Calling something corrupt and broken in its very design and saying we need something new and presenting something new is what i've done. So I really don't understand your first paragraph, because that isn't what i've done and you know that, if you've actually read what I posted. Fact of the matter is the system is doing what it is designed to do, you talk about fixing it, it isn't broken so until you come to the realization that the very system you want control of leads to the negative effects you are living through now, nothing will change.
I told you how the security will be paid for, by those who want it with currency. Its very simple.
Privatize security is an answer to monopoly, because you have different vendors to come in the market to compete. That is the point of privatizing and having competition for the anacap.
Nothing prevents abuse, like laws don't prevent crime, the only thing we want is to limit the ability to remedy abuse, and hold those accountable. It is easier to hold private security accountable because they aren't a monopoly, because they don't run every aspect of the process because they don't have full control of investigating their own actions than any other alternative.
Its pie in the sky to say we need to stop doing the same thing with the same results if we want different outcomes, but it isn't when you claim we can fix this with the processes put in place by those in power, which hasn't worked since these processes have been talked about. I think you are projecting.
Yet private policing existed in environments without government policing and its documented in the very link I presented to you, as well as with regard for the wild west and the private security offered there, and in the case of the Wild West, it provided greater security, less violence than the US in the East during teh same period.
Who said anything about bartering, you literally have to pull up things no one said to knock down, because you can't logically construct an actual argument.
Why should i admit someting you want, when i don't believe in that, and i have told you what i'm in favor of? That literally makes no sense. It is if you have given up, but you want me to agree that you are right so you can save face. Very strange.
Self interest is what drives the creation of societal norms and customs, and these have very little to do with an outside body with a monopoly of force imposing them.
What do the US marshalls or sheriffs have to do with what i actually argued? Absolutely nothing.
Self-interest doesn't mean selfish, nice attempt to play on words and by the connotation shift game, but I see through it. If we were to hold your logic constant, you would tell us the "golden rule", do unto others as you would have them do unto, is selfish. No its self-interest of those that follow it.
I have no want to make the state as small as possible, I would like to see the state cease to exist. Again read what i've written instead of arguing with the man inside your head.
I said a new process of enforcing norms, whcih is through more voluntaryist means. Honoring that a person has full control of their property, which means their income, body, land, and etc. Enforcing norms through more ostracization and contract and government via contracting more than monopoly of force through the state.
The law doesn't stop lawbreakers though, and if it had a disincentive effect, it would definitely show up with regard to capital crimes, yet historically studies on the effect of capital crimes show they do not have any disincentivizing effect.
Poor people, rich people, middle class people get nothing but what they work for and buy or what others give them voluntarily.
, but the wheel 2.0?