Comment: "But what are your arguments

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Thank, ResisttheRing. I'll (see in situ)

"But what are your arguments

"But what are your arguments for not needing a government-ran military and government court system?"
--> First of all, we can dispose of the term "need". We don't "need" government courts/military, we don't "need" market-run courts or military. Now, it might seem like I'm being a jerk or a nit-pick for doing this, but there's a good reason for it. As the question is phrased, it implies that since government run military and courts are the status quo, that somehow it's a position that we should defend as the default. As someone with a libertarian meaning, you know damn well that is not a good practice. At the same time, I understand how a lot of the burden is on me to present alternatives, and that's fine, but we should try to look at it as neutrally as possible if we're going to do a comparison.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, let's get started. There are many reasons we shouldn't WANT the government to run the courts. First of all, have you ever tried to use them? The fact that you're defending them probably means you haven't (hint: it's not easy). In fact, it's so out of control, that TONS of arbitration is settled in private courts. Yes, that's right, businesses get robbed to pay for courts that they can't even use, and it's so bad that they're willing to pay even more for a private option. This is pretty easy to understand for contract law. For starters, when deciding whether to contract with someone, you must decide whether they are trustworthy. People have contract ratings (kind of like credit scores). This shows whether people have made contracts in the past, and shows whether they upheld their end, or if they obeyed the court orders in event of dispute. If they violate their contracts and ignore the court ruling, they get a bad rating, and you (and everyone else) stop doing business with them. So behaving lawfully is pretty much required.

Who would maintain credit ratings? Perhaps an independent company, perhaps the arbitration company, it's hard to predict. That's a side note. If you try to predict in detail exactly what will happen in the future, you can fall into the trap of thinking that you know exactly what is the most efficient business model. It's pretty arrogant, and something I will try to avoid doing. But at the same time, my goal isn't to say that my idea is the BEST market solution, I'm simply pointing out that the IDEA of a market solution is not completely ludicrous.

When writing a contract, you specify in advance with the other party who would arbitrate in the event of a dispute. Since the government sucks, people choose Company X (yes, this already happens in real life). If they don't go to court, the contract rating gets adjusted accordingly, and we go on as usual. If one party needs to file suit, they go to court, and they act according to the findings of the judge. If the losing party obeys, his score isn't hurt so much, since he's willing to cooperate, and he can continue doing business.

At this point, people usually ask why the judge gets to decide. And it's a good question. I don't know if it would be one judge, or a team of researchers. But the ruling of the company would prevail. And this is actually VERY important if you want to understand what I'm talking about (if you've made it this far and are still reading, I applaud you). This is why law is polycentric. The law itself is a good, and it's not the same for everyone. Before you panic and think that's not fair, note that we don't all have the same law now (state, local, national all vary from location to location). You look at the history of rulings from different courts, and you judge what type of law you WANT to live under, and only contract with people who have similar preferences. We, the people, make law on the market. We are not subjected to the will of the majority in the same way we are with democracy. If 10% of people want one type of law, they can have it amongst themselves. If 10% of people are libertarians, they accomplish nothing in the political system.

Now the next thing you're probably thinking is "that's great and all, but what about cases where people don't contract in advance? What about criminal and tort law?"
Most market anarchists expect that we would have private defense companies. In a way, this topic overlaps with your question about the military. You see, tort and criminal law would also be decided on a market, and possibly a different market, but it's free market nonetheless. I can subscribe to private defense company Y (note: they're sometimes called dispute resolution organizations, or DROs, which I'll use as a shorthand).

I subscribe to a company that promises to protect me from criminals and threats, and that probably serves as a type of insurance company as well. You can go to DRO Z if you want. They don't have monopolies over geographic areas, so the law is polycentric. They compete with one another, and we try to get the best protection at the lowest price.

"But then what about when a person in one DRO attacks a person from another DRO? We'll have chaos!"
Well, that isn't in anyone's interests. These businesses have much to lose by starting wars with one another. Political rulers today don't have to bear the costs of their decisions, but businesses do. They don't have tax bases and central banks to finance these types of destructive behavior. All peaceful solutions will be sought first. Most DROs will have contracts with one another, to choose tort/criminal courts. So again, by choosing a DRO, you are in essence voting on the law on the market. You will want a DRO that has a reputation of using courts with rulings that you favor. You get to buy the type of law you want. Obviously there are a lot more details I could get into, but I'm already practically writing a novel here.

There are also questions you could ask about what if the DROs team up and make a government, or what about invading governments, and I could go on and on for another 2000 words, but I'll stop here for now. Hopefully at this point you can at least accept the POSSIBILITY of a market for law and defense. Hopefully I've intrigued you to read into the people who have written more on the subject. If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to address them. Just not right now, my fingers hurt from writing this.

"If you had to choose eight pages, then?"
^ ??? I gave a list of 8 pages to read in my first response to you.

'The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that “the best government is that which governs least,” and that which governs least is no government at all.'
-Benjamin Tucker