Rand Paul

[Tiberius]

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

They really do. Some depend on circumstances, but the point of laws is that they apply to everyone. There may be different laws on murder depending on the type of murder, but the law is still there, preventing people who murder from getting away with their crimes.

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

Either you didn't understand my question, or you haven't thought your idea through very well. If we are going with an entirely private system, then there is nobody who owns the "rights" in the first place, so no company can buy them. A company can just say "I now own these rights, and anyone who pays me can have them too". However, that doesn't stop another company from saying "I also own these rights, and anyone who pays me can have them as well". If the first company tries to sue for ownership, well guess what, the second company can just go to a court which favours it (or heck, even create one) and win the court battle (or the first company could do the same). I thin this example shows how ridiculous the concept of laws and the justice system as private enterprises can be.

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

Right, so say I form a contract with you that says you give me $1,000 for my product. After you give me the money, I refuse to give you my product. You try to take me to a court that sides with you, but I refuse to go, and instead go to a court that sides with me. Since there is no single point of authority on the law or the justice system, I win by default (I already have your money, and you have no way of getting it from me). Of course, if you had a lot of money, I suppose you could hire an army and come to kill me, but what does that say about your idea of a society? That the rich and powerful have all the power? I don't like that idea at all. Hence why laws and the justice system needs to treat everyone equally, and be fair.

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

This has nothing to do with self regulation. The market does not treat everyone equally; nor does it have to. A business can refuse to do business with you if you don't have enough money. A court cannot (and should not) be able do the same thing.

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

I've shown in multiple examples now why this is ridiculous.

Communist!

Do you want me to be serious with you or not? I'll gladly debate this thought experiment, but not if you're going to be silly about it.

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

What part about the "one vote each" thing did you not understand? The wealthy should be able to pay for more expensive clothes, food, etc. because those don't have an immediate (negative) affect on anyone else...in fact, they often have a positive affect (i.e. the producers get more money). If the wealthy simply paid their way out of committing crimes, well then, that does have an immediate negative affect on other people.

Someone ( or a group of someones) is always wealthier than you.

You know that's not true. Simple application of mathematics demonstrates it...

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.

The point of capitalism is that multiple companies have competing, but ultimately similar products. What happens when the consumers decide that two or more companies own the same laws / rights?

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

I've demonstrated again and again how they aren't commodities. They do not trade, and any system which attempts to use them like that cannot function.

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?

If you don't see the fundamental difference between something like law / the justice system and something like food / healthcare, then you are either blind or you have not been paying attention to a thing I've said.

The Law and Justice are required to be applied equally for the entire system of society and government to work. If laws don't apply to everyone, and if justice can't handle cases equally, then the system is unfair and falls apart (as I demonstrated). This is simply not true for food / healthcare. People can survive on a certain amount of food and healthcare, but it does not have a knock on affect for fairness and equality if someone who earns more eats more (or better quality) food and has a better doctor.

What you eat and how good your doctor is affects you and you alone. The law and the justice system affects everyone.