Back to index of justice, government, and education pages by Donald Sauter.
Table of Contents. (All links are internal - just start reading instead of clicking.)
Unarchy - basic description
Unarchy is a simple system of justice based on common sense and conscience which ensures, as far as is humanly possible, that everyone receives fair treatment.
The primary intent here is to propose unarchy as a complete replacement for our current system of justice, which is cumbersome, complicated, unreliable - if not capricious - and expensive.
A secondary intent is merely to plant the suggestion of unarchy as an eventual replacement for all government. This is way down the line, and depends upon general agreement that ensuring fair treatment for all should be the only function of government.
Under unarchy there is only one law, hence the name, from Latin unus = one, and Latin archi- from Greek arkhein = rule.
The law is, "Don't be bad."
Or, "Do no injury."
Or, more positively, "Be good."
Whether an activity is "bad" or "wrong" or "injurious" is decided by majority opinion. Responding right off to the familiar objection, "But everybody has a different idea of right and wrong!", the claim is that the vast majority of us are in very close agreement. We all know what it means to do damage to someone else's body, mind, or property. We all know - even those of us who have never heard of a thing called the Golden Rule - that it is wrong to do something we wouldn't want others to do to ourselves. Even career criminals know this, as proven by their efforts to cover their crimes.
The cornerstone of unarchy is large, randomly selected juries - large enough to ensure that the jury represents the current opinion of society at large. Guilt or innocence is determined by simple majority vote of the jury. Any attendant punishment also requires a majority vote.
An accuser brings charges against the accused. Ideally, the case will be heard within a few days of the incident - before memories fade, before evidence is lost or concocted, before parties begin to believe their own lies.
The accuser and accused prepare and present their own cases. They supply evidence and witnesses. No evidence is inadmissable. Members of the jury may submit questions to anyone involved in the trial. Indeed, the trial is not over until every question from the jury is answered. A juror bases his decision on the evidence presented and his own common sense and conscience. Taking everything into consideration, the jury may find reason to rule against the accuser and determine his punishment.
There is no judge. With only one law applying to everything, "law" as a profession is made obsolete. The trial format will be made as stress-free as possible for truth-tellers, but if a principal is not comfortable presenting his case by himself, he certainly could enlist the help of an advocate - a family member, friend, or hired professional. A jury member would make of that what he will, applying his own common sense to the matter.
Unarchy - further discussion
Almost without exception, a discussion of unarchy provokes wild opposition. Most people, it is evident, fear, or at least do not trust, majority opinion. (Note the imbedded paradox.) They exclaim "Mob rule!" and "Tyranny of the majority!"
The claim here is that the majority is, in fact, quite reasonable. Be honest - what percentage of the people you meet and interact with daily attempt to cause you harm? Who doesn't know the wrongness of assault, theft, libel, etc.? There is no claim here that majority opinion defines absolute right and wrong, just that nothing serves better in practice.
If the words "tyranny of the majority" sound frightening, can anyone sensibly defend "tyranny of this or that minority"? Unarchy is pure democracy, perhaps the simplest form of pure democracy ever conceived?
Unarchy replaces literally millions of existing laws. Nobody can list more than a handful of these laws, and even then only very imprecisely. Each law is some variation on "don't be destructive to someone's body, mind or property" - or, if not, probably shouldn't exist in the first place! As it is, we already base our actions on our own senses of right and wrong.
Unarchy eliminates all legal technicalities and loopholes. It eliminates "word game" justice. When people learn that they can't "get away with" it, they just might stop trying. If and when that happens, the justice system itself will fall into disuse - a glorious day for everyone!
Juries would be selected purely randomly to ensure that they represent society at large. The required size would be calculated using methods of probability and statistics. It may be in the tens or hundreds. A slightly more "radical" idea would be to open up the trial to any and all concerned individuals - like voting for president. With modern technology, there are alternatives to gathering the jury in the courtroom. Open to debate is whether the jury needs to witness the whole process of accusation and rebuttal. Perhaps a written, audio or video transcript would be sufficient, or even preferable.
A two-step trial system might work well. A "pretrial" jury could decide if the case is frivolous or whether it deserves to go to trial.
There is no formal system of appeals. Although there would be no law (of course) against bringing up a case again, there would hardly be any point in it.
There's no reason why unarchy could not eventually be handled by private industry. An accuser would simply pay to have his case handled by the justice company of his choice based on reputation and price. It seems likely that a jury would demand that the losing party pay the costs of the trial as part of his punishment.
Q. This idea of unarchy is so wacky and doomed;
I' m still not sure if you are being serious or just having fun.
A. I am completely serious about the unarchy idea. That doesn't mean
I lose any sleep over the prospect of it not being implemented
tomorrow or in my lifetime. I'm just putting the idea out there.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. Can you be serious when you say that the notion of right and wrong
varies only slightly from person to person???
A. You interact with many thousands of human beings on a weekly
basis, just by hopping in your car and going grocery shopping, for
example. With hardly any exceptions you don't kill each other,
you don't assault each other; you don't rob each other; you
don't run each other off the road; you don't scream obscenities or
call each other offensive names. Sure, these things happen, but quite
infrequently in the big picture. It's clear to me that we're pretty much on
the same "right and wrong" wavelength. And even if somehow I am
wrong about this, it doesn't weaken my claim that the fairest
system of justice averages together everyone's opinion.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. But I have to know in advance if some activity I am
considering is illegal!
A. Who can seriously claim to keep track of every law of every
jurisdiction he's ever visited or will visit - national, state
and local? Nobody lugs around the Federal
Register (just for a start) to keep himself out of trouble. It'd
be a little hefty - between 50 and 90 thousand pages of new
regulations are added every year.
Assuming you have absolutely no concept of the Golden Rule, under
unarchy you still would know what activities people in your
society are getting punished for just by following the news or
talking with people. You'd have to be pretty unlucky to be the
very first person brought to trial for a given activity - and even
then, the jury would take that into consideration.
(Actually, you'd have to be quite brilliant to come up with a
brand new crime.)
Go to FAQ list.
Q. Isn't unarchy old hat? What about democracy as practiced in
ancient Athens?
A. They had a council of 500 men which prepared laws, and then
the assembly of male citizens voted on the laws. The modern
analog would be that laws are proposed by Congress and all
citizens get to vote on them. (There's no reason that
couldn't be done, by the way. It would at least be a step in the
right direction.) Unarchy dispenses with laws.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. Is the accused person compelled to appear in court?
A. It would seem pretty absurd for him not to be there. If you've
got a case against somebody and he doesn't cooperate, open the yellow pages
to Crook Nabbers, Inc. and hire them to haul
him in. Remember, you'd better have a darn good case against the
guy; otherwise the jury will be awarding him damages that you'll
have to cough up.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. What if he refuses to answer questions?
A. A juror may read into that what he will, according to his own common
sense.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. What about lie detector tests?
A. Jurors may be very interested in seeing the results of these - or
maybe even observing the process. A juror may conclude what he will
regarding the test results, according to his own common sense.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. Is a person compelled to serve on the jury?
A. No - under unarchy, there are no rules, right? There are several
possibilities, however. Perhaps jury selection
would take absenteeism into consideration and overbook the jury
so that it is sure to end up with enough people. Perhaps the public
will take their justice system so seriously that they would punish
someone who refuses to serve. Perhaps
non-participation will be viewed as a vote for the status quo, as
in our elections.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. Are witnesses compelled to testify?
A. No. See above. But, as with jury duty, a witness who doesn't
appear might be subject to punishment. In any case, if evil prevails because
people don't want to
get involved, then evil is what we get. If we decide we don't
want evil, we get involved. Unarchy is self-regulating - it
yields the precise amount of justice that people want.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. Don't people have better things to do with their time?
A. The main incentives for serving on a jury are a) the
chance to do something beneficial for society, and b) it would be as
interesting and entertaining as almost anything else we do - such as watching
fictional struggles between good and bad on tv and in the movies.
Note that there are tv networks that make money off of people's
enthusiasm for watching real court cases.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. Will jurors be paid?
A. Maybe, although I wouldn't think it's necessary. See the previous
answer for non-monetary incentives. In any case, this can't be a valid
concern considering the paltry compensation for jurors in our current system.
Imagine trying to support a family of 4, say, on the current $20 to $30 a
day. Also, keep in mind that under unarchy, your service on one
case might be measured in minutes rather than days.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. Without plea bargaining and other legal games, wouldn't we be
swamped with court cases? Wouldn't unarchy drag everybody away
from doing their regular work?
A. Under unarchy, court cases will go much more quickly.
How long could it take to read the trancript (watch the video,
or whatever) and make a decision? An hour maybe? I served on
jury duty once. It lasted a month. There were over 40
witnesses called. (Incidentally, not one of them offered a
single shred of evidence relating to the charges.) In that month
we could have easily handled hundreds of cases. It took 2 full
days to extract the tiny, completely-rigged jury of 12 from a
not-quite-so-rigged pool of 85. Wouldn't it have been easier just to
go with the full 85, present the evidence, and take a vote?
As claimed in the proposal, since unarchy involves no legal
game-playing and the justice is near-instantaneous and
near-infallible, people will stop trying to get away with what they
know is wrong. The number of court cases should decline drastically.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. But we have to have lawyers because a lot of people are shy
about speaking in front of an audience.
A. The jury would surely be aware of the stressful atmosphere
a trial creates. They would take that into account. If you need
someone's help to present your case, by all means, bring him.
Maybe a better solution to the stress problem is allowing ample
time in private for written answers to questions. It's not clear
to me that it is necessary or desirable that the jury witness the
whole process of accusation and rebuttal.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. Who selects the juries?
A. For the time being that could be a government function.
A bureaucrat could be trained to
pick names out of a fishbowl. Ultimately, I envision competing
justice companies.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. Who pays the costs of the trial?
A. The accuser pays a justice company to handle his
case. If it's not important enough for him to part with some of
his money, it's not very important, is it? A jury that
finds a person guilty and deserving of punishment would surely make him
reimburse the accuser for his trial costs.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. Who carries out the punishment?
A. Once again, maybe government for the time being, but
ultimately private industry. This concern will evaporate when we start
thinking in terms of restitution rather than punishment.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. Who pays for the prisons?
A. Again, I would rather see wrongdoers make restitution than
do time. Whether we go in that direction is up to the majority.
If we have to have prisons they can be supported by some combination of
public contributions, prisoner assets and prisoner labor.
Your contributions wouldn't have to be monetary, by the way - donate
old clothes and furniture. Supermarkets could donate slightly out of date
food. Prisoners could grow some of their food and build and
maintain their housing. (I can imagine prisons
that even turn a profit, but whether this is desirable is debatable.
Note that there is a U.S. Justice Department program
called Prison Industry Enhancement that lets private companies
employ prisoners.)
Under unarchy, there should be less need for
prisons - maybe none eventually. People probably wouldn't be
jailed for what they do to themselves. White collar criminals
would probably be dealt with more appropriately - such as being forced
to pay restitution or surrender property - rather than be sent to prison.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. How large an area does a jury represent? What if the locals
favor tree-cutting, say, but there are many more outsiders who oppose?
A. In all cases, the opinion of a larger majority
takes precedence over a smaller one. It wouldn't be
difficult to implement a system that allows an accuser to bring a
case to a larger segment of the population if he's willing to pay
for the bigger trial.
However, this may be irrelevant to the
issue at hand, which is simply one of property rights. It's hard
to imagine a majority punishing someone for cutting down his own
tree. If you don't want him to do it, you are obliged to give
him an incentive not to do it, such as buying it from him. If
that sounds simplistic, note the private
organizations that buy up rain forest acreage.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. But this unarchy is all so complicated, like figuring out jury
sizes and an agreeable method of picking juries, etc.
A. Unarchy is simply large juries that use their own consciences - no
laws, lawmakers, federal regulators, judges or lawyers.
Whatever the precise implementation, it would have to be
thousands of times simpler than what we have now.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. How can unarchy replace government? As long as there are
Roads, we need government!
A. I find it amusing the frequency with which people bring up Roads
when faced with having to justify government.
I don't see why private industry couldn't provide Roads,
but if the majority wants a monopolistic company
to handle them, so be it. If they want to call that company
"government", so be it.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. How would a radical idea ever get a chance under unarchy?
A. As under any system, if you're right and everybody else is
wrong, the burden falls on your shoulders to show everybody how
wrong they are. Write a book; put up a web site;
get on tv; write letters to the editor...
Go to FAQ list.
Q. What about moral issues such as abortion, assisted suicide or
homosexuality?
A. Under unarchy, instead of arguing about an issue until the end of
time, there would be a trial. Someone who objects to abortion, say,
would drag the woman or the doctor to court. The jury would decide
if anyone did wrong and what the punishment is. It might well be
the accuser who is punished for causing so much trouble.
The outcome would be reported in the media, and also archived on the
internet. From then on, people would bear the
court decision in mind when considering similar activity.
The claim here is that, while people may be uncomfortable with
certain activities, they do not generally need to see those
activities punished - especially when the given activity doesn't directly
touch their lives. Morally objecting to
something and dishing out punishment for it are two different things.
Go to FAQ list.
Q. The majority is not always right. In the 1800s most people thought blacks
should be slaves and women shouldn't vote. We now know the majority was
wrong! Sometimes it takes a few courageous individuals to lead this country
where it needs to go.
A. No system of justice can rectify past injustices. Under unarchy,
courageous individuals would still be more than welcome to set the masses
on the right track.
About slavery in America, do we know for sure what the majority thought? Did a majority of Americans ever approve of it? Were the opinions of the slaves counted in? How many decades after majority sentiment turned against slavery did it remain protected by government? My understanding is that slavery was dying of its own accord until it received a shot in the arm from the invention of the cotton gin in the 1790s.
The bigger issue is, how can any group of people know what "right"
will be a hundred years in the future? Using the right to vote
as an example, should we revoke men's right to participate in
decision-making now based on a hunch that a hundred years hence they
will be stupefied that we ever allowed it? How's your crystal ball working?
Go to FAQ list.
My Question to Doubters
Q. What injustices would occur if disputes were decided by majority will as proposed here?
Somebody tell me.
Contact Donald Sauter: send an email; view guestbook; sign guestbook.
Back to Donald Sauter's main page.
Rather shop than think? Please visit My Little Shop of Rare and Precious Commodities.
Back to the top of this page.
Parents, if you're considering tutoring or supplemental education for your child, you may be interested in my observations on Kumon.