You cannot use LP's platfrom to describe the current system.
But I did not use it to describe the current system. What I said, that you seemed to miss, was that "my reference to the LP platform was only to give an example of showing that particular short comings in the system are not by definition a part of that system." That is not the same as using the platform to describe the system.
Speaking about ultimate or highest justice (the justice of last resort), you say you are "not sure what that really entails." I brought it in as I said for "clarity." This I thought was necessary, as you were speaking of a "system of collective defense" Since I pointed out that we already have such systems (plural) independently existing with in the current state system, as they also exists independently in all types of governmental systems, and you were using the the phrase "a system" (in a singular and not plural sense), I felt clarity was needed. I brought it up in relationship to your statement in reply #381 that a "...system of collective defense not based on the state monopoly of justice is also possible, we just don't have it." But we do have it. As you so elegantly pointed it out when you cited "Securitas" in your reply #279. I was thus left to conclude that the system you spoke of (in the singular) was a system based upon a highest justice, which would be a state monopoly of the highest justice, as opposed to all other levels of justice that are not monopolized. In other words, a court of last resort.
Your claim that the "Middle Ages had a distributed system of justice, -- not merely hierarchical like ours, but distributed, so that the Divine Law operates across political boundaries, and self-government prevailed in local matters," clearly sounds like a hierarchical super state monopoly to me. At any rate as far as this actually existing in a consistent and meaningful manner, so as to provide basic rights of any kind, to any one, in the middle ages, I cannot agree with in any respect. My disagreement here is so total, that with out further specificity as to when, where, and what it is you are talking about, my answer could go on for volumes and still not deal directly with what you are saying. Quite possibly, it might be in order here, for you to be specific as to a couple of neighboring regions, a particular 3 decade period of time, so as we may be able to more precisely discuss it.
I raised the question of "how a feudalism or monarchy, can possibly create a system of collective defense that is not based upon state monopoly, as they have become the state monopoly them selves." You replied by quoting my question out of context, leaving off the last phrase of it. In doing so, you enabled a switch from the singular to the plural, and then gave an answer that could quite easily apply to the current state system, as it would to a feudal system. Again I refer you to your own example of "Securitas."
Then you returned to the singular concept of state monopoly justice when quoting my statement that Rothbard failed, by agreeing with me for all together different reasons. Here you quite specifically put a "supernational" church up as having the monopoly on justice in a single state system, as the final authority on law. Further stating that Anarchism coupled with common culture of objective truth (that is church authority on law) is workable. I don't agree. But more importantly, a church ran state is not anarchy in any sense of the word.
You quote me saying "it was states that first instituted free markets." But you left out that I also went on to say that they (the states) were "also those who often restricted and eliminated them" (the free markets). Leaving this out, made it easy for you to come back with the question: "You call yourself libertarian?" You then went on to concede that "the state helps a free market by providing a system of contract law." States did a lot more than that. It may be worth noting here, that the few free markets that ever existed in history, it was a banding together of the people into a state that made it possible in almost all cases. No pure monarchy that I know of ever allowed a free market. England never actually had a free market, as many believe it did.
Of course I agree that contract law does not necessarily mean the state. But your example of international trade operating out side any one state by definition, does not exclude the state(s) from making it possible. International trade also does not necessarily have anything to do with a free market by definition. State imposed franchise trade arrangements and other barriers have always dominated international trade, even to this day.
Finally, your contention that restrictions in live that were common place during feudalism were not that much different from todays restrictions, except that hereditary rights were somehow more secure, just is not true in any respect.
If you inherit a farm today, you are restricted to be a farmer, or you sell it. The common avenue for advancement was religious orders and military careers. They were then a way to abandon what was secured by birthright in favor of something risky, and also potentially more rewarding. I don't ses much difference between that and the limitations the working class kids have in choosing their career today. The good thing about rights is that they secure benefits; one who wants to venture outside of the secure perimeter find little value in rights, today or a thousand years ago. However, a medieval man knew that his birthright could not be taken away legally. today, we don't have that knowledge, because of the democratic system of right distribution.
First off, if one inherits a farm today, they need not sell it or become a farmer, to pursue a different vocation. Today a lower middle class or working class person can pursue several vocations simultaneously, and need never settle on any one or two vocations. They can even become a bit of a jack of all trades and do so just about any where in the world they want to, and still be welcome back into the community they started out from as a visitor or to conduct business on a part time or full time basis. This was not possible during any of the unspecified medieval times you speak of. Further more the rights you speak of were not even close to being as common place as you think, but all the restrictions were.
I agree that LP is not subversive in any trasonous or otherwise negative way, sorry to have made that impression.
The point is that country-state (indeed a better term) is what we know. Perhaps the system can be transformed legally along the minarchist or anarchist lines, but it will be a different system once it is accomplished.
I understand that we have private security and agree that it may provide a kernel of law enforcement independent from the state. But we don't have a system of law separate from the state, other than completely deprecated common (customary) law. The medieval system was not merely hierarchical, it had independent subsystems of justice. The church law operated differently and independently across local jurisdictions. The king's court, ditto, and the local manor court was also independent. The church, for example, could not dictate the resolution of property disputes, and the king could not dictate what heresies were. When the king attempted to defy the Church, or the Church tried to dethrone the king, it was a crisis, resolved through diplomacy or arms. Therefore, these systems were truly independent, and the Church was not a super state, and it did not "run" any states. It was something similar to the system of universal rights that the libertarians hope to implement (do they?).
If I miscontrued any of your points, I apologize. I do not intend to obfuscate. Yours are long posts, and I cannot pretend to answer everything in them with precision. I prefer to make my point of view clear and let the reader decide.
Regarding the state's role in free markets: I do not dispute that it can play a positive role, for example, in setting up standards. The point is that the state is not necessary for a free market: roads are, and contract law. Feudalism provided the latter but not the former.
The ecconomics of medieval life were restrictive indeed, except for the thin upper layer. A farmer was uneducated and lacked leisure so as a practical matter he was stuck in the farm. A modern farmer has much greater mobility. But the medieval farmer knew that he and his children will have the farm forever, unless war destroys it or they sell it. Modern property rights are nowhere nearly as secure: laws can be passed that virtually invalidate farming or tax the farmer out of his land. Our property is subject to the whims of state; their property was subject to the ability of the farmer to physically defend it, himself or through contractual vassalage.