The news you're not supposed to know...

Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand the World
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
Article posted Dec 07 2012, 3:08 AM Category: Commentary Source: The Freeman Print

The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State


Nearly everyone agrees that a few core government functions —foremost among them the provision of law and justice—can’t be performed in a free market. A handful of rogue thinkers, however, questions this conventional wisdom.

Foremost among them is Florida State University economics professor Bruce Benson, who has been studying the issue for decades. His The Enterprise of Law, first published in 1990, has been republished and updated, with the intervening years only making it more essential.

“[P]eople’s disgust with many public legal institutions is greater today than it was in 1990,” Benson reminds us. The government produces many bad laws and does a poor job of enforcing the good ones. So why assume that law and justice—broadly covering personal and property protection, dispute resolution, trials and punishment—can only be provided by the state? In fact, Benson’s research shows, the government’s system of law and justice is excessively costly, ineffective, and often quite unjust.

Benson begins with a history of the development of law and law enforcement that will surprise most readers.

“Our modern reliance on government to make law and establish order are not the historical norm,” Benson writes. “Public police forces were not imposed on the people until the middle of the nineteenth century in the United States and Great Britain, for instance, and then only in the face of considerable citizen resistance.”

Private parties used to enforce mostly customary law that had arisen in the community over time and proved to be valuable—not laws decreed by the monarch. Benson points to the Law Merchant, which was the set of rules that emerged over time to regulate dealings between traders. Often, those traders were in different countries and could not look to either commercial statutes (because they didn’t exist) or to government courts (because judges could not be trusted to understand the dispute and adjudicate it fairly). So merchants established, in spontaneous-order fashion, their own system, which functioned well for centuries.

Why, then, did the state come to dominate in law and justice? It was for the same reason that governments usually take over anything: a) they like control and b) special interests stood to benefit from the takeover. Customary law and justice mechanisms did not fail; these were squelched by rulers intent on maximizing their power and wealth. Following the Norman Conquest, traditional Anglo-Saxon law based on restitution to victims was replaced by courts run by the Crown. Why? Primarily because the Crown collected fines that would go into the government monopoly’s coffers.

The old system of tort was swept away in favor of a criminal law system not because the people wanted it, but because the aristocracy did. Benson’s chapter on the changes in the English legal system from the time of the Norman Conquest to the 18th century is at once fascinating and depressing, as we see how today’s appalling system of criminal justice—frequently itself the source of further injustice—was cemented into place.

Applying public choice theory, Benson proceeds to show why our current legal system is focused far more on satisfying potent special interest groups than on providing the populace with optimal laws and enforcement. Laws criminalizing drug use, gambling, and other victimless crimes exist, he argues, because interest groups demand them; passing such laws imposes little cost on those interest groups, but huge costs on the rest of society. Moreover, the enforcers themselves constitute strong interest groups. The police, for example, push for a wider mission and bigger budgets. Not surprisingly, the numerous police, bureaucrats, and special agents who make their living off the war on drugs are among the most vigorous proponents of continuing it.

Among the serious harms we suffer as a result of the rise of authoritarian law is the fact that police and courts have become largely unaccountable to the public they are supposed to serve. Police regularly violate the rights of individuals during investigations and arrests, but it is very difficult for those who are injured to do anything about it. Occasionally, officers found to have violated the rights of people are suspended or terminated and evidence seized illegally will be excluded at trial, but neither does much to deter misconduct. Apropos of the exclusionary rule that prevents the use of illegally seized evidence during trial, Benson offers this observation: “From the point of view of government officials, an exclusionary rule is inexpensive. It does not cost tax dollars to release guilty felons….Citizen outrage over the government’s failure to convict and imprison criminals is directed at the courts and ‘their’ rules of evidence.”

Government laws and law enforcement are terribly inefficient. People are turning more toward private security and dispute resolution, despite the availability of “free” services in justice and law. Unfortunately, consumer preferences have little impact on existing institutions, which subsist on money extracted by taxation. Thus, the emergent law Benson so carefully describes probably won’t enjoy a renaissance any time soon.
George Leef is the former book review editor of The Freeman.

Latest Commentary
- 'Cuck-Mercials' Portray Men as Wimps; Lie About Race and Crime
- OU Professor: Youths' Attraction to Sanders Shows Education Failure
- The Establishment Push For Rubio
- Why Is Obama Flooding Small Towns in The Most Conservative Parts of America With Refugees?
- Stefan Molyneux On Rancher Shooting: "Where Are All The Outraged BLM Protesters?"
- Why Speak of Race?
- Video Shows Leftist Hag Amy Schumer Is A Dirty Joke Thief
- The Truth About Modern Art

Comments 1 - 3 of 3 Add Comment Page 1 of 1
Coyne Tibbets

Posted: Dec 07 2012, 1:47 PM

97104 "So merchants established, [...] their own system[.]" What he's talking about is merchant guilds, which had all of the ills of government and worse: Dues, paid or you had no membership and no regulation; rules, just as badly made and enforced as any government; recourse, none unless you were a person of influence AND a member in good standing; representation, none at all unless you were in the most influential handful of merchants. Basically just a way for the highly influential to force their will on the less influential.

"The old system of tort was swept away [...]," mostly because tort translated to a bill you couldn't pay, which in turn meant slavery or indentured servitude. Indentured servants and slaves have to be fed, and if they were bound because they stole, well, being bound won't stop their thefts. The old system of tort got converted to a criminal system so the influential could delegate feeding "criminals" and controlling "criminals", to someone else.

"[...] our current legal system is focused far more on satisfying potent special interest groups [...]" What is a merchant guild but a potent special interest group? That represents its members to the exclusion of all others, and its most influential members to the detriment of its least? What was a "land lord" but a potent special interest? All of those old "private systems" were rife with influence, unfairness, and lack of recourse and representation.

Want to see how great private enterprise is? Look at the enterprises running prisons, who use prisoner gangs to control other prisoners, and deprive prisoners of medical care and even food. And he wants a private enterprise in charge of justice because that would be so much better?

Complete, utter nonsense.

Posted: Dec 08 2012, 6:38 PM

i didn't read this article through the same eyes as 97104 but, i'm blocked from posting on most other "news" sites so, i'll write what i saw.

i was first struck by the title: .... "justice without law"

"justice" has various defenitions but "LAW" is universal. people may have reactions to it or, even consequences to suffer because of it, but, we're all subject to universal law.

societal laws are ideals. they do not exist but only in the minds of people who are controlled by them, benefit from them or, never stopped to question the constructs of society.

i was next struck by the authors name, which is connected to the beneficiaries of idea-law.

next was this: "Applying public choice theory"....Yikes!!! this is where the controllers construct the war.
they give you choices, none of which you wanted, none of which are needed, and certainly - none of which suit your own ideals. next, up steps the "opposition." regardless of what you want, need, and so must pick or, the opposition will pick for you.
and who beneifits? THE GOVERNMENT

as for the rest of the hair never stopped bristling. the failure to mention the media was likely deliberate. the FCC is the Government, they clearly benefit from keeping people scared into submission via "enterprise law / idea-law."

peace through war, justice through injustice, government is the problem and solution.....that's our society in a nut-shell and, it's a contradiction to "Universal Law."
Coyne Tibbets

Posted: Dec 09 2012, 3:53 PM

97104 Someone missed the point I was making.

Mr Leef's argument is that laws made and enforced by private entities/enterprise would be better. Must I accept that because I don't like government? Absolutely not.

Just consider the private industry associations RIAA and MPAA: Are you all enthusiastic proponents of the copyright laws they're pushing Congress to pass? Think they'd make better "laws" if there were no government?

What kind of dispute resolution do you think that these "oh-so-friendly", "well-meaning", "proportionate punishment-favoring", and "public-interest-representing" private enterprise organizations would use, if they didn't have to go through government? I think eventually they'd get around to punishing piracy of a song by sticking a gun in your mouth and blowing the back of your head off. ("The only good pirate is a dead pirate.")

I mean, honestly, if you think the government is bad, wait until private entities like RIAA or MPAA are "resolving the disputes"!

And these are the type of organizations that Mr. Leef so earnestly recommends. I reiterate: Complete, utter nonsense.

Add Comment


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

Advanced Search


Remember Me
Forgot Password?

Muslim Woman Explains How The Mosque Obama Spoke At Treats Women (Hint: It's Not Good) - 02/04Retired Cop Gets Taste Of Police State After Officers Bust In, Assault Him - 02/04NYPD Cop Wins $15m After Fellow Cops Falsely Arrested & Beat Him At His Daughter's Birthday - 02/04Paul Joseph Watson And Stefan Molyneux On The Real Agenda Behind The Migrant Crisis - 02/04NYPD Cop, Whose Job Was to Bust Prostitutes, Exposed as a Pimp in Massive Sex Trafficking Ring - 02/04Hillary Clinton Suggests She Can't Be Part Of The Establishment Because She Is A Woman - 02/04TCU Professor Calls Police On Disabled Student Veteran Over Dissenting Opinion - 02/04Jeb Bush Preps The Noose... - 02/03

Cop Who Sought Photos of Teen's Erection in Sexting Case Commits Suicide Moments Before Arrest
Texas Man Sues After His Truck Seen Being Driven By Jihadi Fighters
When "Rescuers" Become a Death Squad: The Killing of Michael FunkHow Hillary Clinton Abused Her State Department Role to Help Her Hedge Funder Son-in-LawCops Fighting Mandatory Drug Tests -- Claim It's 'Unconstitutional' to Screen Police UrineNumber of Cops Charged With Murder Or Manslaughter Triples In One YearGood News: 27% Of Americans Say Government Is Their 'Enemy,' Not Their 'Friend'Prosecutors Pissed Colo. Juries Keep Acquitting Marijuana DUI Suspects