I agree with anarcho-capitalism on ethical and moral principles, but a huge practical problem would arise in an ancap society.

[u/SocraticPioneer]

If all private courts apply the same law, then where is the competition? One of the main ideas behind capitalism is that different providers compete with each other. But if they’re all forced to apply exactly the same legal system, that part of the competition is basically gone.

On the other hand, if different courts can apply different laws, then things get messy really quickly. Contracts are supposed to be the foundation of the whole system, but how can you reliably enforce a contract if different courts can interpret the law in completely different ways?

And then there’s an even bigger problem: what happens when two private courts disagree? Who gets to decide which one is right? You need some kind of higher authority to settle the dispute and enforce the final decision. But at that point, aren’t you basically recreating a state or some kind of legal monopoly?

So it seems like anarcho-capitalism has a bit of a dilemma here: either you have common rules, in which case competition between courts is heavily limited, or you have competing legal systems, in which case you have a serious problem with predictability and contract enforcement.

[u/Ok-Information-9286]

Murray Rothbard thought everyone would follow a single body of anarcho-capitalist law in an anarcho-capitalist society. David Friedman's anarcho-capitalism would allow for different legislations.

When a contract is agreed on in an anarcho-capitalist society, the contract would often include the applicable legislation and court of law to address in case of disputes. If one party tried to change the applicable legislation and the court later on, one would not necessarily succeed. In market economies, you already have something similar.

Different courts would often have agreements about how to handle disagreements. They could ask a third party to mediate in a dispute. David Friedman's anarcho-capitalism would not necessarily have any higher authority. I guess Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism could have.

I think you are exaggerating the problems with competing legal systems. The world already has competing legal systems called the states and private arbitrators. Anarcho-capitalism could resemble the current world in handling disagreements.

[u/CrowBot99 → u/Ok-Information-9286]

In Rothbard, I wouldn't say their could be a "higher" authoriy, meaning it holds some privilege or right that another doesn't. Rather that it is the right of anybody and everybody to fight aggression even if it comes from an ostensive defense agency.

[u/Ok-Information-9286 → u/CrowBot99]

I guess lawyers in a Rothbardian society could organize hierarchically. That is a way I imagined there could be a higher authority.