tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post113657556452594450..comments2024-01-28T00:20:40.933-08:00Comments on Agoraphilia: De Soto versus Polycentric LawUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1137592131069042172006-01-18T05:48:00.000-08:002006-01-18T05:48:00.000-08:00It certainly does seem to be the case that all gre...It certainly does seem to be the case that all great commercial legal systems tend to evolve towards uniformity--the Roman Law, the Law Merchant, Admiralty law, the Uniform Commercial Code. This is consistent also with observations that the "Rule of Law" requires certainty, which is eroded by too much local complexity. And, at some point, there does seem to be a limit to how much uniformity one can get simply through the evolution of case law. This may not be a natural limit (in the case of the UCC, it was clearly related to state boundaries and associated jurisdictional boundaries--compare admiralty law, which being the law of the sea escaped some of the limitations of land politics), but it is a real limit nonetheless. I think that this point has been somewhat neglected by classical liberals; we want evolving legal systems, but haven't noticed what they all seem to be evolving towards! Sometimes we seem to want that evolution to stop at a certain stage.Sleephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315406558649168944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1136601477485912742006-01-06T18:37:00.000-08:002006-01-06T18:37:00.000-08:00Ari, I think you're missing De Soto's point. He w...Ari, I think you're missing De Soto's point. He would totally concede that "Private certification authorities could issue their own property titles." One chapter includes pictures of the various forms of title documents produced by informal property systems in Haiti, for example. But that doesn't guarantee any degree of linkage or uniformity across systems.<BR/><BR/>The claim that agencies will choose to submit to arbitration because the costs of violent conflict are too high has always struck me as an anarchist "just so" story. History is filled with examples of agencies -- let's call them states -- that have been perfectly willing to go to war to suppress alternate sources of power. <BR/><BR/>But let's suppose your story is right; it's still beside the point. De Soto isn't primarily talking about settling *conflicts* among competing property regimes, but about the need to stitch those regimes together so that diverse people can live in the same "representational space," so to speak. That's a different issue, and it strikes as a distinct -- though not necessarily correct -- argument against the polycentric/anarchist position.Glen Whitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01425907466575991113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1136587368110294332006-01-06T14:42:00.000-08:002006-01-06T14:42:00.000-08:00This problem could certainly be solved without a g...This problem could certainly be solved without a government (or other centralized monopoly organization). The solution would be very similar to the "private protection agencies" mentioned by Nozick and others (indeed, this could be one of the services offered by a protection agency).<BR/><BR/>Private certification authorities could issue their own property titles. In case of an inter-agency ownership dispute, the agencies could either do battle -- which would be difficult and expensive -- or, more likely, use some method of arbitration. Banks would have an incentive to honor titles issued by certification authorities known to be reliable, and where the property is sufficiently protected -- i.e. it is unlikely to be seized through an ownership dispute or by force.<BR/><BR/>One might argue (as Nozick does) that one agency inevitably becomes dominant and forms a natural monopoly, but I think one can still imagine it working with multiple agencies.Arihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00697016203754246440noreply@blogger.com