<What do you have against government protecting its citizens against each other?>
Where the heck did you get the idea that I don't think the state should protect citizens' property rights. That's exactly what I think the state should do. That's about all they should do, other than allocate communal property such as spectrum, oceans, rivers, air, land, minerals and so on. As well as managing communal risk such as idiots manufacturing a 100% fatal virus to do scientific research on it to see if they can invent a cure .... 'ooops, sorry, it got away'.
If a doctor claims they can do such and such, then does damage contrary to their claim, that's well covered, just as if somebody claims to have made a petrol tank which won't explode, and then it does because of faulty design, they are liable for damages.
I suppose the court system could be privatized and run on behalf of the state by companies which would tout for jurisdiction. People agreeing to a contract could agree to a particular court's jurisdiction as part of the contract. Come to think of it, I think they already do that, but the jurisdictions are part of the state monopoly system of the legal cartel.
That would get around the delays and fraud and idiocy and "other things" because jurisdictions which are any of those things would find they don't get any business and would go broke.
Good on you for pointing out another defect of the monopolistic government system. Well done. You'll be a Libertarian any day now.
Mqurice |
