Let’s take a look at how the current legal system works. The resolution of jurisdiction is an important and complicated process for both civil and criminal cases. If a crime or a civil dispute occurs within the border of a single state, that state usually has the jurisdiction. For interstate crimes, all the states involved have jurisdiction and the accused could be tried in multiple states. Because the same crime cannot be tried twice (aka, the no double jeopardy principle), the state prosecutors usually collaborate and try the case in the state with the best chance of conviction. Commercial contracts usually specifies the state jurisdiction under which any future disputes should be arbitrated or tried. In corporate law, the state where the company is incorporated has the jurisdiction. Since most large U.S companies are incorporated in Delaware, corporate lawsuits are primarily tried in Delaware. The lawsuits between states, mostly for water or territory disputes, have to be tried in the federal court. If both federal and state courts have jurisdiction, e.g., crimes affecting interstate commerce, the federal courts usually have priority in exercising jurisdiction.
In interstate commerce disputes, the federal court has the exclusive jurisdiction. The power to regulate interstate commerce is the legal foundation for the federal regulations on minimum wage, workers protection, labor union etc. These issues are extremely divisive and controversial, I will write more on interstate commerce in the upcoming blogs.
The jurisdiction resolution among govlets can be broadly modeled after that of our current legal system, except that the border rule must be replaced because govlets do not have well defined territories. The most natural replacement for the border rule is to give jurisdiction to the govlet of the parties involved. For example, in a criminal case, the govlet for the victim should take priority in jurisdiction over the offender's because the offender’s govlet does not have the incentive to prosecute its own citizen for the benefit of "foreign" citizen. If there are multiple victims involved, then all the victims’ govlets have jurisdiction and they can cooperate and decide which govlet has the best chance to bring the accused to justice. Civil lawsuits should be filed in the defendant’s govlet, because that govlet has the jurisdiction to seize the defendant’s assets. For corporate lawsuits, e.g., shareholders sue corporate officers for fraud, the govlet where the company is incorporated should have the jurisdiction; commercial contracts involving parties from multiple govlets should always specify which govlet has the jurisdiction in case of future disputes.
Let’s take a look at a simple example: a govlet A’s citizen robbed a govlet B’s citizen. In this case, govlet B has the priority to prosecute citizen A. Govlet A may prosecute citizen A only if govlet B choose not to (e.g, due to lack of evidence). Let’s add a little twist, and suppose citizen A sold an assault rifle to citizen B, and the trading of assault rifle is legal in govlet A but is outlawed by govlet B. In this case, only govlet B could prosecute, and it can prosecute both parties involved. Of course govlet B doesn't have the jurisdiction if the trade is between two A citizens and doesn't affect B's citizen, property or business.
Inevitably jurisdiction disputes between govlets will arise, in which case the federal government has to step in to intermediate. In the above example of the rifle trade, govlet B could try to prosecute rifle trades between two citizens of govlet A, on the ground that the trades happen in close proximity to a B's citizen thus might adversely affect B citizens' safety and well-being. A’s citizens might then find themselves being frequently harassed by B’s law enforcement for legal firearm transactions, just because there happens to be B’s citizens nearby. In this case, whether govlet B has the jurisdiction purely based on the proximity to its citizen has to be resolved in the federal court. Federal court should establish clear precedence in resolving jurisdictional disputes between govlets, according to factors such as whether the alleged crime happens in public areas or a building owned by a govlet, or in a business registered in a govlet, or within in a residence or business owned by a govlet’s citizen, etc. For example, if the rifle dealing happened in a business incorporated in govlet B, govlet B could have a legitimate claim for the jurisdiction even though no citizens from govlet B are directly involved in the trade. But the jurisdiction claim based only on proximity to its citizen seems to be too outlandish, especially if the alleged crime happens in public area.
As we discussed in previous blogs, the govlets that enforce criminal justice are likely to become highly specialized through competition; and most citizens will choose crime protections from very few number of large govlets because of the economy of scale. Large specialized govlets are likely to have more resources and police powers to fight crime more efficiently, and they are less likely to run into jurisdiction problems. These large govlets for criminal justice are most likely to only offer protection against violent crimes, making them appealing for virtually everyone regardless of their political ideologies. Non-violent crimes, such as prostitution and drug trafficking, will likely be enforced by smaller specialized govlet as fewer people are willing to pay to fight these nonviolent crimes.
The distributed govlet system leads to an extremely diversified and dynamic legal environment and offers much more political freedom than our current governments. I will continue the discussion of many interesting aspects of the govlet’s legal freedom in the upcoming blogs.
No comments:
Post a Comment