> those notions today, at least ideally, embody the concept that all participants are equal, regardless of any other consideration.
Equality as defined by the government/state... which as we have seen, is susceptible to corruption and enforcement of laws that were created with influence from special interests.
Yes, the selection and implementation of equality is open to suspicion.
I reject your implication that the state/government are somehow separate from those governed, however. Without that, all you are saying is that equality is a flawed concept, owing to the fact that government has so many stakeholders, with disparate, wide-ranging and sometimes conflicting interests -- and therefore any notion of equality formed by consensus will fail to completely satisfy someone.
The ideal of equality before the law, however, remains -- something which cannot be said for a pay-for-play justice system. You are changing the subject by drawing attention to the flaws of the current justice system. The original statement you made was a positive assertion about the qualities of a theoretical private arbitration system.
I see that you added "when a competitor could easily pop up who offers transparency and a lack of vested interests" since I wrote my comment. To this, I can only groan and roll my eyes. Who will pay for such a system? Why would someone who can pay prefer a fair system to an unfair system? All other things being equal, if you have to pay $X for justice, would you rather have a fair hearing or one where a favorable outcome is determined?
Well, I personally favor Minarchism [1] over anarcho-capitalism.
> (Minarchism) maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts.
But I still believe theoretically a private court system could
exist and function properly.
This is based on the concept that private court firms would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business.
1) What individual/business acting in their own self-interest would enter into a contract enforced by a court system that favours the other party?
2) No judge would ever get hired again if he was found out to have been bribed, so why would they risk their career?
3) The courts would have their own policies to maintain a good reputation, for example, they could have a very strict contract with the judges they employ and enact policies to maintain fairness (such as transparency measures).
4) The courts would also be exposed to lawsuits from citizens just like any other business. Any type of malpractice would expose the court to a large amount of legal/financial risk.
1) Someone who has no choice e.g. there are no "honest" courts, or all service providers with whom an individual could contract with demand the right to choose courts of arbitration.
2) First, this is an unsubstantiated statement of faith. Second, we're not talking about bribes but systemic bias i.e. the entire private court is lopsided. You're thinking that the problem would be of the form of "I'll just pay judge X to render my preferred verdict." I'm talking about a problem of "all courts have a fundamentally pro-business bias and impose a severe burden of proof on plaintiffs pursuing business defendants."
3) Again, bribery is not the issue. Selection of the judges is the issue.
4) And in which court will these suits be heard!?
Perhaps you think that there will simply be other private court systems set up with select mostly "liberal" judges. Who will pay for these? Wealthy individuals?
And which business would insist on being heard in these courts? As it stands, almost every large business with whom you contract has an arbitration clause which you accept when you engage them. Those clauses always reserve for themselves the right to select the arbitration venue. Why would that change? Which business would ever decide to concede that right, or to choose a consumer-friendly venue?
4, a higher legal association, that deals with lawsuits against courts. The association would be in as much market pressure to be honest and reputable.
You would choose courts based on their contracts with these associations.
But as I mentioned above, I personally don't believe in having a private court system. I support a state run law court (ala minarchy).
There are thousands of things more important and much more obviously broken than the court system (military expansionism, war on drugs, domestic surveillance, federal reserve etc, etc).
That being said, I fully support the non-aggression principle in all other contexts and (obviously) in the efficiency of the market model.
Equality as defined by the government/state... which as we have seen, is susceptible to corruption and enforcement of laws that were created with influence from special interests.