I think that's how I'd put it.

Well I'm not sure if we could live without a govrnment, but I'm not quite brave enough to try

I'm nnot sure if we could or couldn't

I think government is a necessity, again as a mediator. Need a sort of "Leviathan" to ensure everyone follows their contractual obligations. I'm using the term leviathan loosely to mean some sort of ruler or arbiter or body.

well I think if a government has a main purprose, it's to protect property rights and to enforce contracts

Basically the way I think it ought to be is government is contracted by the people(like the Constitution) and is afforded the rights that the people all agreed upon in the contract. It has to be explicitly stated of course, and that is the role of government, that explicit statement within the contract and only those explicit statements.

Yes, exactly lol.

We trust people's contracts because the penalty for breaking a contract is high

yep, and that is the necessity of government. To be the mediator

And to administer justice

I think that we could use private courts for more minor infactions though

or civil disagreements

that's more like settling outside of court.

well it could be a private court

complete with all the mechanisms of court

when two parties mediate it through some third party privately.

and heck those private courts could even have private "enforcers"

I don't think I like that idea. It can lead to the administration of justice to be sporadic and unequal. All should be treated equally under the eyes of the law.

Which is why private courts could not work as each private court would have its own way of administering justice

In one court, someone could be fined heavily for a minor infraction, while in another simply warned

I think the law should be administered equally and with indifference.

@Ipod well the private court would be purely voluntary for both parties

both parties would have to agree to be judged by the private court

and a private court that is not fair in the way it conducts it's hearings would get no money

it would be in their interest to be fair

I suppose if it is voluntary by both parties there would be one less issue, however, practically, I dont think it could work. A private court entails another legal system under the main legal system. I think I should head for bed lol, maybe if I think on it in the morning it would make more sense to me. 4am lol need sleep

goodnight

Then whats the point of it? Public court is also voluntary. You either go, or dont and pay the consequences.

If you commit a minor infraction the only choice you have is pay fine or contest in court. Private courts would be far to easily corruptable.

As if government courts aren't already as corrupt?

Minor courts for traffic and small claims generally arnt.

Then what courts are corrupt?

Because if those aren't corrupt where do the corrupt individuals for the higher courts come from?

Generally the corruption begins as they get the higher positions like circuit court of appeals. Most corruption though in courts is really just political bias. And there isnt anything politival about *You were doing 80 in a 65, pay this fine*.

It can become political

You did 80 in 65, that's $200. But for that Trump sticker you now pay $1000

It will be regulated by free market competition

Like every other product ever

Also as countries move closer to ancapism the more prosperous they becomes

well that is one argument I have in favour for anarchism

Ancapitalism is a fantasy utopia the same as Communism.