The Free Law

Jason Stone
3 min readAug 13, 2021

--

I’m working on project that would allow Lenny Bruce to speak and those who are offended to launch a free arbitration against him. If Lenny Bruce were to lose the arbitration, participating organizations and individuals would receive a temporary boycott recommendation against Lenny Bruce that the organization or individual would be free to carry out or not. This would allow Lenny Bruce to say what he likes, for him to defend himself in a free public arbitration, and for members of the community to express their disapproval in the form of published terms of cooperation (TOC) and voluntary boycotts.

Many conflicts may go unresolved because of the complexity, time, and costs associated with the traditional legal justice system and because it is difficult to outlaw things one might find objectionable. This may sometimes erupt into vigilantism and “legislated morality” factions attempting to takeover the government.

The system I’m proposing is a self-regulating system that does not require a third party government institution to report violations, hold arbitrations, or deliver punishments. The punishments would not take from someone something they already posses. The punishments would only be allowed to refuse new acts of cooperation in ways that do not violate any existing contracts or take from someone the benefits they’ve already received from past cooperation. The arbitrations would be free to all parties, and jury members would have an opportunity to be compensated for their time. Compared to the traditional legal justice system, the system should be able to process a very large number of cases rapidly and at little to no cost to the parties involved.

The system is based upon two key freedoms:

1. Freedom of the press — which allows us to publish the results of arbitrations.

2. Freedom to contract — which allows us to choose whether or not to enter into a contract with someone based on valid information we’ve acquired about their actions.

The system would allow those who are accused of wrongdoing to challenge their accusers by launching a counter-arbitration if they feel their accuser has committed defamation.

The credit report system is a precedent for civil society systems of this type. Credit reports are constructed by a third party about each individual’s history of taking out and repaying loans. A company is allowed to access this information when deciding if they would like to provide goods or services to an individual or not. The history of arbitration results could be easily accessed through an internet service in a way that makes it practical for organizations and individuals to consider someone’s history when deciding to cooperate with them in ways that freedom to contract leaves at their discretion.

Perhaps if Lenny Bruce is willing to run the risk of not being able to eat in a few restaurants for 6 months, then he may be able better preserve the right for him to express in offensive ways. If members of the community are extremely concerned about the moral decline of society in ways that are not recognized by a liberal society as a substantial injury to person or property, then they can select terms of cooperation and participate in boycotts. This approach tolerates both parties expressing their liberal rights. The world would be a better place because of it.

I call this system “The Free Law.” It is not only free in the sense of arbitrations being free to engage in, it is free in the sense that the people would voluntary hold the arbitrations, select their terms of cooperation, and deliver punishments — all without the need for government coercion.

P.S. It’s interesting to imagine people using the boycott recommendations to give individuals rewards and not just punishments! If someone felt that the person was behaving in a way they feel is heroic, then they could provide special rewards to the person while others are boycotting them.

--

--