RE: What a Libertarian Society Would Look Like
Sure. But the other solutions still come down to competing force groups. There is no getting around force as the final arbiter.
The question then becomes: is it in society's benefit to split that force between competing groups? Or do we put that force into a government? Both choices come with certain costs. And clearly the value of each choice can be different depending on the circumstances (you probably don't want your force solely in the hands of Nazi Germany Or communist Soviet Union).
And by the way, this discussion seems to be restricted to clear-cut criminal actions - like theft or murder. But really, these are probably a minority of the cases. The thing is, even people with the best intentions can and will have conflicting perspectives and values. Many times these conflicts can be resolved through conversation; but many times they cannot. That's why we have civil courts, etc. While we may not think of small claims court as a place of violence and force, really, it is. Two people disagree. The court makes a decision. And the loser needs to pay up. Or else.
I accept your point about force. I have never said anything against it. I do of course think force should be used only in self-defense or in defense of the weak, but I do not believe there will ever be a world in which violence and aggression are absent. So let's agree to agree on this point, ok? ;)
Balance of power is always preferable to centralized power (which can be abused much more easily and more effectively, i.e. violently), in my view. Also, we believe in the Non-Aggression Principle (the NAP), which means we are much more inclined to have a constitutional republic based on Austrian principles and liberty than we are to accept communism or fascism.
Finally, I agree about your disputes, but I do not agree that government courts are the only or the best solution to such problems. I believe Scotland (or Ireland?) had a private arbitrator system that worked effectively for something like half a millennium. Basically, both parties in a dispute would agree on hiring one arbitrator (it was a business, with competition amongst them to keep prices down, and to ensure the two parties would try to find an arbitrator they both respected). At the end of the day, they had to both accept the arbitrator's decision.
I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree. :) Thanks for the thoughtful discussion!
Likewise. Keep in touch!