Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A privately-run court system which is prone to corruption wouldn't last very long, when a competitor could easily pop up who offers transparency and a lack of vested interests.

Oh, really? If that were the case, then why does it take so long for people to overthrow the regimes in decidedly corrupt third-world dictatorships, like Libya, or Egypt? Those states were well known to be corrupt and unsustainable, yet it still took decades before Qaddaffi and Mubarak were overthrown.

The fact is, a court system needs a way to enforce it's judgement. Such enforcement necessarily requires force. And once a court system has a monopoly (or near monopoly) on force, then it becomes very difficult and painful to get rid of that court system and replace it with a competitor. In fact, we have a name for that process: revolution, and it's not exactly as easy as you make it out to be.



Hmm you're comparing the pace of change of a facist totalitarian regime that ruled for decades via strict force to a laissez-faire marketplace? Of the all the analogies to choose from, that one is quite weak.

As I mention in other comments, I personally favour minarchy which supports a system of law courts and enforcement, as well as state run military and police.

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).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: