Barak, what's not fair? If it's all about the free market, what's to stop one side, after getting a "bad" ruling from a mutually agreed upon judge, from hiring another judge to get a "good" ruling to counter the first one? Are there laws to prevent this? If so, where did they come from? Even if this was some sort of contract violation, couldn't he hire a "sympathetic" police agency to enforce the new judge's ruling regardless? Who's to stop him? I am assuming that free market police agencies are free to contract with whomever they like, no? What if the wealthier party, who lost, could hire a more powerful police agency than the guy who won at the first trial? Aren't we back to the state of nature, but on a larger scale? Since the profit motive is now the supreme law, what's to prevent this?
Seems to me that greater force will always win out, if there is no government. Yes, government too is force, but it is force agreed upon by all, and limited in scope by its constitution and the rule of law, apart from which it becomes, in Nock's terminology, not government any longer, but pure state.
I know you are a smart guy, and have thought all this through, but somehow I just cannot digest it. You never know, however. It could very well be that my mind is overly rigid, and your notions are so completely alien to it that my mind just simply cannot find a place for it to settle. In other words, I still don't get it. I cannot see it working. This could, of course, be my failing, not yours but, you see, I can see
real libertarianism working, because real libertarianism works within the context of limited government. It makes government a servant instead of master. What you are advocating, however, is not libertarianism, but anarchism (i.e., no government) which just, to me, seems unworkable
ab initio. Maybe, however, I just don't get it. My powers of comprehension are not, after all, limitless, even if nearly so. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
