I understand how law enforcement could work (and in some ways, it does, for example public transport officials that check if you have a ticket), but leaving arbitration to the "free-market" seems far fetched.
Can you clarify?
Basically, if you are the victim of a crime, you wouldn't want to just seek justice yourself, because your community might think you are the aggressor, and then your reputation would be damaged. So you would go to a court and pay them to rule on the issue. You would pick a court with a good reputation, so that everyone knew you're not just trying to cheat. The court would then rule, and if you won, you would be justified in paying some police to seek justice. The police would also want to make sure you had first sought judgement from a good court, since they have to worry about their own reputation as well.
For instance, if someone stole something from you, you would bring your evidence to a court, and have them rule. If they rule in your favor, you could higher police to go retrieve your stolen property. Or if you are the victim of violence, you would follow the same procedure, and then be justified in having the aggressor locked up for a while. You'd probably want to have police/court insurance in case you are the victim of an expensive crime.
For more info, here is a good video on this subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V...
Also check out the works of Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio, and read the works of Murray Rothbard.
Another obvious problem is that if you rob someone thoroughly enough, they won't have the resources to hire police to get their stolen property back. It's the perfect crime!
I haven't read all your source material, but from what you've said so far, these ideas simply don't make any sense.
Inevitably the accuser and accused are going to disagree; the logical consequence is an impasse and no trial, unless the accused is incarcerated pending trial, in which case the accused is essentially coerced into accepting the terms of the accusers representatives, irrespective of their guilt.
If parties are being paid by one party desiring a particular outcome, it's foolish to expect that "fairness" is going to be their prime motivation. One quality ultralibertarian capitalists seem to share with communists is excessive optimism about human nature.
FWIW I don't think your post warranted the downvotes even though I disagree with it.
Interesting, this is quite in line with how modern society currently operates. Serial killers will generally be convicted of only a handful the crimes they commit. The result is that although the dead are not avenged, the nuance to society is removed.
To my mind, a much more sensible system would resemble the federalized structure we have now in the States, only without physical/territorial borders preventing an individual's migration from one jurisdiction to another, and without any considerable barriers to entry for emergent States.
Essentially, a minimal and immutable Constitution with a federal registry of member states and arbitration services -- member states which any group of people may establish on their own, and to which any individual may freely subscribe (or renounce); arbitration services publicly listed, from which the member states (and individuals) could select ordered preferences for, with a Federal arbitration council as a final fall-back option, should no parties have coincident arbitration services on their lists.
My notion of anarchism is not that it is against laws or the establishment of governments, only against compulsory subscription and subjugation to them. Removal of territorial borders as the basis for what constitutes a "State" and allowing a free market in decentralized legal systems to arise, under controlled conditions that provide rules and means for these budding governments to interact and cooperate with each other within a larger scope of law, is the only way any stable form of anarchism could ever occur.
tl;dr As an AnCap, I support a federalized breed of constitional clan politics, NOT Rent-A-Cops and Kangaroo Courts.
But jurisdiction in cases between two or more parties who subscribe to different states/clans/legal systems could be determined in any number of ways: - by (most commonly, I'd expect) arrangements and treaties between the most prominent/populous states; - by having largely mutual sets of common law to begin with; - by smaller states having statutes deferring to others' laws except in particular types of cases (a sort of inheritance system, allowing smaller states to mirror the laws of larger states which have existing treaties and case law); - by arbitration through mutually agreed-upon services, or the federal arbitration service; - or even by federal statute, in Constitutional cases, human rights cases, and cases against states/clans themselves.
Yes, inter-state law could in many situations become extremely complex, particularly in metropolitan areas with diverse populations; however, the low barrier to entry for states and the fluidity with which a person could change their affiliation would allow legal systems to evolve at such a rapid pace that overcomplicated, unjust, or murky bodies of law would be weeded out or refined by actually having to compete with the creation of simpler and fairer ones -- a process that politics today seems designed to avoid entirely.