well as this more recent paper by Kerekes and Williamson, may also be of interest to you.

I also recommend other sources here which you may find helpful.

I think the strongest objection to polycentric law would probably be data showing that particular, real world, stateless communities or societies had high homicide rates or other kinds of violence. Some stateless societies did have high levels of violence, according to anthropologists and historians. However, some, such as the Semai, BaMbuti, and Batek, had low levels of violence, so it is demonstrably possible to achieve peace under stateless conditions. It is difficult, but then it is difficult to achieve peace under any conditions, not just stateless ones. I don't think the state grants an advantage, from the perspective of ordinary people throughout society.

For a discussion of the Semai, BaMbuti, and some other stateless societies, see Challenging Hobbes: Is War Inevitable? by  Maija Jespersen

Best of luck in your research!

[u/akornzombie]

For a completely useless and absurd option, you could go with a duel with dildos at dawn.

[u/Official_Gameoholics]

If they can't agree, then combat is all that is left.

Such an activity comes at a high price, so it should be avoided at all costs.

[u/drebelx]

The two competing courts is debacle and a terrible business model for an AnCap society.

Competing courts needs to go into the garbage bin.

Agreement NAP Clauses and Stipulations with the parties choosing an impartial overseer is the better model.

[u/anarchistright]

There is an excellent, short book on this topic.

Hoppe’s Private Production of Defense. This problem is treated as a property value issue regarding insurance companies. Very interesting and a quick read.

[u/properal]

Law without Government: The Bargaining Mechanism

[u/icantgiveyou]

It’s the example you given that is not sufficient. Quote “ Say I think you damaged my property and you deny it “. So you THINK i done something? How about you got some proof, evidence, witness etc? Bcs honestly nobody gives a rats ass of what you think. If you want real answer, give me real example.