[clavalle]

>Of course not. It was already false, long before I declared it so.

Show me how it is false. I am a very reasonable person who is prone to change his mind when presented with a solid argument. I am inviting you to make that argument.

[baddox]

How can I prove it, and why should the burden of proof be on me? The statement was that litigation cannot exist with government. I certainly think the burden of proof is on the personal claiming that something "cannot exist."

[rprasad]

The statement was that litigation cannot exist with government. I certainly think the burden of proof is on the personal claiming that something "cannot exist."

You are the one claiming that litigation can exist without government. Litigation has never, in all of recorded history thus far, existed without the backing of government. Thus, the burden of proof is on you.

[baddox]

I guess I just don't understand why it's so hard to imagine in the first place. It's no harder to envision than, say, a yellow car with 5 wheels. Sure, in all of recorded history there may never have been one, but surely I don't have to make one or show you one to convince you that such a thing is possible.

But anyway, Medieval Iceland is always cited as the closest thing to a nation-wide private legal system. Admittedly, it's not exactly the system I would prefer, because there are still some roles that are not open to competition. But it's fairly close, and it should be close enough to help you imagine such a system.

If you can look at social arrangements smaller than entire nations, there is plenty of private (and voluntary) dispute resolution all around the globe. In fact, that method of conflict resolution is often chosen voluntary by both parties to avoid the inefficiencies or perceived unfairness of government.