Rand Paul

[The Grand Nudger]

They aren't though. If laws don't apply to everyone, there is no point to having them in the first place.

Laws -don't- apply to everyone...Tibs...we still find use for them......

That's not a valid answer. There are multiple consumers in my example. Which ones do we go with? Consumers of company A ("murder is illegal"), or consumers of company B ("murder is legal")?

Its a perfectly valid answer. "We" go with whoever bought the rights to jurisdiction , and "they" go with whoever paid them for their services.

Then there is no point in having the laws in the first place.

See above. The laws are useful as a way to ensure that you recieve the service you paid for, you know....like a contract.....

Laws are supposed to keep everyone in check; they are supposed to apply equally for everyone. That isn't something the free market can provide,

It isn't? The free market doesn't self regulate through competition? Wonder of wonders....

nor is it something that the free market is designed to provide. The "best" law for someone might not be the "best" law for someone else,

Then they don't have to pay for that law which is "best" for someone else.

but it doesn't matter, if it is the "best" law for the overal society.

Communist!

We have a system for choosing these laws; it's called "voting", and to keep things fair everyone is supposed to get one vote each.

Vote with your wallet. It works (unless it doesn't)

Nothing that free market law couldn't accomplish.
Yes, it really is, especially in the scenario you propose. Can you describe how it would work?

Someone ( or a group of someones) is always wealthier than you. The company which serves them would outcompete.

Multiple reasons; there may not be any alternatives in the area, for example.

Sounds like room for competition, my system would thrive here.

Or perhaps the court may support most of the laws you paid for, but not a small subset of them.

It was your choice to pay for them, unless you didn't, and if you didn't someone else did (or else why are you in this position?)...so I don't see the problem, they're just acting on a contract they made with the purchaser.

You didn't answer my question. Also, how can a company buy "the rights" (as a single entity) when those rights are supposed to be created by law, which any company can create. That is to say, any company in your system could create contradictory rights to another company. Who wins then?

I did answer your question, you didn't like the answer. They buy the rights by garnering the consumers support, same as any other share of any market. Any company -could- create a law, but only those companies who out-compete their fellows could be said to have "bought the rights". Any company could bu contradictory rights, who cares, it's happened before, in the end the consumer decides who actually has them.

I'm glad you're not serious, but I don't think this is a very good example of what you are trying to prove. Food is a trade commodity, and so is healthcare.

They are both commodities, sure. What I;m asking..is why don't we consider law or courts commodities?

I'm not saying that food and healthcare can't be provided by government; clearly they both can, and if that is what most of the people want, then fine. However, they also work well as trade commodities. Laws and court systems do not.

Except that you haven't made them any different than food or healthcare. I don't see anything about law or courts that is in any way fundamentally different from food or healthcare, and if government can offer law or courts more effectively or "properly" than private enterprise.,.why not food and healthcare? Similarly, if private enterprise can offer food and healthcare more effectively or "properly" than government then why not law or courts?