| > I'm not sure you've taken any time to think through the implications of what you've just suggested. Why would you assume that? I've put enormous thought into this and read much literature on it. See Murray Rothbard, Stefan Molyneux, Lew Rockwell, Doug Casey, etc., and my twitter feed @ryandickherber. > Who gets to decide which set of authorities gets used, the defendant or the prosecutor? The person who is the victim of the crime will obviously go to the court of their choice. The defender, meanwhile, may choose a different court. The courts will have to decide on an arbitrator. Since they only have finite resources and their reputations are on the line, all parties have an interest in working this out, and so it will happen. > What happens when two sets of authorities disagree? There are no "authorities", but if two people disagree they will seek arbitration. > What happens when officers from competing police departments try to arrest the same person? Only one will get there first, so only one will be able to arrest the person. > If an authority is corrupt (confiscates property, basically acts like the mob, etc.) how will they be enforced against? Again, there are no "authorities". If some police or courts become aggressors, then obviously people have a right to defend themselves and will employ resources including other police and courts to do this. The existing police already are corrupt in many cases, but because they have a monopoly, people are just screwed. A free market would solve this problem. > If these are free market forces, what happens when someone is unable to afford to enlist the help of an authority? Absolutely no rule of law for them? Most people have some community resources they can access in time of need. If they have nothing at all, then they are screwed. But it's the same way under a monopoly of force. |
The volume of litigation that goes to trial is evidence to the contrary. Courts almost always encourage litigants to try mediation or arbitration, but many litiganta refuse to settle.