it can be paid for by anyone in any way except taxation

i want the same systems we have today, but without the taxes and state monopoly bs

so you mean, just as bad

the person with the most money wins most of the time

because why side with the person with less wealth, except in places of strong character and a defined set of right and wrong

both parties need to agree on a judge. if the judge always sides with the rich, there would be no point for the poor to consult that judge.

everyone has a track record

and no rich person would want a judge who wasn't going to side with them

particularly if they want the property

so, we have an impasse

we have a giant arbitration industry right now that a lot of people prefer to go to rather than the state. this seems like a basic old problem that the arbitration industry has solved long time ago.

worst case scenario the partisan judges would just have to choose an arbitrator they both agree on

we have an impasse. i mean, there is no state. so it easy to have this be a local thing

which means greater chance to have bias judges being the only thing near by

particular if you are dealing with say an out of towner

so we need an even more corruptible monopoly that settles it with an iron fist?

need? no. but then again, my argument is never that we need the state... its always that it will come back, and does for a reason. so why repeat history and instead do our best to fix this

but so we have an impasse

so, if one side wants to press, we have conflict

who is the aggressor?

well i agree in one sense

the person who laid claim to the dead person's house? or the one who is from out of town claiming its theirs? arbitration failed., either side could agree on a judge.

i believe that if there is a challenge or an impasse, people will always strive to solve the issues in one way or another

but i dont believe that people will just run into an impasse, and there will be a giant hole in the system, and people will just sit on their hands and do nothing

no, either they give up, or they press.

it reminds me of the who would build the roads argument

so, what happens if they press

who is the aggressor?

i believe that there are peaceful solutions to impasses

only if both sides agree to peace, in which case arbitration would have worked or settled

but one side didn't budge

both think they have rightful claim

so, who is the aggressor if one side presses

the out of towner with a story, or the guy who moved into a dead persons house.

can't really prove the out of towner is lying

i don't know

can't really prove he isn't the owner

am i supposed to know this?

its perfectly fine to admit you don't know, its a rough question. with, perhaps, no right answer.

do you think ownership is objective?

hmm