Walter Block has this article on LewRockwell.com, “President Ron Paul’s Likely Supreme Court Nominations.” Regardless of whether or not Dr. Paul could actually win the election, the problem with this speculating is the apparent assumption that we should be relying on this Supreme Court for anything.
This is the Supreme Court that constantly upholds expanded and further intrusive police power to break into people’s homes, search people and their property and never be held accountable. But even if we had nine Ron Paul-appointed justices, the problem is that even they will not protect our liberty, especially if the thing upon which they rely for “law” is that Constitution. My main point really is that, given the amount of time that Dr. Block spent on that article, I wish he would spend that much time explaining why a State-monopoly in ultimate judicial decision-making is a bad thing, and why the Supreme Court needs to be abolished.
Given that, in the early years of the United States of America, the states decided to hire a third-party agent to handle foreign conflicts, morally and practically speaking — and in the interests of consistency — each state should have the final say on a legal, “constitutional” (yech) dispute, and should have the right to overrule a Supreme Court decision that the people of whatever state feel violates their liberty and property. The current system of authoritarian rule violates the idea of state sovereignty as well as individual liberty, freedom of association and contract, and private property.
If a state overruled a Supreme Court decision, and there were some people within that state who didn’t like their state’s overruling, then, in an actual free society, they would have the freedom to move to a better state. (“Better” according to them, that is.) They would “vote with their feet,” which is something that most of us Americans are not really able to do, to escape the tyranny of the federal dictatorship. So obviously, this system of choice and freedom is better than the current dictatorial, police-state system.
As I have suggested earlier, even Ron Paul-appointed Supreme Court Justices would still be State employees. When the conflict before them is between an individual or business and some arm of the State or its hired guns, the police, the nine justices will still tend to side with their brethren within the various State compulsory monopolies.
I believe that Walter Block is with me on these ideas, given the previous articles I’ve read by him and his frequent collaboration with Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Speaking of Hoppe, here is Hans Hoppe’s solution to the problem of the State’s monopoly of ultimate judicial decision-making, a monopoly that goes against the people and only strengthens the power of the State and its hired guns, the police (particularly the centralized federal State): Private Law.
If the state, and especially the democratic state, is demonstrably incapable of creating and maintaining social order; if, instead of helping avoid conflict, the state is the source of permanent conflict; and if, rather than assuring legal security and predictability, the state itself continuously generates insecurity and unpredictability through its legislation and replaces constant law with “flexible” and arbitrary whim, then inescapably the question as to the correct – obviously: non-statist – solution to the problem of social order arises.
The solution is a private law society, i.e., a society in which every individual and institution is subject to one and the same set of laws. No public law granting privileges to specific persons of functions (and no public property) exists in this society. There is only private law (and private property), equally applicable to each and everyone. No one is permitted to acquire property by any means other than through original appropriation, production or voluntary exchange, and no one possesses a privilege to tax and expropriate. Moreover, in a private law society no one is permitted to prohibit anyone else from using his property in order to enter any line of production he wishes and compete against whomever he pleases.
Specifically regarding the problem at hand: in a private law society the production of security – of law and order – will be undertaken by freely financed individuals and agencies competing for a voluntarily paying (or not-paying) clientele, just as the production of all other goods and services…
First off, competition among police, insurers and arbitrators for paying clients would bring about a tendency toward a continuous fall in the price of protection (per insured value), thus rendering protection increasingly more affordable, whereas under monopolistic conditions the price of protection will steadily rise and become increasingly un-affordable…
While states, as already noted, are always and everywhere eager to disarm its population and thus rob it of an essential means of self-defense, private law societies are characterized by an unrestricted right to self-defense and hence by widespread private gun and weapon ownership. Just imagine a security producer who demanded of its prospective clients that they would first have to completely disarm themselves before it would be willing to defend the clients’ life and property. Correctly, everyone would think of this as a bad joke and refuse such on offer. Freely financed insurance companies that demanded potential clients first hand over all of their means of self-defense as a prerequisite of protection would immediately arouse the utmost suspicion as to their true motives, and they would quickly go bankrupt. In their own best interest, insurance companies would reward armed clients, in particular those able to certify some level of training in the handling of arms, charging them lower premiums reflecting the lower risk that they represent. Just as insurers charge less if homeowners have an alarm system or a safe installed, so would a trained gun owner represent a lower insurance risk…