Wut

I'm trying to decipher your argument

but the justice system requires the use of force, yes? @The Electric Lizard
just trying to make your position on the clear.

I am saying that the owner of the property will not have to defend their own property using violence or force, They could of course but they won't have to, So they can turn to the justice system to use violence on their behalf

Ok yeah, that's correct

I basically just believe that the only thing the government should do is maintain a police force and justice system to maintain order and resolve disputes

Yeah you want the right amount of justice and order

A balance between the two

Too much justice or order and there would be too little freedom. Too much freedom and there would be too little justice or order.

Pretty much, Infinite freedom for the individual is obviously impossible but i think what we should have is a sane and orderly society which allows as much freedom as humanly possible while still maintaining that order

I agree

We should go as close as we can to Anarchism and maximum freedom while still maintaining an orderly society

That is basically the libertarian argument, sounds like minarchism to me.

They aren't that different

I used to agree with that position until I started to believe that this fails on a moral level

Practically yes, it can theoretically be done, but the lack of morality is what ruins it.

How so?

So it won't happen unless the according values are taught.

Let's say we have a Libertarian society as i have described and someone doesn't have any morals and just goes out and attacks someone, In that Libertarian society they could be killed in self defence or could be jailed for the crime

Because if you allow for some infringement on freedom as a minarchist, then two things would be true:
1) You want freedom to be infringed upon
2) You want to control the amount of infringement upon freedom

Those two things cannot work together without a specific set of morals

Ethics

We simply maintain laws for basic things

Like murder, Theft, property rights

Besides that and other basic rules you can do what you want essentially

Do you mean fundamental?

Because "basic" implies to me it's simple

Fundamental then

Ok, so how do you do 2) then?

Just the basic rights you have, Right to life, Right to Property, Right to arms

Because the law must have 1)

Through the few laws

The Laws make sure that none of those rights can be broken

Wait

the problem with minimising the state to just the justice system in the modern era is automation.

If someone takes your property and infringes on your property rights you take them to court and potentially jail

The law would make sure that the law breaks none of those rights, sounds like an unanswerable system

The law could obviously break some of those rights temporality and only after a trial

Wait, no

The law can never break a right

Pieces of paper can’t act