(June 24, 2013 at 4:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The hell they aren't........They aren't though. If laws don't apply to everyone, there is no point to having them in the first place.
Quote:The consumer.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")?
Quote:Of course. Though the other company may make good on a service that someone else paid for against their interests, same as debt collection.Then there is no point in having the laws in the first place.
Quote:Why and how?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, 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, but it doesn't matter, if it is the "best" law for the overal society. 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.
Quote: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?
Quote:Why would you pay for a court if it didn't respect the laws you also payed for?Multiple reasons; there may not be any alternatives in the area, for example. Or perhaps the court may support most of the laws you paid for, but not a small subset of them.
Quote:Whose jurisdiction is it, and by this I mean, which company bought the rights?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?
Quote: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 or medical care?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.
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.
