When you are done laughing, could you offer any kind of refutation to what I said?
You stated you didn't like the plaintiff choosing the judge, but then couldn't refute it was exactly what happens when government holds the monopoly on justice / arbitration of disputes.
Are you listening to yourself? If this is the problem why the hell would you compound it and act like it's going to make things better? From what I can tell, nothing at all would ever get done. Lets say you win a case against me using your crony arbitrators. I call BS and bring suit against their judgement using my own set of cronies.
Where does it end?
Also, did you read what I had politely asked you to read a few posts back and how would you refute the Jones family analogy offered by Rothbard?
Yes I did. It's an absurd strawman that applies to maybe 100 or less like minded people. The reality is we are each surrounded by millions of people who all have different views and motivations and ideas of morality.
BTW, you ask good questions but seem a little unable to consider any information that contradicts your preconceived notions that what presently exists is the best that can ever be. Lighten up. You have potential if you are open to logic and don't jump back into the cognitive dissonant pool so readily.
I don't believe that what presently exists can't be better, that would be stupid, we obviously have a few issues to work out. No need to junk a car just because it needs a few new parts, though. You would propose we build the entire car out of bad parts and somehow it will just all work itself out.
