Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What you are saying is indeed a common conventional wisdom opinion taught in grade school. Thus, people who believe differently might do so because they've thought more about it than an 8-year-old. Perhaps they've looked into the history or the economics of the situation. Congratulations on that cheap blow suggesting there's something childish and immature about understanding history, government and law. > With or…
> You do realize that this means only the rich and powerful can defend their property, right? Nope, I don't realize that at all. It's a common objection made by people who don't understand how private legal systems work and have never looked into it. You'd know better if you had read the books I recommended above. There is no way to perfectly defend property - "utopia is not an option" - but you can raise the cost to…
I read it, and I admit, in my teens, I had a similar sort of wishful thinking about ideal societies, but it's ignoring a couple of issues.
Firstly, it's basically a kind of for-profit government. Will that ultimately be better? Look at how many companies screw their customers now, often without their customers noticing. Of course once customers notice, they can switch, _if_ there is sufficient competition. But companies love merging, and at some point, a powerful protection agency can dictate terms to smaller agencies. The largest agencies can form a cartel to concentrate and divide even more power. And sure, you can switch to a small, independent agency, but will they be able to protect you against the big guys? Maybe if enough people switch, but that takes time.
In the end, you're trying to play one protection racket against another protection racket, but in the end, you're still stuck with a protection racket.
Let's first try to get honest competition working in something fairly innocuous like telecommunication, before we start giving those companies real power, okay?