[A.J.Armitage]

It doesn't follow. An elementary rights analysis would show that it is rightful to come to defense of the rights of others; but it is not rightful to commit aggression on behalf of others.

You know that, and I know that, but JMJ333 doesn't. If you allow agencies to go past punishing crimes against their clients, there's no structural reason not to have agencies punishing whatever someone's willing to pay for.

Thus a charity hiring a protection agent to punish abortionists would do so by rights of protecting the unborn, while NARAL hiring another agent to protect the mother's whims would be out of bounds.

Architect doesn't agree. You and I hire hire one agency to punish abortionists, he hires another to protect them, and, as John Locke would put it, we make our appeal to Heaven.

Your agrument would work in an environment without laws, but it doesn't work in the environment you present according to Hoppe, where the use of force is moderated by judges.

Pro-life judges or pro-choice ones?

[JMJ333]

You know that, and I know that, but JMJ333 doesn't. If you allow agencies to go past punishing crimes against their clients, there's no structural reason not to have agencies punishing whatever someone's willing to pay for.

I'd like to see where I advocated anything except upholding the law in regard to prostitution and drug abuse. I've been advocating societal standards, and somehow you've interpreted that to mean government agencies going past punishment. Seems to me there is always a way to twist out of having to deal with concrete truths. Prostitution, as well as drug use, are indeed immoral and should remain illegal.

[Architect]

Architect doesn't agree. You and I hire hire one agency to punish abortionists, he hires another to protect them, and, as John Locke would put it, we make our appeal to Heaven.

I never said this and don't agree with it. And I would have appreciated a flag.

[annalex]

You may have an advantage over me since I haven't read Hoppe's book. We either have judges or we don't. If we do, they go by rights and not by whims or by who hired them. If they don't do that, then they are not judges, they are PR wing of the private securuty firm.

In either case, your objection is the standard objection to anarchy, that supposedly nothing prevents people from hiring a criminal gang instead of a protection firm. There is nothing in your objection that is specific to abortion. You could just as easily said that I can hire goons to do my murdering, then choose judges that believe in murder.

The question is, is independent and competent adjudication possible in the environment where multiple independent law enforcers exist? I haven't read the book, but I don't see why not. Here is

Annalex-Hoppe Theorem. In a multiple law enforcer environment, independent judiciary will reflect the community standard of justice.

Indeed, if a judge consistently allows verdicts that do not reflect the community standard of justice, a coalition of enforcers will form against him, and it will be stronger than a coalition of enforcers in his defense.

So, in a way, you are right that pro-abortion verdicts are possible under a multiple enforcer system, if the community standard of justice is pro-abortion (or pro-murder, pro-credit card fraud, etc), but that is no different from a single enforcer system that we have now.