As stated previously in this thread, people will have guns in ACland, making breaking and entering to steal someone's TV pretty ******ed. I imagine guns will be pretty cheap too.

I also think we might see more and better private security at retailers, markets, etc., but maybe not.

None under the state.

Not under the state.

False dichotomy.

Probably, just like I can insist on an insurance company to adjudicate my traffic accidents.

What's to stop him from insisting his case be heard by Acquittals R Us?

Disregarding the justice discussion for now.

I disagree with the book's simplistic premise based on the quotes from the OP. The vast majority of people do not have such a black and white viewpoint as being either "inclined to liberty" or "inclined to mastery". Most of us want a balance. Even libertarians' notion of property rights and self defense is a form of "mastery". Personally, I'm inclined in favor of taxes, government services and business regulation, but against prohibition of things like drugs, prostitution, gambling, gay marriage etc. Considering conservatives tend to have somewhat the opposite viewpoint they are not necessarily more or less "inclined to liberty" than I am, but just inclined to liberty in different domains.

What's to stop you from using an insurance company that never finds you at fault for an accident.

Assuming the alleged television thief does insist his case be heard by Acquittals R Us, is that what happens? If not, why not?

Answer my question please.

You mean the question you asked as a way of not answering my question?

Answer it.

Interpretation of this exchange is left as an exercise for the reader.

Answer the question.

And yes, yes it is.

He answered your question.

No, he didn't.

Acquittals R Us could not exist because there would be no market for a blantantly biased private court. If I had to guess though, I imagine there would be some established procedure for agreeing upon a court, maybe in some ways similar to jury selection currently. Who knows? But regardless, if the thief wouldn't abide by commonly accepted procedures for choosing a court, he'd subject himself to whatever corrective action the security company would decide to take against him. The actions that the security company would take would probably be reasonable and proportional to his offense and in line with common law practices, because in a competitive security market, it would be in their best interest to take such a course of action.

I can't imagine any situation where insurance companies don't make agreements with each other regarding which courts they'll use when they are involved in a case with each other.

In the case where the criminal doesn't have representation, he probably gets shafted. Too bad, so sad.

And here is what makes discussing with you so ****ing annoying. I KNOW this has been explained to you in the past, in this thread and others, and you absolutely ignore it every single time, presumably because it takes away your ******ed "point".

He does not need to consent. The non aggression principle clearly states that you cannot initiate force against another. If you steal from me you have initiated force against me. I am free to defend myself, which includes taking you to court to recover damages incurred by your initiation of force against me.

Yes, that was implied. BUT, surely you can see how making the guilty criminals pay for their legal costs hugely helps defray the costs of catching criminals.

This is the main reason why Bob will need to have his own security firm. Without one, he's kind of at the mercy of his criminal catchers. But as Boro pointed out, the State doesn't need any consent nor does it offer a choice of venue.

But IF Bob has a security firm, the two security firms will negotiate for a mutually acceptable trial and venue.

The fact that he refuses to answer the question illustrates that you guys are wasting your time. He's already decided what the truth is. He decided it when he first came to the politics forum and saw people talking about this crazy thing that threatens his world view. To defend that world view, he will grasp on whatever ad hoc and handwaving arguments are at hand. When they prove inadequate, he will either simply not respond, or he will seamlessly shift to another set of ad hoc handwavings.

Sorry, bad timing. I meant you answered his.

Well ACism can be a radical paradigm shift for a lot of people. It certainly seemed crazy to me when I first encountered it. But at least he shows a willingness to interact with the ideas. Yes he seems like he won't budge for now, but cognitive dissonance, cognitive dissonance, cognitive dissonance.

And him asking questions about it, even though they may be repetitive questions, allows at least myself to help spell out the ideas in my own head even though he may never be convinced.

I appreciated your attempt to address the question, but opening your post with the above sentence did put a damper on it for me.

No market for the services of Acquittals R Us? How about every defendant in a criminal or tort case? Think maybe that's enough of a customer base on which to run a business?

Which of course creates an exploitable market niche for services to those who require a court free to acquit their own clients without constraining preexisting agreements.

The problem you're having is that, in the eyes of the law, no one has stolen anything from you, or therefore owes you anything including voluntary participation in the court proceedings of YOUR choice, BEFORE a due process finding of liability has occurred.

Overlooking for now the practical collectability of such judgements from the typical defendant, and more especially organized crime, as a reliable revenue stream on which to run a business, I don't dispute this in principle.

at the mercy of his criminal catchers /= due process of law. More like frontier justice.

Unless he hires an ad hoc no-negotiations-with-terrorists firm for just such emergencies whose venue of choice is exclusively Acquittals R Us.

Of course there is a market for something like this. Similarly, there is a market for PhDs that you can buy without actually doing any work.

Neither one of these are a problem that we really need to lose any sleep over.

Judgments, like academic degrees, are not some sort of magical relics. They are just opinions. If the party issuing the opinion has a crappy reputation, then then opinion will not be widely respected.

Yes, if you do not hire a security firm (i.e. participate in organized society), you will be at the mercy of whatever "justice" happens to come along. This is why 99.9% of citizens will have a security firm of some sort to avoid just this sort of problem.

I'm gonna say this one last time. MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE LEGAL VENUE. Both sides must negotiate and agree on a court that both deem to be acceptable.

I'll also pre-empt your next objection which will go something like: "But what if the criminal refuses participate in any court except aquittals R us?"

IF the criminal does not have a security firm, he won't have a choice.
IF the criminal does, then the security firm won't last long unless they play ball with the others firms and get cases into legitimate courts.

Four out of five mobsters surveyed prefer a not-widely-respected acquittal to a well-respected conviction any day.

Also, if you can only hire a small security firm, you will be at the mercy of whatever someone with a big security firm wants to do to you.

That's exactly my point!!! A clearly guilty defendant will simply never find any venue acceptable (except, of course, Acquittals R US).

Why not? All of their clients are like our alleged thief here.

Yet again: Why would a clearly guilty defendant in a serious case EVER consent to going to your idea of a "legitimate" court?

He, and what he considers to be the legitimate security firm he has hired, are more than happy with the legitimacy of Acquittals R US? Who are you or anyone else to force him to choose differently?