Q&A: “Curt, do you see equity courts as necessary?” If you mean that judges shou

Q&A: “Curt, do you see equity courts as necessary?”

If you mean that judges should decide by two different criteria, then no. If you mean equity (various involuntary transfers) is a matter for courts, then yes.

Here is the deal: the purpose of law is to keep us in peaceful cooperation (order). But externalities differ with the subject matter at hand.

So treason, murder, theft, incompetence, error, and family matters allow for greater subjective discretion because of fewer or at least less impactful externalities.

The law, like mathematics did not evolve in an era were we possessed the language of economics and finance (equilibria).

So the law like mathematics carries archaic terminology from the religious and moral eras. Bad words make bad choices.

I usually speak in terms of information, decidability, and externality. The law does consider these things. But often refers to them oddly, and in what we might consider ‘sacred’ legal terms, with moral weights.

So I see that courts must specialize in types of cases for the simple reason that judges cannot master all domains. (Although the good judges I know say that this variability is what keeps them intellectually stimulated. But there is too much evidence that very technical subjects requires specialists.)

Whether without contract, with contract, within the social contract, and within the legislative contract, I don’t really see any difference. It’s all property rights.