Quote from: deisik on November 22, 2013, 12:42:34 PM

Quote from: hawkeye on November 22, 2013, 12:29:33 PM

There is no universal law now. Where is the world ruler and his/their laws that we all have to follow?

We currently have competing law providers that we are "contracted" to. I use contract loosely of course, because there is no such thing.

Why should a law provider be bound to a certain patch of land and no other law providers be able to operate in the same territory? If we had competition we could make actually choices about what we deem to be good laws and if we don't think our provider is doing a good job, we can end the contract and pick another law provider, without having to go through the hassle of emigration.

I don't understand where you're going... Cool

According to your logic there should be no "law providers", otherwise at the end of the day you will get where you started at, i.e. you will have a new ruler and a new set of rules... Grin

I said there is no universal law. Already we have competing law providers (called governments) that are tied to particular areas of land.

You will have competing law providers in the same area of land. There is a high demand for security and law and order and many entrepreneurs will be willing to provide it. The reason they don't now, is because the government has a monopoly and forbids it. It does this because it's good to have a monopoly on the provision of force in a geographical area. Allows you to extort your victims. It would be too expensive, in a competitive setting, for one company to build up the necessary force to dominate everyone else. The profit margins would be too slim and the company would go bankrupt before it even got close.