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

If it's a right and the law breaks it, then it's not the law, it's illegitimate

Obviously if you kill someone and are arrested then your right to arms and liberty are temporarily forfeit

Ok, so you mean context

Laws must address the context of you having infringed on someone else's freedom

If someone commits a crime they are not allowed to just walk away in the name of freedom and liberty

Ok, right

They can obviously be detained and their freedom can be temporarily ended

And this is where the problem starts, because obviously it means that an investigation must happen before it can be determined who was in the right and who wasn't

And that investigation is the part that gets corrupted

There could of course be some problems in a justice system

But i think that it would be worth it for the sake of freedom and it can work on a basic level for resolving disputes between two sane parties

Uhm

That part would be for the sake of justice and order, not freedom

You obviously need some level of order infringing on freedom to maintain a functional society

Right

So who watches that?

Who watches those with the power to infringe on freedom?