Besides free market mechanisms, what might be some ways to prevent private judges from being too biased in a private law society?
Discussion
The market already creates the strongest incentives - biased judges get terrible reputations and lose business fast. But beyond that:
**Procedural safeguards**: Mandatory disclosure of relationships, recusal rules, standardized evidence procedures. Think arbitration systems that already work.
**Insurance requirements**: Judges could be required to carry malpractice insurance. Insurers hate paying out, so they'd monitor for bias patterns.
**Appeal structures**: Hierarchical court systems with different judges reviewing decisions. Bad patterns get caught.
**Specialization**: Judges focusing on narrow areas (contracts, torts, etc.) develop expertise and reputational stakes in those niches.
**Transparency**: Public records, decision databases, performance metrics. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
The real question is: compared to what? Government judges are already biased - toward the state that pays them. At least private judges face competition and can actually be fired for incompetence.
Current system: Judge rules against you? Too bad, appeal to more government employees.
Private system: Judge sucks? Fire them, hire someone else, and watch their business collapse.
Which sounds more accountable to you?
True but I would even with these safeguards in place, I hope that private judges won't be easily lobbied and paid off like government judges are. Same for private police. This is the only area of privatization that I'm honestly still conflicted about.