Individuals and businesses could choose from "legal service" and "protection" providers not much different from today's attorneys, mediators and arbitrators and private security services. Some providers would offer full-spectrum legal and security services, others would specialize in certain fields, like entertainment law or computer security. Some providers might resemble traditional common law court and jury systems; others would be more like private mediation services.
Individuals and businesses in dispute, or those charging others had defrauded or injured them, would have their legal service provider demand the other party enter into mediation or arbitration or go to court. The sanctions for refusing to enter into some form of dispute resolution--or to pay any agreed upon restitution--would be non-violent. The primary one would be a negative entry in one's "legal credit rating," which is much like a financial credit rating. This would be readily accessible through various "legal credit rating services." Current privacy laws outlaw such legal credit rating services.
Harm to an individual's "legal credit rating" would be a serious threat. Individuals proved to have repeatedly harmed or defrauded others (including by pressing false claims) would face the harshest sanction of all: ostracism by law-abiding people and communities. People would refuse to associate with them, to sell to or buy from them, to rent to or hire them, even to allow them entry into the community, city or region. They would have no choice but to live in communities with people as irresponsible and untrustworthy as themselves! Since everyone--from low income individuals to the biggest corporation--could hire a legal service provider (or, in a free market, form one), it might seem that polycentric law could degenerate into warfare among competing criminal gangs. However, warring societies self-destruct.
Free individuals are survival-oriented, as would be their legal service providers, both profit and non-profit. The services would want to keep the cost of providing services down and would avoid violence, which only would drive costs up. Both the claimant's and the defendant's legal service providers would be eager to persuade their clients to find a mutually satisfactory solution to their dispute. More likely, over time several popular systems of law would evolve as well as dozens of specialty law systems. Instead of law imposed by the dictators, politicians and special interests, would be law developed to serve the needs of all the people–by the people. This would be the true fulfillment of "democracy"--"rule by the people." Carol Moore
PS: Neste pequeno texto não está referenciado o papel que as seguradoras podem ter como já têm por exemplo, nos conflitos e danos entre automobilistas. O mais provável é que se generalize a exigência de seguro para todo o tipo conflitos (quer comerciais quer civis), que surgindo, seriam em primeira instância resolvidos inter-intra-seguradoras e os custos de litigio e potenciais indemnizações estariam também cobertos. Mesmo as pessoas, em termos individuais, tenderiam a estar cobertas por seguros de responsabilidade civil e eu diria até criminal. Quem não o fizesse (seguro) poderia ser impossibilitado de residir (as regras de condominio/comunidade não o permitiriam) e circular em muitos ou todos os locais da mesma forma que as estradas privadas exigiriam a posse de seguro automóvel. O que seria de esperar seria assim uma Sociedade ultra-privadamente regulamentada.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário