“This private company attained a monopoly, how?”
“The company received a Royal Charter from Queen Elizabeth I on 31 December 1600”
Since you have already provided proof that such company gained its monopoly on the use of force or threat thereof to initiate aggression, you are actually making my point, again.
“How would your system prevent a similar situation developing with no regulation or means to enforce it?”
I have already tried to explain how norms would be enforced in the market. It is all there in the non-aggression principle.
The non-aggression principle states that no use of force or threat thereof is justified if used in starting aggression against another person’s self or property. Use of force or threat thereof is only justified as a means of defense against aggression initiated, being aggression not merely the initiation of employment of force but also the threat thereof.
That being said, the free market would work using force or threat thereof to defend people against aggression initiated against them, so, differently than a government, it wouldn’t start from a position of aggression itself to then use force or threat thereof to enforce them.
A private court, for instance, may rule that an aggressor owns his victim some sum of money or value to pay for the compensation to the damage done to the victim’s self or property.
In this instance, the private court may have agreements with banks, so that the banks help the private courts transfer the necessary sum of money from the aggressor to the victim. The banks may even offer to their customers insurance against being sued so that in the case they don’t have enought money their monthly payments may cover the costs. The banks may reserve themselves the right to not contract such judicial insurances with people that are being currently sued. The banks may also sell these judicial insurances to help those in litigation to pay for their expenses at the court.
In the case the aggressor doesn’t have money in the banks, or not enought, the private court, or the banks, may lend the victim some security personnel to retrieve the remaining value for compensation, or it may offer such service in the judicial insurances. Since they would be acting in defense of the victim’s self or private property, this wouldn’t constitute the initiation of aggression. In the case the aggressor doesn’t have enought resources with which to compensate for the victim’s damage, the judicial insurance may cover the costs at the expense of the bank, which will then proceed to collect the value from the aggressor after time.
In such cases, even if the aggressor or the victim is poor, and is without judicial insurance, he may still be able to fend for himself. Since banks are involved, he may borrow money from the bank to make his case. He may even use proof that he is on the right side as collateral for the debt, making the interest rates lower. The bank may require to keep the evidence with itself, safe, to garantee more chances it will be preserved before it goes to the court.
And private courts, of course, as well as banks, in a free market, want to conduct as many businesses as they can. They need consumers to keep existing after all, so they need to act in the interest of the consumer. Again: the baker don’t bake bread to feed you, but to feed *himself*; nonetheless, he feeds you. This is, again, Say’s Law.
Then we come to the first part of your reply:
“The reason they do not police is because they are not skilled in law and
therefore not recognised by courts and therefore a conviction cannot be
gained against a perp.”
The fact that someone is not skilled in law, for a private court, makes no difference. A private court in a free market, i.e., in a situation where an institution didn’t monopolize the creationg and enforcement of laws throught the initiation of force or threat thereof, there’s no need for a guard to have training into a near-infitine array of laws. All he has to do is to be able to recognize when the non-aggression principle is being violated and act in defense of the victim of such aggression.
“your Mickey Mouse private security can enforce whatever ta fuck rules they want”
False. Private security and banks, arbitration firms, and so on, don’t enforce any laws they want, but the laws their consumers want.
I work with international commerce. Here, dealing with companies from two different countries, it is usual to have two or even three – sometimes four – banks *arbitrating* the deal when both companies conducting business don’t know each other and don’t trust each other. The proccess is similar to when you buy something with a debit card:
Importer wants to buy from exporter. Importer then ask for a budget from exporter. Exporter provides and importer is pleased with the price. Importer then goes to his bank and shows the budget bill the exporter gave him. The importer and his bank agree then that the best is to issue a Credit Letter. Importer tells exporter that it issued a Credit Letter in his behalf for the products on a certain bank. Exporter then informs Importer of his bank and account info, and informs his bank of the Credit Letter. If the importer’s bank don’t trust the exporter’s bank, it will ask for a third bank that it trusts to arbitrate the transaction, to receive from it the information the exporter bank, that it don’t trust, may send. If the exporter’s bank don’t trust the importer’s, it will ask for a fourth bank to get involved.
The Credit Letter is issued only if the importer has enought money for the operation, thus the fact that it issued it garantees the exporter he may be paid. The importer’s bank, with the importer’s authorization, “freezes” the correspondent money for the operation.
The exporter, then, ships the products to the importer, and send the shipping bill to his bank to send to the importer’s bank the original document. When the importer’s bank receives such information, it transfer the corresponding funds to the exporter’s bank. When the products get to the importer, it then sends the documents to his bank, that then tells the exporter’s bank, that then finally deposits the value in the exporter’s account.
If the exporter fails to provide the necessary documents, or if he falsifies the documents and sends nothing, his bank won’t receive the information that it can deposit his money in his account and he gains nothing.
If the importer pretends the goods didn’t arrive, it will be unable to receive the money back, since it is already in the exporter’s bank, unless it proves it didn’t receive the goods, but then it would have to prove the exporter didn’t send them too and, in the case the importer is lying, this will be impossible.
If a bank decides to take the money from the Credit Letter from itself, the party victim of it may not only be able to reobtain the money from all the documents produced in evidence, it may as well denounce such bank to all other banks and companies, and this bank is doomed to lose trust, and may not even be able to conduct internartional businesses anymore because no exporter, importer, or bank, trusts it enought.
Source : http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/02/the-dunning-kruger-effect-are-the-stupid-too-stupid-to-realize-theyre-stupid/1325