The problem for honest ACists is that evil-doers have a +EV recourse among their own when it's time to "just say no" to a voluntary court.

No, just the ones who are likely to have run-ins with organized crime, which is fine since those are the same customers who claim out more than they pay in anyway.

This is insane, why would anyone do business with a defense company that doesn't defend people?

You need to go take your medicine, read my long post, and shut up for a while. If you shoot me in the kneecap and refuse to agree to arbitration after I have captured your ass, you aren't leaving my private security firm's prison. After we do our best to collect evidence and find out what happened, it is time to seek justice. BTW, you don't stay in my prison for free. You can pick trash from the streets like the scum that you are. You are forestalling justice. I am in the right to buck just one of your kneecaps and keep you imprisoned until you come to your senses and agree to arbitration. You owe me $40/day and if you want a Bible, you pay the costs. If you can't pay, I don't owe it to you. Nobody is stopping you from cooperating or trying to make right by your labour. This seems highly -EV. Sometimes you just got to admit you were wrong man.

So we can just capture people, throw them in prison, force them to work not just as slave labor but while accruing a $40 per day hotel bill, and then we begin to look for evidence? Where do I sign up?

They do defend people. Just not all people in every situation. This is SOP in the insurance and military ops businesses.

kool?

Define POS! What is defending people? How can people do insurance when government is the ultimate insurance dudes?

Who said that?

I can't decide if some people are purposely jumping to the most absurd conclusion possible, or if they're just not thinking before they post.

I'm going to try my best to give a possible hypothetical justice system set up in ACland. Remember, I'm not claiming to know 100% how things would play out, but I can see this happening. Obviously IMO.

In ACland, there won't be governments by geographical region. BUT, there will be lots and lots of voluntary social arrangements and organizations.

For example, a credit card company is a voluntary social arrangement. I sign a contract with them where they front me cash and I pay them back based on the terms of our arrangement. The only geographic requirements here is that the credit card company is accepted in the places I frequent. Otherwise it would be useless.

When it comes to justice, let's take a hypothetical.

There are 4 players in this scenario, Myself, Bob, My security agency, Bob's security agency.

I'm hanging out at my house and Bob trespasses on my property, breaks into my house, and steals my TV and runs back to his private property.

I alert my security firm and tell them what happened. They come and investigate and if they feel I have a case, they contact Bob's security firm and let them know what happened.

Now Bob's security firm has 2 choices,

A.) they can negotiate and pick a mutually acceptable private court to decide the case.
B.) they can refuse and risk repercussions

Many of you underestimate the repercussions that would ensue here IMO.

Now, nobody is going to co-operate with their investigations. So let's say somebody breaks into Bob's house and steals HIS TV. He asks his security firm to go investigate and bring the culprit to trial but since his security firm doesn't co-operate with other security firms investigations, no other firm is going to co-operate with them.

And because that firm no longer has the ability to co-operate with other security firms, it will no longer be able to protect its customers, will lose its business, and go under, leaving only the firms that co-operate with investigations left.

Yes there will be those that choose to operate outside standard legal society (just like that happens today, nirvana fallacy FTW!), but those will have to risk the repercussions just as anybody in Mob or the Samalian pirates risk violence from people. THEY won't be able to prosecute anybody in a court of law. They're on their own.

What if Bob does not have a security firm, but instead relies on informal associations to pursue vendettas and settle scores?

What if his security firm comes to an agreement and he fires them? They can say 'look we tried but don't blame us, we don't represent him anymore, lets still do business and investigate together.' Or could that not happen?

Once Bob has fired his firm he has nobody to protect him from my security firm who can now apprehend him for his crime and bring him to trial.

Last paragraph

Yep. Who wouldn't fire their security firm the instant it starts collaborating with the enemy? This would of course create a business opportunity for other firms catering to those newly without security for this reason. Lol.

What does that mean? I never said the Bob who uses informal associations was doing anything illegal.

Then he's a criminal and will be dealt with accordingly.

Seeing as how Bob is contractually obliged to accept any agreements arrived at by his insurance company, then even if he fires them after the fact, he's still obligated to pay the restitution (or whatever) his insurance company agreed to on his behalf. In fact, it's likely the insurance company would pay up front, and then go after Bob for failure to meet his contractual obligations with them.

Again, do you just try and make up what you think is an impossible hypothetical in an attempt to play the gotcha game? Or are you thinking these situations through and not arriving at a conclusion?

According to what (contractual) due process?

Bob obviously fires his insurance company just before he starts his crime spree.

If he's not harming anybody what's the problem?

Then it is Bob (with nobody to defend him) vs a professional security agency who is obligated to defend their client's property. I think Bob is in some serious trouble.

This is what I meant in another thread about how you cannot have a moral system imposed beforehand. In ACland these protection firms would not only defend the "rights" of their clients but compete with other firms to define what a "right" is--what IS a violation. Without a final arbiter in the process it would be constant internal war.

Unrelated... Why can't I buy an island to harbor criminals from these bounty hunters for a free?

Tracking people down who are trying to elude capture is an expensive proposition. What sort of budget do you suppose the security firm will allocate to apprehending this at-large thief of a television set?

Lol, the same the state police would.

And make a profit while doing so?