That would be fine if you’re the plaintiff, but what if you’re the defendant? Who choses the judge in anarchy, the plaintiff or the defendant?

You discontinue business with that party, unless you value their business more than the cost of using a judge you don’t prefer.

Why would that be? Anarchism would not make judges immune to the lure of fame, power and money. The judges who got the most cases would have the most of all three, so most judges would strive to please the largest segment of the population.

Brent: “…the majority would not select all the judges in a free society. The service judges render would be put back in the realm of private markets, where niche services are allowed.”

Yes niche markets exist, but in the marketplace the majority rules. So if the majority of judges followed the majority political opinion, and you didn’t, you could certainly choose a judge that followed a niche market. But what if the other party to the case refused and accused you of forum shopping? Wouldn’t those cases decided by the niche judges lose some of their validity in the eyes of the majority?

That is where I disagree, though. Right now, we have very little choice over who or what kind of judge we will be stuck with. More choice would act to eliminate judges that are seen as the most predisposed to rule against one party.

Regarding how judges are chosen, I would say it is a big lie to say that anything politicians do is guided by the “majority”. The majority of people don’t have a clue what politicians are doing. Even assuming the “majority” like the judges we have today, the majority would not select all the judges in a free society. The service judges render would be put back in the realm of private markets, where niche services are allowed.

The

I agree that judges today have political agendas. I just don’t see how you can think that judges in anarchy would not. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. Socialists think that only socialism is fair. Judges in anarchy would be just as susceptible to popular opinion and political motives as they are today. Even as judges today are appointed because of their political views, people in anarchy will seek out judges with political/fairness views similar to their own. The most popular judges, and therefore the ones considered most fair, will be those who subscribe to the will of the majority.

Maybe, but most of them were appointed with the knowledge that they were going to rule in favor of the state in all important instances.

At any rate, judges in a free society would not be appointed to the role for life. Hence, at any given time, judges would have reputations of being fair and would have incentives to stay that way. There are way too many judges nowadays that have particular political agendas. I can think of a bunch of areas where certain judges don’t really care what is fair or even what the statutes say, including in “consumer protection”, “civil rights”, virtually every right protected by the Bill of Rights, etc. etc.

I thought anarchists held courts in high esteem. After all, they’re supposed to discover the law and apply it in an anarchist society. It’s true that members of the Supreme Court appointed by the state and hold a monopoly on the law, but once appointed they have very little pressure on them to conform to the wishes of the state. I don’t find it hard to believe that independent courts in anarchy might come up with similarly ridiculous decisions. After all, judges will compete against each other for prestige and business, so judges will have an incentive to please the public and decide on law in ways that please the public. That seems very much like what the Supreme Court has done.