1.    We talk often of separation between church and state, and we have expected the separation of knowledge and state as far back as the Greeks.

2.    On top of that, the foundational ethic of the Western civilization has always been that justice stands above the ruler.

3.    Just a few centuries ago, the people of the West accepted democracy because they wanted to place their wills above that of the ruler.

So...

 If justice stands above the ruler... and if the will of the people stands above the ruler... why don't the people control the administration of justice?

It all starts with a fundamental lie?

?Only The Government Can Provide Justice?

This slogan is deeply ignorant and flatly false. It stands on fear and conditioning alone. Here are a few facts:

?         The law merchant of the medieval period (lex mercatoria) operated successfully for centuries without state support or affiliation.

?         Jewish communities provided their own justice for more than a thousand years.

?         England's common law developed when state power was minimal and from the bottom-up; that is, it was developed by the people more than the rulers.

?         There are many other examples, such as the German Vehm, Neutral Moresnet, the Hanseatic League, Quaker justice in the American colonies, medieval Ireland and medieval Iceland. (Not to mention the early Hebrews, early Greece and early Rome.)

Alvin Lowi pioneered a modern version of law without state decades ago. Morris and Linda Tannehill wrote about it, as have Murray Rothbard and David Friedman. Bruce Benson and Ed Stringham have written scholarly volumes on it. The cypherpunks not only wrote about it, but implemented it, administering quite a few actual cases.

Currently we have the example of arbitration, which is law almost entirely separated from the state. Arbitration has not only operated successfully, but is increasingly the law of choice. In addition, we have a large number of Internet arbitrators, successfully providing non-state justice services.

So, let me be clear on this:

Law separate from state is historically proven.

Moreover, it is superior to government justice.

The Truth About Government Justice

You hear the same stream of horror stories that I do:

?         Criminals, even rapists and killers, are let free on technicalities, and go on to create more victims.

?         Banks that knowingly launder money for violent drug cartels get off with mere fines. No one goes to jail; no one loses their job.

?         The Attorney General of the United States purposely sends guns to violent drug cartels, to see where the bodies will turn up. He is never prosecuted and remains in office today!

?         A General lies openly to Congress about illegally and unconstitutionally spying on American citizens, and nothing at all happens to him.

?         A former governor and senator, also President of a top Wall Street firm, illegally uses customer funds. His clients lose hundreds of millions. He is never prosecuted.

?         Successfully suing someone costs more than you are likely to obtain in an award. So, for disputes beneath fifty thousand dollars, there is no justice.

?         Defending yourself from a government prosecutor costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. The average guy has no choice but to take whatever kind of deal he can get, even if he's innocent.

?          

Such things happen daily.

So, if you are defending government justice, please understand that this is what you are defending.

The Idea Behind Juries

The separation of justice and state was, of course, the original idea behind juries. People were to be judged by their peers, not by their rulers.

Unfortunately, that arrangement has been more or less erased:

?         Prosecutors force plea agreements by financial terror, by wearing down the accused, and by outright intimidation. Most cases never get near a jury.

?         Juries are not permitted to know their rights.

?         Mandatory sentencing laws forbid juries from applying their judgment.

?         The jury system wears down jurors, pushing them into bad verdicts.

The current criminal justice system has stolen justice from the people, not secured it.

The Bottom Line

What all of this means is that government justice is gangrenous and mostly dead. It is owned and controlled by systems that we all know to be corrupt; to expect real justice from this is irrational.

If justice is separated from state, it will ? for the first time in centuries ? be able to adapt and to correct its errors.

Thomas Sowell explained the essence of this very well:

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.

The government justice monopoly is completely insulated from responsibility for its bad results. It's time to abandon it, and to bring the administration of justice back to the people.

Justice must be administered by people who adapt and compete to provide better justice services, and who have something to lose if they don't.

So, if Sowell is right, then this is the only rational choice, and something we have to consider seriously.

If we do, and action follows, it would very likely lead to more efficient, effective and fairer ways of obtaining justice.

You can get much more from Paul in his unique monthly newsletter, Free-Man?s Perspective.