The first half of the article, which makes the point that there are enough contradictions in law to allow for the deduction of any politically desirable conclusions, is quite compelling. I believe that most judges are rather moderate in this respect, and usually choose to interpret law in ways that are close to generally accepted social norms; but the observation that there is a very great deal of subjective discretion involved in this process, and that the social norms do change from century to century is very acute.

The second half is, by comparison, a let down. I happen to believe that the state needs to have a monopoly of force, in part because there are regions that have tried a free market in violence (such as contemporary Somalia and 4th century BC Ancient Greece) and it hasn't worked so well for them. And a monopoly of force necessarily implies a monopoly of legislative and judiciary functions to guide that force in a manner that is not too harmful to the rest of society. It's no wonder the author waffles when confronted with the question of what market-based law would look like - it's simply a concept that can't be defined too precisely without making it look completely unpractical to even the most unbiased reader.