Rand Paul

[The Grand Nudger]

I know, but this isn't something I find attractive.

attractive =/= effective

Again, that seems to be a flaw rather than a virtue, not something we should encourage.

Again what appears top be a disagreement in tastes. Would you prefer something that works, or something that lines up with your values?

How would you ensure a competitive atmosphere? How would you prevent monopolizing collaboration?

If I'm in a position to "ensure" anything how am I promoting competition? Why not just ensure my continued profitability (as is already done)?

Seems as if that leads to justice serving the interests of whoever has the most money. Yunno, even more than it already does.

Indeed. But for every 5 star restaurant there are hundreds of McDonald's -es..., eh?

---

Possibly in the defense department (which is why I think private security / defense contractors are fine and should exist), but I don't think it works with the others, mainly because they aren't actually trade services.

The hell they aren't........

With legislature, you would have no single authority to actually enforce law. One company might create a law saying "Murder is illegal", whilst another creates one saying "Murder is legal". Who gets to decide which law we go with?

The consumer.

The bigger company? How do they enforce such a law? Do "customers" of the smaller company have the right to ignore the bigger company's law?

Of course. Though the other company may make good on a service that someone else paid for against their interests, same as debt collection.

Laws aren't services or products that can be traded (though some lobbyists seem to think they are). Laws are entirely different.

Why and how?

They are supposed to make society a fair and free place to live, and that sometimes means that some people are prevented from doing things, even if they are wealthy.

Nothing that free market law couldn't accomplish.

In the court system, is it fair that a wealthy person can buy a judge or a "not guilty" verdict for some crime they have committed. How would courts judge which crimes to follow anyway? Again, if people pay for private courts / laws, what happens when someone pays for a court that doesn't respect the laws of the company the person pays to?

Why would you pay for a court if it didn't respect the laws you also payed for?

What happens when someone sues a person over some violation of law X, and the other person pays for a different court that doesn't believe in law X?

Whose jurisdiction is it, and by this I mean, which company bought the rights?

I'm not entirely sure you are serious, or if you are just trying to provoke discussion. It's an interesting proposal, but I just don't think it works in theory or in practice. Laws and the justice system aren't something that can be traded; they are the systems in place which allow for fair trade.

Of course I'm not serious..come on, but I think that stumping for it very adeptly describes the ways in which it would not be applicable..to..oh...say...food or healthcare either. Tell me Tibs, why do your objections to my corporate justice and legislature not hold when the subject is food , medical care, or shelter?