[Shalom Israel]

The thing is that in the sort of capitalism today, where an individual interacts on a daily basis with such a huge variety of people, transaction costs mount so quickly that a state that can monopolize the policing business will be more efficient than a market of competing police and courts systems.

In the vast majority of interactions, nobody sues anybody. Why does a monopoly make the thing more efficient? In any example ever found in history, a monopoly has resulted in worse services at higher prices.

Case in point: What about international business transactions? How would you get a foreign client to pick, let alone trust, one of many private court systems?

Multi-national corporations are essentially anarchistic already. They operate in countries in which practically anything goes, or in which bribery is a part of doing business. They employ experts in various local laws, but as long as they're careful where and how they do things, they can do practically anything they want.

Not that I'm entirely in favor of that. But to suggest that government somehow makes international business easier, cleaner or more orderly, is almost funny.

[justinellis329]

In the vast majority of interactions, nobody sues anybody. Why does a monopoly make the thing more efficient? In any example ever found in history, a monopoly has resulted in worse services at higher prices. Being subject to a single legal system makes people's promises credible, because you can sue them in the courts. Whether you actually sue them or not is not so important. It would be much harder, take more time, and thus be less efficient if you had to try and figure out which court among any will make your promises the most credible, especially over international borders.