The Resolution of Disputes
Within an interdependent trading community, in which there are
some number of tool manufacturers who make and trade tools, disputes
may arise.
For example, if several expanding workshops are in close vicinity, they
may begin to interfere with each other. One workshop may encroach
upon land used by another. Or it may restrict access to other
workshops. Or it may produce waste products which have adverse effects
upon production in adjacent workshops.
Such disputes may often be amicably resolved. Encroachments may
be withdrawn, access routes widened, waste products stored.
But where the cost of removing encroachments or widening access ways
is high, the dispute may not be easily resolved. It may even degenerate
into some kind of feud.
Such disputes always entail some kind of disruption or slowing
of production, or some sort of decrease in idleness. A manufacturer
whose land has been encroached upon may lose a place where he stores
raw materials, or finished products. If access ways are blocked or
narrowed, then it becomes difficult to bring materials in and out.
If choking smoke from some other workshop periodically halts
production in another workshop, that product is produced slowly.
In such disputes, there may be two or more immediate parties, but
the rest of society may also be an interested party. After all,
although the rest of society is not suffering from the encroachment or
nuisance, it will very likely feel the effects indirectly in the form
of shortages of useful tools, or higher prices. Thus the rest of
society, of the interdependent trading system, will often have an
interest in resolving such disputes. And if those in immediate
dispute prove unable to resolve their differences, the rest of
society may impose some resolution, by main force.
The Magistrate.
In the simplest case, a mob might descend on these workshops, and
remove obstructions or encroachments, acting in favour of one party
or the other, imposing a rough justice.
But if such disputes regularly arise, the rest of society cannot
be expected to act en masse to impose a solution. They may not have
the time on their hands to do so. Instead, where such disputes arise,
society may delegate some individual to investigate the dispute,
and propose a solution, which they will back by force if necessary.
Thus rather than the whole society wasting
time on the matter, only one individual becomes the representative of
society in these disputes. If this individual comes to some judgment
on the matter, and those in immediate dispute refuse to accept his
decision, then the delegate can call upon the rest of society to
enforce his decision.
Since disputes which harm society reduce social idleness, and the
resolution of disputes increases social idleness, a delegate who
can successfully resolve disputes, preferably without recourse to
force, is as valuable to a society as any trader. He may be justly
rewarded by society for his efforts.
If such a judge or magistrate simply comes down in favour of
one side or other, without considering the details of the dispute,
then the likelihood is that the party whose case is dismissed will
refuse to accept the judgement, and it will be necessary for society
to impose it by force. But if such a judge conducts inquiries into
the nature and history of the dispute, and proposes a resolution
which recognizes the case of both disputants, there is a
greater likelihood that his judgment will be accepted, and that
society will not be required to impose it upon them. The latter,
at least as far as society is concerned, is preferable, because
society does not want to be continually enforcing judgements.
In a growing society, what starts as a single individual delegated
to resolve occasional disputes gradually becomes a full-time paying
job. And at the same time, those delegated to enforce his judgments
may also become professional bailiffs or police officers.
In this manner, civil government makes its appearance, in the form
of individuals who do not make or sell any product, but who are
solely concerned with the smooth operation of the trading system,
and fixing anomalies that arise within it. Government officers are
officials who are paid to resolve disputes, to keep the peace, and
to maintain social idleness. Since they act on behalf of the whole
of society, they are paid by the whole of society. If an official
fails to discharge his duties, or is seen to perform them badly,
then society can dismiss them and appoint others in their place,
or take the matter fully into its own hands.
In this approach to government, government officials are persons
delegated to perform, on behalf of society, what society would
otherwise have to do itself. A effective judge or magistrate saves
society the time and trouble of resolving disputes, and increases
social idleness by resolving such disputes. A good judge dispenses
justice speedily - he resolves disputes quickly -, and his judgements
endure the test of time.
In this respect, although the magistrate produces no tangible
product, he performs work in examining the case before him, and
the judgement he makes increases social idleness. The cost of
the magistrate is the work he does, and the value is the increased
social idle time that is consequent upon his work. In this manner,
a magistrate is not different from any other productive member of
society, except that rather than raising social idleness he prevents
it from falling. The magistrate is a kind of tradesman.
Of course, if a magistrate takes longer to resolve a dispute than
the saving made through its resolution, the use of a magistrate
is a net loss to society. Magistrates ought only to be used when
the disturbance to society is of sufficient gravity to merit his care
and attention. But if the cost of justice is too high, then disputes
will not be resolved, and society will suffer.
In this discussion, the magistrate is an official delegated by
society, and paid by society, to resolve disputes which damage
society. The elected magistrate is
explicitly enabled to call upon society to enforce his decisions.
The magistrate is thus in some senses a one-man mob, in that he can
call upon the people - or those who are delegated by the people to
act as enforcers - to arrive en masse to force the outcome if his
judgements are not complied with.