A growing trend, at least in the U.S., is for parties to a contract to waive their rights to sue and instead submit disputes to alternative (or "external") dispute resolution (ADR)--i.e., mediation or arbitration. Is is proper for parties to be able to do this?
In the essay, "Government Financing in a Free Society", Ayn Rand mentioned that parties could opt out of having their contracts protected by the legal system. However, she did not specifically address the propriety of ADR.
It is true that ADR clauses are part of voluntary contracts. However, there are limits to the extent to which one may surrender one's own rights, as Leonard Peikoff discussed in a podcast.
One might argue that ADR is similar to "jurisdiction shopping," but the latter relates to governmental judicial systems with established territoriality. An ADR agency can be a private entity.
As has been discussed elsewhere, it would be improper for a private agency to usurp other legitimate functions of government: the military, police, criminal courts. By offering an (often mandated) alternative to civil courts, are ADR agencies--within this particular sphere--setting themselves up as "competing governments" (hence the anarcho-capitalist aspect)?
asked Dec 31 '12 at 12:02