23A016 Justice Across Borders by Jim Davies, 4/18/2023

It doesn't work, and it cannot possibly work; and that's a clue to the wider subject of whether a government "justice" monopoly can work even inside a border. It can't.

The street I live on crosses the boundary of two towns. The road surface and the density of housing along its length is uniform. On one side of the line between the towns the speed limit is 30 mph, but on the other, 25 mph. To its South you can drive at 30 and be a good citizen, but to its North that would make you a law breaker, ie a criminal. Everything is the same, except for the Law.

Across a State line the differences are sharper yet. Some forbid concealed-carry of handguns, some don't allow open-carry. Some won't let you own a handgun at all, unless you are a Very Important Person. And across a National boundary, the only safe policy is to make sure you never encounter a cop. You're a lady who dislikes firearms but does carry a canister of mace for emergency use, you're in good shape... until you get to Sweden. Get molested in Stockholm, you're on your own. Or get molested by the Polis.

This all proves conclusively that law and morality are two unrelated concepts, for what is right in one place must be right in all places, and vice-versa; but it also shows that the idea of having a set of laws as the basis of a justice system is simply ridiculous. The only way that could possibly work would be to have one single world government and a single (very thick) book of laws, and the downside of that is too horrible to contemplate.

In March, the International Court of Justice [sic] in Holland indicted the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, for moving children out of harm's way in Donbass. A few days later a Russian "Investigative Committee" issued a warrant for the arrest of the ICC judges who had done so! A neat riposte, but like the original act a complete waste of time, breath and paper. Neither party accepts the right of the other to exercise judgment over him or it.

But if there are no laws (and in the coming free society there will of course be none, for no government will exist to write them) how will justice work?

Two parties have a dispute, let's suppose. B thinks that A has done him wrong; by deliberate act (we might call that a krime, with a K) or by accident or just by misunderstanding, such as ambiguous wording in a contract. The two cannot agree, so B invites A into a free-market court of B's choosing.

Competing courts will exist on their reputation for fairness, and may or may not use a jury. In due course B's renders a verdict. If it favors B and A remains dissatisfied, he'd be free to countersue, but meanwhile reputations are at stake and reputations are all-important in the marketplace of each. Is it required that some supreme court provide a final arbitration, as Ayn Rand argued? - NO! Eventually the contending parties will settle, each reckoning that further action will hurt his reputation more than he hopes to gain, so they'll quit.

If it ends in B's favor A will either accept it or lose his reputation and thereby his livelihood. That's the very powerful incentive. There will be no punishments or prisons, though there will still be lawyers (hopefully re-named advocates) offering representation, the proposal of Shakespeare's "Dick the Butcher" to kill them all notwithstanding.

Would that "incentive" work today? Would "loss of reputation" - in effect, shunning - take place, against those who flout a court order? No, of course not. That's one big reason why it's essential for everyone to adjust his whole outlook and standards, by working through a liberty course like TOLFA. All our minds have been warped by 12 years in government school and maybe another 4 in college controlled by government. We're all damaged goods! There's no alternative to such major surgery for the mind. If, dear reader, you have not yet begun that re-education, please start today.

In that kind of justice industry, borders are irrelevant. A and B could be on opposite sides of the world, and the court could be in a third location. The basis for judgment will always be what the court thinks is right and fair in the particular circumstances involved; there will no longer be a "one size fits all" system of rigid laws, for ever in need of refinement and interpretation.

I doubt whether any system of justice is "perfect", however that word is defined, but this one (and it's a market, more than a "system") is about as close as can be achieved. The market is the optimal way everything else can be arranged - including defense - and that extends to justice also. Even across boundaries, if any, and perhaps especially so.