Once we have decided to choose liberty, and to give up the State, some interesting questions arise. For example, what would a libertarian justice system look like? To establish libertarian justice, the Non-Aggression Principle must be followed. This means that force may not be initiated even against a convicted criminal--he must receive no punishment that he does not consent to.

There is an agency which has no guns, no dogs, no jackboots. It operates no prisons, executes no prisoners, initiates no force. Yet, its effects are felt from one end of the continent to the other. If you are trustworthy, it knows. Likewise, if you are not, it can detail your transgressions. The name of this agency? Equifax.

Private credit reporting services today perform many of the functions of a legal system: They write the "law," or enforce laws written by others, that is, contracts. They determine guilt or innocence. They accept appeals. And, they carry out sentences. They don't operate prisons, but they have a far more powerful weapon at their disposal: every individual's self-interest.

No one who has ever run afoul of these businesses can doubt their power, yet this power is very rarely abused. The reason, of course, is that a private business relies on its reputation to stay in business. It cannot afford a reputation of untrustworthiness. After all, who would place their trust in an untrustworthy agency? The profit motive, as always, provides the proper feedback, the proper information, to ensure that a private business is run correctly. The State, on the other hand, thrives on just the opposite: The more chaos, uncertainty and unfairness that exists, the more excuses that the State has to grow and prosper.

Of course, credit agencies are not, as they exist today, a free-market court system. I would imagine that there would be some sort of professional detectives, private arbitration, and some analog of our modern credit reporting services that combined would take care of crimes against people and property.

The more serious the crime, the more serious the sanctions that a private court would impose. Take murder, for example. Murderers wandering loose raise the risk of life and property insurance companies, thus potentially lowering their profits. So, Acme Life and Health pays Jiffy Court, say, to hand out flyers and post notices about Bill the killer. Bill suddenly finds that he can't enter a store, can't get a job, can't even walk down the street without passersby grabbing for their holsters. For who would allow a murderer onto their property? Remember, in a libertarian society, it's all private property, or unclaimed wilderness.

So lonely Bill, hungry and penniless, has three choices: He can hole up on his property and go it alone, flee to the wilderness with the other asocials, or surrender and accept judgment. Looking at these options, we see that the first case is the worst. Even if Bill the killer owned 20 acres of prime farmland, and could feed himself, he'd have to work like a slave, sunup to sundown, every single day of the year, just to stay alive.  No one will trade with him, lest they be tarred with the brush of murderer, as well (or, lest desperate Bill the murderer kill them for their shoes). So, Bill is left with what he can scrounge or steal (and if he gets caught in the act of burglary, the story ends there). What Bill has sentenced himself to, in effect, is life in prison at hard labor. Punishment enough.

The second case is similar to the first, except he will have other offenders similar to himself to prey upon, and to prey upon him. Further, he will have only what he can carry with him to sustain his life. Again, eternal exile and probable death by violence is punishment enough.

In the last case, Bill may end up paying restitution, or suffer exile, or a thousand other possibilities. But no force will be initiated against him--he will only submit to judgment that he agrees to. Why would he agree to freely be judged for murder? Only because he sees such judgment as preferable to the alternatives. He is acting in his own self-interest.

The obvious question is, what if the conviction is wrong? Well, Bill the killer certainly will not willingly sentence himself to execution, nor would a private court take such a risk as sentencing someone to death, so he will presumably be alive for the overturn of his conviction. And then, he sues. What do you suppose would be the honest, moral penalty for falsely convicting a man of murder? Certainly not less than the original conviction. Certainly it would mean the utter ruin of a private court's reputation and livelihood. One may compare this outcome with today's "justice" system: Is the penalty for perjury the same sentence that the perjurer's victim received? Why do you suppose not, and whose interests are served by it being so?

For what possible incentive could a private detective have for framing an innocent man? What incentive would a private court have for falsely convicting him? Would you trust a court with your judgment, if their reputation was not unimpeachable? Would you settle for being judged by a court that was only a "little" dishonest, if you had the choice?  It is easy to demonstrate that there is less incentive for a private court to cheat you than a modern supermarket has to short-change you. Both want your repeat business, but a private court has much more riding on a property-dispute case, say, than a store has on a candy-bar sale.

Again, one may compare this with our present situation. Who would you prefer to investigate you, a private detective whose foremost asset is his integrity, or John Ashcroft? Who would you prefer stand in judgment of you: a man whose career rides on his every decision, or Anthony Scalia?

Another objection might be that an insurance company would not bother to pay for the investigation and conviction of someone who murders, say, a friendless hobo. This is entirely unfounded. The fact is, a murder took place. That means that there is a murderer wandering loose, who might kill a paying client next time. If that happens, that's a $10,000,000 policy, say, that the insurance company has to pay out. What company wouldn't spend one million dollars on a murder investigation to save a ten million dollar insurance payout? Besides, my insurance company darn well better be looking for any murderers in my town, or I'm changing policies!

Once more, we can compare this with the State monopoly on "justice." Just who was it that was prosecuted for shooting, gassing, and burning alive that small congregation of Seventh-Day Adventists in Waco, TX? Who received punishment at the hands of the omnipotent, omnibenevolent State, for actions taken during this massacre? The answer: the victims did.

Given such a stark choice, between life or death, freedom or slavery, Equifax or Federal District Court, I know which I choose. The only question left is how to get there from here.

John Lopez is an ordinary guy living in the rainy and socialist northwest. He dreams about his own house and land, and a Gadsden flag to fly there.

John Lopez Archive