Ron McKenzie has submitted the following question to the BLOG:
I can understand how in a free market for justice, a variety of justice providers would emerge. However, I cannot see how they would be effective without the power to coerce. I can see how they would be able to resolve a dispute over a contract, as both parties could agree to the justice provider’s jurisdiction.
What I cannot see is how this would work in the case of theft. Why would the thief agree to the jurisdiction of any justice provider. I could take my case to a justice provider and win my case, but surely the thief would just ignore it. I suppose that I could publicise the decision and try to shame the thief into returning what has been stolen, but I would be unlikely to recover my other costs. Maybe I could get my society to ostracise him, but that would not prevent a hard nosed thief. The theoretical benefit of the state is that it can force the thief to return what is stolen. I realise that in practice it often does not. It just takes a fine, and I get nothing. However there is some hope for dealing with thieves. A voluntary legal system under self government would seem to be powerless against theft. Can anyone help me with something that has been written about this issue. It seems to be quite an important one in making the case for self government. I found James definition of republicanism helpful. The word is often used quite vaguely. I agree that republicanism is superior to democracy. However, I cannot see what can ever stop a republic morphing into democracy if that is what people want.
