Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

Maver ick. This would make individuals most hesitant to
h a v e bus i n e s s d e ali n g s wit h the pa t ron s 0 f Ma verick •
Hence, Maver ick's clients would be for'ced to use other
c 0 u r t sin all 0 f the i r bus i n e s s deali ngsand Ma ve rick
would have to either mend its way or go out of
business.
A t t his poi ntit mig h t be weI 1 to s u mm a r i z e
briefly the anarchist view of the legal process:
[1] I f two parties belong to the same court
company, the decision 6f that court would be binding.
[2] I f they have no contractual agreement but
a g r e eon wh i c h compan y t 0 s ubmitthe dis put e to', the
decision of that court would be binding.
[3] If they subscribe to separate courts, the
decision is binding if the two courts agree. If they
di s8/gree they wi II subrni t the dispute to an appeals
court, which will usually have been chosen in advance,
and that decision would be binding. If there is no
pr i or agr eemen t and the courts cannot decide on which
appea I s court to take the issue to, then the individual
parties can work out an agreement on their own. If
this, too, cannot be done, then no decision can be
made. This is considered most unlikely, for if a company
continual.ly engaged in protrated and costly legal
proceed ings, dther courts would refuse to do business
wit hit, ca u sin g itt 0 los e rna n y 0 r mo s t 0 fit s
customers.
[ 4 ] I f 0 n e i nd i v i d ua Iref uses to s ubmita dis put e
for arb i t rat ion, the 0 ther par t y rna y goaheadand submi
t it to his company and the decision of that court
would be binding unless the original party then submits
his case to another court. In that case, the decision
wi II be binding if the two courts agree. If they disagree,
it would be submitted to an appeals court as
described in point [3].
But wha t if someone pledged to abide by the decision
of the arbitrator and then reneged? The anarchists
believe that this would be unlikely since, argue
the Tanneh ill s t such a man would be very unreal iable
and 0 the r bus i n e ssm e n W 0 u I d, 0 u t 0 f the i r own self ­
interest, cease doing business with him. To avoid
ostracism it would therefore be to his interest to
comply wi th the decislon.(54) Some empirical support
for this proposition can be found In the Anglo-American
346