Sounds great! So, who is going to build the roads, schools, hospitals, water sanitation, power plants, transportation, and ensure their upkeep and performance without conflicts of interest? Who is going to decide whether you can hire private armies to enforce your will or not? Who is going to make sure that those with power are held accountable to those without?
Please share your thoughts.
As for crime control(such as hiring a violent army, or shoplifting), companies could form unions that will turn down the business of "convicted" criminals. If you steal from a Walmart and you get caught by their union, then Walmart and every other retailer in that union isn't going to sell to you in the future. It's against the personal interests of a company to hire their own private army.
Sounds pretty tame to the actions of the US state, doesn't it?
Thus the private army which fights to free him would be agreed to beforehand.
And presumably Walmart would lose access to some of their markets as a result, and be fined, and/or and/or etc.
Agree with who exactly about those requirements?
The term "jurisdiction" itself implies some governing entity from which to exercise jurisdiction.
I'll assume you mean "the local commune", and when Wal-Mart ignores the rulings of the local commune and opens a shop anyways, what is the commune going to do about it?
Eject them by force you say from the local commune's militia? Wal-Mart will have a bigger army, because they can pay for it.
Eject them by force with a coalition of regional militias perhaps? That might work, but a regional coalition of actors with the right to use force isn't an anarchist commune, it's a government.
For example:
If you've got this one 'government' controlling everything, what happens if it just up and decides to start enslaving tens of thousands of people and sending them to die in horrific trench warfare? Who's going to stop this 'government' from doing that?
What if this 'government' starts outlawing certain plants and/or alcohol, and punishing people harshly for using them? Who's going to stop the 'government' from doing that?
What if this 'government' enacts racially discriminatory laws?
What if...
Don't turn the question around.
And don't forget that the one proposing to change the status quo is the one with the responsibility to prove that their proposed change is better, not simply "just as bad".
Nor the ability to opt out entirely.