Are people equal, or peoples?

[Critical-Tim] How would anarchy deal with the problems of violence, crime, and injustice, without any law enforcement or judicial system?

[Athias] Dispute Resolution Organizations can handle tort and mediate disputes among individual parties; wrongful acts can also make one subject to Outlawry.

[Critical-Tim] Who would decide the law, would it be majority vote or something else?

[Athias] The free market.

I don't think I've seen a theory for a truly decentralized legal system,

and in my analysis such a thing is inherently flawed because there is only one right answer and when there is only one right answer leaving room for diversity is leaving room for error.

I don't wish to "pile on" you Athias, answer or delay answering as you see fit please.

A considerable part of the justice system is geared not towards resolving disputes but punishing crime so that criminality is not a tempting path.

As a consequence, and sometimes as a conscious goal is the motivation to defend the helpless.

A man who has outlived his family and no friends at the moment is murdered. He's dead, and there is no one to complain; but murder has been done and murder must be punished.

If private contractors were the ones upholding the law that means they are driven by money, do you not see this as becoming an issue?

No. Because consumers in a free market can opt out if dissatisfied.

Who would be responsible for funding these private armies?

The private armies would naturally sell their services.

Who would decide the law, would it be majority vote or something else?

The free market.

Without any uniformity of a government standardization people would be free to create their own religions and beliefs.

Okay...

Having said that, the moral structure for every individual would be at least slightly different, so who would be the judge of which moral structure is standard and will be used in prosecution?

Each party involved can agree to terms which they believe will resolve their dispute. Private mediation, for example, is quite effective and successful.

I don't see how anarchy could cultivate uniformity.

What does uniformity have to do with one's capacity to cooperate?

The more freedom a society has the freer people are to be

Is this not ideal?

and therefore the less likely they will be unified and seemingly uniformed.

Is this not a non sequitur?

As a result, societies that are driven by strict governments that are tyrannical or oppressive are very uniform and powerful such as the Nazis. Whereas people not driven by uniformity are not very uniform, and therefore do not work in uniformity.

Your criticism of anarcho-capitalism is that it's not Nazism?

Though the question still remains, who would create the standard of education and would everyone within the society be required to accept certification?

The free market; the best standards will emerge in a competitive market.

There definitely can be coordination between individuals in an anarchist society, but as I said before, the more free individuals of a society are the more variance there is between members of that society and the more variance between members of the society the less they seem like members of the society to others. Therefore, societies that are freer have a greater variance between the differences of members and have less uniformity. As a result, freer societies are less uniform and less organized because of the lack of cooperation and expectation of trust of individuals of a more respectable group which would be people and others who you agree with rather than a great variance of other people who do not truly unify with your own.

Again, is this not a non sequitur?

A man who has outlived his family and no friends at the moment is murdered. He's dead, and there is no one to complain; but murder has been done and murder must be punished.

Isn't this like "if a tree falls in a forest..."? Murder has to be investigated; murder has to be proven. But let's for the sake of argument consider that somehow this man's murder is properly investigated and sufficiently proven, then the murderer can be exiled or outlawed.

Who can opt out, the person who is guilty? I don't see how anyone could opt out of the law.

I recognize the private armies would be selling their services if they were being funded, but my question is who is responsible for funding the armies that guard the entire society.

Would the funding be a collective effort, and would the effort be equal or based on a person's income?

I don't understand what you mean by the free market. Is that the majority?

Perhaps private mediation is effective, but what would happen in the event that neither party is willing to accept an arrangement from the other?

What would be the overarching structure that both would be required to follow in the event neither are willing to accept an arrangement and who would determine this?

What happens if an individual has been tricked into making an agreement that was obviously unfair, but they did agree to it?

What happens if an individual has entered into life-long indentured servitude over the inability to pay back $100?

Would there be anyone to oversee which agreements or transactions are considered fair, or if there cannot be a resolution found between the parties?

Uniformity is how well you are unified, if you're not cooperating in uniformity then I don't see how a society would be well structured.

Would these private militaries be educated in the art of war and what is Considered ethical in the global warfare community?

In a society where the individual is more important than the nation, the problem is that the individual has nothing to live for after death.

In the end, it is a trade-off: more freedom means less meaning, and more meaning means less freedom. You buy one by selling the other.

My point is that governments that are uniformed and meaning driven are more powerful than societies that lack uniformity and meaning.

There is a middle ground between the concepts of freedom and meaning. I am not supporting Nazism, but I am also not supporting anarchism. I believe that both have important aspects of a society that are important, but the ideal society is between them, which is the balance between freedom and power.

I still don't understand what you mean by free market.

It only is non-sequitur if you just read the bold letters. By summarizing information into key points, one often loses resolution and clarity, along with accuracy of the original text.

Would there be a jury,

and would the jury be paid by the community?

Who would determine the penalty for the crime?

and in my analysis such a thing is inherently flawed because there is only one right answer and when there is only one right answer leaving room for diversity is leaving room for error.

Please elaborate.

A considerable part of the justice system is geared not towards resolving disputes but punishing crime so that criminality is not a tempting path.

A considerable part of the justice system is jailing individuals for harmless "crimes,"

and in effect, creating de-facto slaves, whose labor is outsourced to crony companies.

A man who has outlived his family and no friends at the moment is murdered. He's dead, and there is no one to complain; but murder has been done and murder must be punished.

Isn't this like "if a tree falls in a forest..."? Murder has to be investigated; murder has to be proven. But let's for the sake of argument consider that somehow this man's murder is properly investigated and sufficiently proven, then the murderer can be exiled or outlawed.

I will by extreme example: All Olmec derived civilizations took for granted the utility, sanctity, and permissibility of human sacrifice.

Regardless of how social morality is enforced, there is to my knowledge at least one objective theory of ethics which determines that anyone and any culture who engages in human sacrifice have chosen the path of savagery and forfeited any claim to enjoy liberty by right.

Therefore any system that tolerates a tribe of human sacrificing cannibals in or near itself as a inherent consequence of its constitution has failed to protect the objective right to liberty.

If an indispensable goal of the system you describe is not to protect liberty, then it is insufficient.

You can have decentralized enforcement of a single rulebook, there is no problem there; the problem is with a decentralized rulebook insofar as its a diverse rulebook.

Note that when I say "victimless crimes should not exist" I'm rejecting all rulebooks with victimless crimes in it, rejecting them not only for myself and my community but all communities.

The public is the slave in this case (and in most cases), almost no prisons make a profit by labor; many have no significant work programs.

Investigated and proven by who?

I'd support people whose job it is to investigate and prove all crimes regardless of complaints.

When you have a large group of investigators with broad popular support the rulebook that determines what is a crime and what isn't is the law and that group are police.

At what point do you call it a centralized legal system?

First the Olmec were ruled by monarchs

second, there's no moral condemnation in defending oneself even if it results in death. So if savage Olmec cannibals sought to use you in their sacrifices, by all means effectively end the threat. Why would this contradict the concept of liberty? Is it not enhanced?

You can have decentralized enforcement of a single rulebook, there is no problem there; the problem is with a decentralized rulebook insofar as its a diverse rulebook.

You haven't identified the problem. Each individual has their own rules of engagement; if individuals seek to cooperate with each other, then they can create terms that will service a mutual satisfaction. If they are not satisfied with the arrangement, they can choose to not opt in, or opt out. Case in point: Dating. Everyone has their own preferences and behave accordingly. There isn't a single, centralized rulebook. Does one risk STI contradiction, pregnancy, date rape, and broken hearts? Sure. It's vastly paramount to retain one's autonomy and discretion than to entertain the pretense one can avoid or prevent that which isn't (or should not be) under one's control.

At what point do you call it a centralized legal system?

When operations are not subject to consumer satisfaction--consumers who can opt out--but subject to the determination of a hegemonic organization that provides no real good or service.

That is irrelevant, this belief was nearly universal it was not imposed from above or else it would not survive changes in regime and we're talking about thousands of tribes and dozens of distinct child cultures.

Suppose I did, I get my hands on Spanish steel armor and I take out a hundred of them before making my escape. In anger they burn down my home and all my economic assets.

Then both their king and myself seek the services of a mediation group (two different companys). They claim I murdered a bunch of people who were just trying to get dinner and practice their religion. I claim I was driven from my home and demand justice and compensation.

Objectively I am in the right, but the system doesn't protect my liberty simply by not being inherently biased against my self-defense. It must not only be overwhelmingly biased in favor of my self-defense but also provide for justice even if I failed to defend myself (which is so often the case as aggressors are not idiots and often attack only when victory is near certain).

Please describe how anarcho-capitalist legal system fulfills those two requirements.

Let's stick with murder.

As the fundamental problem it is (and always has been) solving it would set a template for solving all other violations of liberty.

My rule of engagement is that anyone who would resort to murder dies. 95% of people who've seen a murder or been threatened by murderers will agree with me.

We will terminate or enslave anyone who dares to opt out of our zero-murder policy.

Problem solved? (Sounds a bit like the dawn of civilization to me)

So as long as nobody is forced to pay for it, you'll call in anarcho-capitalism? In that case my ideal government is a subset of your acceptable social constructs.

If you and the Olmec king seek mediation by having two companies represent your interests, then you either resolve your dispute or you continue it. Presumably, the act of seeking mediation would suggest that killing hundreds more of them, and their burning more of your homes and prospective economic assets isn't your primary goal. How you two come to terms and resolve your dispute is up to the two of you. If no arrangement is satisfactory, then the dispute goes on. If you fail to defend yourself, then your family, friends, or community can seek restitution for your wrongful death, in which case a separate mediation can occur--or they can go to war on your behalf. 

My rule of engagement is that anyone who would resort to murder dies. 95% of people who've seen a murder or been threatened by murderers will agree with me.

Argumentum ad populum.

We will terminate or enslave anyone who dares to opt out of our zero-murder policy.

Then your exercise of policy isn't based in any consistent moral economy; just your presumption to "punish."

Is murder "solved"?

So as long as nobody is forced to pay for it, you'll call in anarcho-capitalism? In that case my ideal government is a subset of your acceptable social constructs.

No, it's anarcho-capitalism if it's voluntary.

Yea it's going to be war, that's what happens with irreconcilable value conflicts.

So then it's back to the original arbiter: Military excellence.

There are a few rules in war, one is that all warfare is deception. A consequence is that no attack succeeds more often or more spectacularly than a preemptive strike.

In that case I'll see that these savages are a danger to everyone around them, and before they get a chance to burn down my house and kill me; I'll contract with a "mediator" who just happens to resort to violence 95% of the time. Let us call this "mediator" Mercenary Inc. Myself and other non-savages will pay Mercenary Inc to wipe them out. Not just the warriors, priests, and kings; but the families out to 2nd cousins.

Destroy the entire race and culture in a preemptive strike.

Now I'm safe, and the other people are safe. Any problem with this in your opinion?

Not at all, simply pointing out that the vast portion of resources and manpower will be available for my plan.

What's wrong with punishment? And if there is something wrong with it, someone can seek a mediation company. We'll kill them and the mediation company; but they can try right?

It's more solved than if the only consequence of murder was the equivalent of a civil lawsuit and even then only if you're identified and only if your victim had a lot of people who had both money and shits to give.

There are two different things to volunteer for.

A) Volunteer to support the enforcement of the law

B) Volunteer to obey the law

You imply that it is ethical to deal with the unacceptable behavior of some by hiring agents and having those agents use violence (perhaps as a last resort, but still violence).

There is nothing voluntary about doing murder,

and the murderer would not volunteer to be killed or exiled.

My ideal government can and would (by definition) require (A). How is it materially different from a giant version of what you call mediation organizations?

operations are not subject to consumer satisfaction--consumers who can opt out--but subject to the determination of a hegemonic organization that provides no real good or service.

then you have not taken a moral position against murder; there'd be no functional difference between you and a genocidal despot.

It's more solved than if the only consequence of murder was the equivalent of a civil lawsuit and even then only if you're identified and only if your victim had a lot of people who had both money and shits to give.

Yes, people would have to give a shit. I've never denied that. How is this premise any different than that of any other social organization? As I told Critical-Tim, the only unity necessary is in the respect of individual sovereignty.

There are two different things to volunteer for.

A) Volunteer to support the enforcement of the law

B) Volunteer to obey the law

Or one can volunteer to opt out.

My ideal government can and would (by definition) require (A). How is it materially different from a giant version of what you call mediation organizations?

Because:

Athias Post #37:

operations are not subject to consumer satisfaction--consumers who can opt out--but subject to the determination of a hegemonic organization that provides no real good or service.

Ok... then how will I be stopped?

What does that mean precisely?

Society wide shit-giving is indistinguishable from support for a unified set of laws.

Unified laws being inevitable the real problem is keeping those laws moral, in other words keeping those laws from being used to violate liberty (which may be identical to what you are calling individual sovereignty)

Opt out of what exactly?

"consumers" can opt out of supporting my ideal government. Explain.

Opt out of what exactly?

Any arrangement they deem unfit, including cooperation with laws you deem they must obey.

Ok... then how will I be stopped?

Persuade you, or effectively end the threat you've created which includes disabling you or killing you.

Whether you write it down or not, if you try to disable or kill me when I do something you find immoral, that's a law you deem I must obey.

Why can't I opt out of your notion that preemptive genocide is unacceptable?

Whether you write it down or not, if you try to disable or kill me when I do something you find immoral, that's a law you deem I must obey.

An oversimplification. It lacks the context that you are instigating and initiating harm or aggression--not simply my finding your action immoral.

I have every right to defend my person and my property, which coincides with unity in individual sovereignty.

Why can't I opt out of your notion that preemptive genocide is unacceptable?

If one is functionally indistinguishable from a genocidal despot, then one has already opted out of my notions on genocide.

In the end, it is a trade-off: more freedom means less meaning, and more meaning means less freedom. You buy one by selling the other.

Meaning is subject to individual evaluation.

My point is that governments that are uniformed and meaning driven are more powerful than societies that lack uniformity and meaning.

You haven't substantiated that anaracho-capitalist society lacks "meaning." And I've stated before the only unity "required" is in the concept that they're all sovereign individuals.

There is a middle ground between the concepts of freedom and meaning. I am not supporting Nazism, but I am also not supporting anarchism. I believe that both have important aspects of a society that are important, but the ideal society is between them, which is the balance between freedom and power.

On the "middle ground" is where you find inconsistency. You'll discover once you've extended these "balanced" premises to their logical conclusions, they're absurd. If one maintains that individual autonomy is the highest good, then anarchy is the logical extension politically. There's no "balance." You either subscribe to individual autonomy or you subscribe to individual behavior being subject to someone else's arbitration.

I still don't understand what you mean by free market.

Education as well as certification can be sold. Private organizations supplying these goods can compete in an an open market.

It only is non-sequitur if you just read the bold letters. By summarizing information into key points, one often loses resolution and clarity, along with accuracy of the original text.

I emboldened those parts to demonstrate contradiction. You state they (members of an anarcho-capitalist society) can coordinate and then conclude that they lack organization because you allege, they can't cooperate. So, let me ask you this: is voluntary organization impossible?

Would there be a jury,

If the involved parties want one, then there could be.

and would the jury be paid by the community?

Not necessarily. Naturally, this would be paid for by the involved parties, or the parties in dispute. If however a group of individuals seek to streamline costs and pool their resources, they would be more than welcome to do so.

Who would determine the penalty for the crime?

The free market.

To you "initiating harm or aggression" is more than finding an action immoral.

Yet that does not mean this is not a moral claim.

It's a code of behavior, a code that you insist on by force.

If your idea of mediation services must operate by this code of liberty then they operate by a universal law.

I see no reason besides semantics

to call that universal law and all its implications "the law" and the sum total of all organizations operating to enforce that law "the government".

I admit that no government exists that does not violate the law,

but that does not mean the word does not apply; you have to look at the definition and the definition of "government" does not imply any particular laws or support system.

A 'right' is a moral entity,

you have a right to do more than defend your person and property, but also the person and property of others.

If you didn't you couldn't have a right to work or run a "mediation" service could you?

"Opt out" must mean something along the lines of "I can disobey and you won't attack me".

If "opt out" means "I can disobey, and then you attack me for disobeying" then we can already opt out, after all the governments of the world can only attack in response to your disobedience;

What sort of consequences in who judges with consequence will be?

How is there any certainty for protection if the military is responsible for its own funding?

What would happen if society decided they didn't feel like they needed a military and a future generation because there's been peace for so long?

What would happen if the majority of people stopped funding the military, will there be any sort of requirement for funding, and who judges what is the requirement for funding?

I think this is an oversimplification of a complex issue. Not everything can just be "hashed out" between the parties involved.

What happens if there is no resolution between the involved parties who makes the final decision?

So, citizenship would be sort of like a consumer-based policy?

If people within the society do not purchase goods, they do not need to opt into the society,

For how long can a dispute be ongoing?

Is it possible for an individual to just keep pushing on a dispute indefinitely in essence past their lifetime and no consequences ever inflicted upon them?

If not, who judges this, and what is the overarching law that governs this aspect of society?

What happens if one of the members of the dispute decides it's become unreasonable, and they no longer want to postpone the resolution because they need money to resolve the probleIf there isn't, someone will take advantage of it.m from the other person otherwise, they will go bankrupt and the other refuses to determine the resolution therefore postponing causing issues for the person who needs resolution now? What happens if one of the members decides they are not willing to seek a mediator, or that they would like to postpone the dispute indefinitely? You said there are other means to solve this. Like what?

Who determines what is offensive can anyone just claim to be offended, and then the private mediator determines the resolution that is best in the interest of the person claiming to be offended?

Slavery was an exaggeration of my point. Who determines what is a reasonable and unreasonable bargain?

If there isn't, someone will take advantage of it.

Who would oversee, and who would determine who would oversee?

I don't believe uniformity among individuality is a strong one, and I know with certainty it is not the strongest one.

What happens if a war is coming, and the contractors feel they are not willing to fight at the agreed upon price as they had said before knowing the size of the war?

Can the military just opt out

and what would happen to the society who would they find as an alternative in such limited time, or would they just be destroyed?

Would there be a penalty for the military for opting out?

If so, this would contradict the free ability of selling and denying service.

In collectivist countries and countries that have group causes when people are involved in something that is not physical but more of an idea or a concept the idea or concept, aka cause, will live in a sense that is not alive but is at the same time. It will not die and exists in a formless sense. It's quite similar to religion, which is why religion has been the main form of unification between nations in the past. A religion exists, but it does not live so it cannot die, it can live on forever through the generations and therefore it is greater than any living thing could be because of its unending and immortal existence that is why so many people find value and things that live on after death. This is why they worship it like a god or a deity because its existence is quite similar to a god or a deity in the sense it is immortal and exists nonetheless.

I have also explained that in an individualistic society the greatest sovereignty is the individual and so the greatest thing to live for is life and life will die eventually.

Now to readdress my statement, a government that is unified and meaning driven is more powerful than a society that lacks uniformity and meaning. A society that is collectivist or unified under something that is lasting, and meaningful past life will inevitably be more driven to accomplish their goals and determined to protect their society

and nation unlike the military, which you describe is only seeking money. Do you think that a nation such as the Nazis were more powerful than an equal sized private contracting military that is only seeking their next paycheck?

The world isn't black and white, it's more complex than that.

Do you see there being a problem with having a sizable percentage of the population who cannot afford their own education, and no one is responsible for them but themselves?

What do you think this will do to the economy if much of the population isn't educated?

It will lead back to the original problem I mentioned before, which is other nations' educations and technologies will grow and outsize an anarchist society, leading to a weakness that could be exploited by another nation invading.

I'm trying to explain how a voluntary agreement is not stable enough to maintain itself long-term, and it will either crumble or be destroyed.

The most concerning part of your description of a utopian society to me is the military being a private contractor.

What happens if an individual murders someone and then says they don't want a jury? Then they don't ever agree to what the other person says, and they can't ever decide because it's a 1 to 1 vote.

This would inevitably lead to bias juries and injustice. No one would fight for an injustice society, especially after being taken advantage of in such a way.

I see this as a way for individuals who have money to harshly penalize those who don't,

and for ones who have money to escape penalties,

How is there any certainty for protection if the military is responsible for its own funding?

There is no certainty for protection, with or without government.

What would happen if society decided they didn't feel like they needed a military and a future generation because there's been peace for so long?

Then, I suppose, they would not employ the services of a private military.

What would happen if the majority of people stopped funding the military, will there be any sort of requirement for funding, and who judges what is the requirement for funding?

No, there would be no requirement.

What happens if a war is coming, and the contractors feel they are not willing to fight at the agreed upon price as they had said before knowing the size of the war?

Then they won't fight.

Can the military just opt out

Yes.

and what would happen to the society who would they find as an alternative in such limited time, or would they just be destroyed?

Or they can fight themselves. But a private military opting out at the advent of war doesn't bode well for its reputation and business.

Would there be a penalty for the military for opting out?

No.

I think this is an oversimplification of a complex issue. Not everything can just be "hashed out" between the parties involved.

Why not?

What happens if there is no resolution between the involved parties who makes the final decision?

There will be a resolution regardless. It'll either be a unanimous or majoritarian. The dissenters can acquiesce to the unanimous or majoritarian decision, or they can opt out. That is a resolution in and of itself.

If people within the society do not purchase goods, they do not need to opt into the society,

No. Individuals can decide whether or not they intend to provide finance, time, or labor to public goods. If they do not intend to consume one or more public goods, they can opt out. In turn, those who opt out can be refused service.

For how long can a dispute be ongoing?

That is a subject for the individuals involved.

Is it possible for an individual to just keep pushing on a dispute indefinitely in essence past their lifetime and no consequences ever inflicted upon them?

"Inflicted"? Yes, I suppose it's possible. But again, that would be a subject for the individuals involved.

If not, who judges this, and what is the overarching law that governs this aspect of society?

You mean, who acts as the government? As I've already stated, disputes and conflicts are subject to individual discretion and/or dispute resolution organizations.

What happens if one of the members of the dispute decides it's become unreasonable, and they no longer want to postpone the resolution because they need money to resolve the probleIf there isn't, someone will take advantage of it.m from the other person otherwise, they will go bankrupt and the other refuses to determine the resolution therefore postponing causing issues for the person who needs resolution now? What happens if one of the members decides they are not willing to seek a mediator, or that they would like to postpone the dispute indefinitely? You said there are other means to solve this. Like what?

Cut your losses and ostracize the offending party.

Who determines what is offensive can anyone just claim to be offended, and then the private mediator determines the resolution that is best in the interest of the person claiming to be offended?

Why would a mediator resolve an issue in the best interests of one party, if multiple parties are involved?

If there isn't, someone will take advantage of it.

How?

I don't believe uniformity among individuality is a strong one, and I know with certainty it is not the strongest one.

How do you know with certainty? Is the strength of bonds not too subject to individual evaluation?

In collectivist countries and countries that have group causes when people are involved in something that is not physical but more of an idea or a concept the idea or concept, aka cause, will live in a sense that is not alive but is at the same time. It will not die and exists in a formless sense. It's quite similar to religion, which is why religion has been the main form of unification between nations in the past. A religion exists, but it does not live so it cannot die, it can live on forever through the generations and therefore it is greater than any living thing could be because of its unending and immortal existence that is why so many people find value and things that live on after death. This is why they worship it like a god or a deity because its existence is quite similar to a god or a deity in the sense it is immortal and exists nonetheless.

Couldn't the same be stated for individual sovereignty?

I have also explained that in an individualistic society the greatest sovereignty is the individual and so the greatest thing to live for is life and life will die eventually.

Why would a society that is both practiced and applied "in life" be concerned with that which happens "after life"?

Now to readdress my statement, a government that is unified and meaning driven is more powerful than a society that lacks uniformity and meaning. A society that is collectivist or unified under something that is lasting, and meaningful past life will inevitably be more driven to accomplish their goals and determined to protect their society

That once again is subject to individual evaluation.

and nation unlike the military, which you describe is only seeking money. Do you think that a nation such as the Nazis were more powerful than an equal sized private contracting military that is only seeking their next paycheck?

When did this become a subject of "power"?

Do you see there being a problem with having a sizable percentage of the population who cannot afford their own education, and no one is responsible for them but themselves?

Why wouldn't a sizeable percentage of the population be able to afford its own education?

I'm trying to explain how a voluntary agreement is not stable enough to maintain itself long-term, and it will either crumble or be destroyed.

Voluntary agreements can only crumble or be destroyed by involuntary association--e.g. government.

The most concerning part of your description of a utopian society to me is the military being a private contractor.

Where did I argue for "utopia"?

What happens if an individual murders someone and then says they don't want a jury? Then they don't ever agree to what the other person says, and they can't ever decide because it's a 1 to 1 vote.

They both can leave the "tiebreaker" to the mediator.

This would inevitably lead to bias juries and injustice. No one would fight for an injustice society, especially after being taken advantage of in such a way.

How?

I see this as a way for individuals who have money to harshly penalize those who don't,

Why would this be an issue if the involve parties can opt in and opt out?

and for ones who have money to escape penalties,

A poor reputation isn't good for business.

I apologize, but my time is limited, so I will try to address the responses I believe are the most imperative.

much of this is based upon my understanding of the world and is not necessarily verifiable by a research institute that I can cite; therefore, if you disagree that is fine, but I don't believe either of us can present any more evidence to suggest our claims as evident.

I don't believe individuals who have a day job and were counting on a private contracting military to defend them that just opt out on a whim would be something recoverable for a nation if being invaded.

The private contractors would no longer have business

I believe this is too unstable to exist long term since all it would take is one generation to slip up on their values.

Perhaps the military could just ramp up the price right before war to an extortious amount that would leave the civilians with pennies in order to save their lives and then the economy would be ruined and it's a free market, so it's all legal.

What happens if a person within society is a tourist and is not engaging in active trade and commerce and therefore not considered a citizen, are they not held accountable for their actions, what will the foreigner policy be? Someone could easily take advantage by continuing to postpone the consequences of their actions indefinitely, leading to a society where individuals can do whatever they want without ever being held accountable for their actions. Someone could easily decide that there is injustice within the opposing party even though they are the offender and can dispute the legality of unanimous or majority vote since people are aware majority vote and unanimous vote do not justify actions.

The intensity of the connection or similarity between you and an individual is subjective but the number of connections you relate between is objective and countable. Therefore, the relationship between you and an individual or you and a nation has both subjective and objective aspects.

With a nation that is grouped together by a belief in individual sovereignty they are connected by one belief and the intensity is how they feel for that belief. for a nation that does not allow individual sovereignty but implements individual rights under a collectivist government

I believe that the summation among the values of a collectivist nation is stronger than the single value held by a society associated by individualism.

I don't believe individuals who have a day job and were counting on a private contracting military to defend them that just opt out on a whim would be something recoverable for a nation if being invaded.

How often do you imagine a nation which has enjoyed a long period of peace being invaded? You're grasping at worst case scenarios.

The private contractors would no longer have business

Exactly. So this would present an incentive for the private contractors to honor their contracts, less they wish to go out of business. Another incentive is that if they're consumers die, there's no one around to pay them.

I believe this is too unstable to exist long term since all it would take is one generation to slip up on their values.

And this can simply be remedied by another generation's living up to their values.

Perhaps the military could just ramp up the price right before war to an extortious amount that would leave the civilians with pennies in order to save their lives and then the economy would be ruined and it's a free market, so it's all legal.

What is an "extortious" amount, especially for someone who's willing to risk their person, even their lives, to resolve your conflict?

The intensity of the connection or similarity between you and an individual is subjective but the number of connections you relate between is objective and countable. Therefore, the relationship between you and an individual or you and a nation has both subjective and objective aspects.

Explain.

With a nation that is grouped together by a belief in individual sovereignty they are connected by one belief and the intensity is how they feel for that belief. for a nation that does not allow individual sovereignty but implements individual rights under a collectivist government

There are no individual rights without individual sovereignty. That which you characterize as individual rights are merely privileges dispensed by a collectivist State.

I believe that the summation among the values of a collectivist nation is stronger than the single value held by a society associated by individualism.

Because?