Minarchy(Pro) vs. Anarchy(Con)

"Do you assume that this thing which need be in-placed is government?" You seem to have misread. "Something else" was one of the possible prerequisites of "applying a free market to governance" in the sense in which you speak. "Preventing force by implementing force...that makes a lot of sense." Actually, that is the only way force has ever been consistently prevented-- by the threat of retaliation. "The great mass of the atrocities throughout human history of which you speak were caused by government. " Do you have statistics? Death tolls of criminals versus governments? Even if you did do you realize for them to mean a damn thing variables that haven't been controlled would have to be controlled? :This is a very common misconception about Anarchy. Competing courts does NOT mean over-lapping of contradicting laws or legal actions. A person would choose to enter into contract with a certain court system or not. This is a common misconception about courts among Anarchists. The concept of a court that requires the voluntary participation of EVERYONE is unequivocally laughable. Party A murder's Party B's wife. Party B takes Party A to court. Party A says "Um, no. I'm a customer of a different court sorry." :If they do, they are bound by it's laws. If they don't, they are bound by no laws but take risk of having their rights abused by others. Um no, if they DO they risk having their rights abused by the people who don't, since those people aren't bound by laws! The notion of a system of laws that only applies to those who sign in to the court is as laughable as gun control and far more obvious. Signing on is no defense against having your rights violated whatsoever, since no one who wants to violate your rights will sign in. :Addressing the war issue: Though my system would stop war between nations, it would open the door for war between business. I must say, though neither are good, the latter is a much better thing than the former. The casualties of the American Civil War exceed the American casualties of all foreign wars it was involved in from the Revolution to Vietnam. It's not a controlled experiment, but it's pretty dramatic correlation to the contrary of your premise, and you seem to like that sort of thing. :Not only would they be on a much less disastrous scale but it would also insure that the good-guy usually wins. How? Because whichever side is more beneficial to the market will have more money than the other. Money is a minor factor in wars. And a side that chooses to initiate force by way of taxes will acquire money without having to serve a market. True, that wouldn't be a "free market" anymore, but it is a direct result of attempting to live up to your faulty presumptions that the concept is applicable to government itself in a world in which people who are not libertarian happen to exist. :Again, my system does not imply this. Every individually makes a choice about the laws governing their own property. That is a statement that already presumes a fixed law enforced by a monopoly government that permits them to make that choice. Since within your system the presumption is false, the result is that the people who want to make laws governing someone else's property laugh at you, then no doubt shoot you. :Jurisdiction cannot be owned A statement like this requires reference to a theory of property. Provide it immediately. :And the tools which government possess to implement such are not of legitimate ownership, having been forcibly taken from individuals. Nonsense. You're arguing with a user fee minarchist, not a liberal.