A reader sent a link to this article by Davi Barker. It reinforces a point in Voluntary Law (although Davi doesn’t call it that) that there can be no binding precedent in a system of voluntary dispute resolution. You can read the article for yourself: Kill The Precedent
Voluntary law fills the gap left by the loss of judicial precedent, by permitting each to define their own law. So if a law is undesirably vague or indefinite, there will be public demand for more specific, definite laws. Poor or unworkable laws will be “upgraded” on an individual basis, as legal writers propose revisions which gradually grow in influence by individual adoption. Sort of like how software upgrades are handled, but with less pressure on users to upgrade and no single programmer in charge. Because you won’t license your law from some legal provider — you will “own” it in the public domain.
The loss of binding judicial precedent doesn’t mean there can’t be influence, and reputation, and persuasive precedents. Such voluntary things will thrive and illuminate the justice halls of voluntary law. The only authority will be what is most reasonable, durable, and true, in the context of the laws the disputants have bound themselves to. Clearly defective judgments will be unenforceable. Merely questionable ones? Subject to second opinions.