What if we trusted arbitration as much as we trust Uber?

When you go to court in a dispute with the government, the judge is an employee of the other party. That’s not justice. That’s conflict of interest. It’s no wonder that trust in government courts is declining, and arbitration is on the rise.

Arbitration allows disputes to be resolved by a neutral third party, agreed to by both sides. It’s common in business contracts and international trade, and even governments use it when they don’t trust each other’s courts.

But why stop there? What if arbitration were the default in all civil disputes—not just those covered by contracts?

In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Robert Heinlein imagines a society with no formal government, where arbitrators with reputations for fairness make decisions trusted by all. That kind of reputation-driven justice isn’t so far-fetched anymore. We already trust strangers to drive us across town because of five-star ratings. Why not justice?

Some tweaks could make arbitration even better. The English rule (where the loser pays both parties’ legal fees) discourages frivolous lawsuits and prevents deep-pocketed bullies from dragging out litigation. Baseball arbitration (where the arbitrator must choose one side’s proposal in full) pushes both parties to be reasonable.

Entrepreneurial cities like Próspera and Morazán can lead the way. They have the freedom to offer arbitration as the default legal model—not as a corporate concession, but as a feature of better governance. That alone is a major competitive advantage.

People want fair, fast, and neutral resolution of disputes. They don’t want bureaucracy. They don’t want politics. They want justice. Arbitration, done right, can deliver it.

​Read the full article: A Better Way to Justice: Why Arbitration Should Replace the Courts