In post #102 you have still missed what Dean and Joe said. They pointed out that you were pointing at Hawaii and in effect saying, "See, we should adopt anarchy because of how bad this is." That simply doesn't follow."
Well, no, that's a strawman argument that I didn't make. I wasn't "in effect" saying that. I was using the example of government I'm most familiar with, pointing out its problems, pointing out that if you support a monopoly of law then this is a situation that in reality can and does arise from an initially minarchic situation, and then, in the post below from another thread, pointing out how one A/C alternative would work.
Do you think this alternative would work better or worse than the current situation in Hawaii? Or do you think such a system is literally not achieveable at all?
If is really is achievable and better (which is a REALLY low bar to clear), then the only argument is whether a minarchic alternative would work better than an A/C alternative.
So, do you support my contention that both minarchy and anarcho-capitalism as outlined below would be better than the current situation in Hawaii? If so, then you have conceded that at least under certain circumstances, an monopoly of law can produce worse outcomes than competition of legal codes.
Bill: "I asked you whether you believed in competition between different legal systems within the same geographical area (David Friedman's conception) or competition in the enforcement of a uniform legal system within the same geographical area. This not a trick question; it is quite clear and capable of being answered."
OK, thanks for restating the question.
I believe that competition generally leads to better outcomes than monopolies, and thus David Friedman's conception, competition between different legal systems within the same geographical area, can lead to better results, if each competing legal system applies only to its own members when they interact among themselves, and when the competing systems have agreed in advance to how to handle interactions between their members.
Thought experiment: Imagine that in Hawaii, there are four would-be competing legal systems regarding economic issues in a geographic region -- Anarcho-Capitalist (AC), Minarchist (M), Social Democrats (SD), and Communist (C). The rough percentage of the populace for each viewpoint: 1% AC, 24% M, 40% SD, 35% C.
If one insisted on a single legal monopoly on the law for such disparate viewpoints, as is the current case, you'd have a war of all against the ballot box. In Hawaii, the real world result is a legal system that is a mishmash of SD and C thinking, with the two factions at war at the legislature where combined they control 90% of the seats, with just enough hobbled free enterprise allowed to exist to serve as a cash cow for the majority party's social welfare schemes, and some of the highest tax rates in the nation. Both the anarcho-capitalists and the minarchists get royally screwed, while the Social Democrats and the Communists are each kind of disgruntled that they don't control all the levers of power, but are somewhat placated by all the wealth they confiscate from the ACs and the Ms.
This is what Bill appears to be advocating in favor of. Let me know if that is not the case.
Now, let's replace this with a competing legal system for economic issues. Economic interactions between two people both subscribing to the same legal system for economic issues are governed by the rules of that legal system. Economic interactions between two people subscribing between different economic systems default to the numerically superior group (unless the two people mutually agreed upon one of the systems), so that * initially * the SD rules apply to interactions with C, M, and A subscribers, the C rules apply to interactions with M and A subscribers, the M rules apply to interactions with A subscribers. So, for example, Costco might make acceptance of a membership application contingent upon C and SD legal system subscribers voluntarily agreeing to a M legal system. And finally, no one can be compelled to interact with anyone else -- one can shun people from other legal regimes and refuse to do business with them, and no one can impose taxes on people from other legal regimes, other than taxes applied to voluntary financial transaction between people from these differing regimes.
I'll advocate for this system over the status quo in Hawaii, since under it, I would shun any business sporting a SD or C legal regime posted at their door. My effective tax rate would plummet, as the Communist and Social Democratic social welfare schemes would have to be financed among their own subscribers plus the few minarchists masochistic enough to do business with them.
I suspect that, pretty soon, the M and AC legal regimes for economics would become the predominant schemes, as only die-hard liberals would pay the prices the SD and C stores would have to charge.