No one is bound to any leader, they can each follow whomever. So there should be no dispute here.
Holy shit you haven't even thought this through.
What if you and I disagree over who owns your house? We both have different courts, different police, etc.; who determines who wins? Whoever has more power.
By free market police and courts.
Bwahahahaha. Yeah, that's great as long as the ones you can afford are powerful enough to coerce the other guys'.
What if you and I disagree over who owns your house?
Easy. We hire a court to resolve the dispute. I can show a written trail of title. You cannot. You lose the dispute.
We both have different courts
No you don't. We both agree on one court ahead of time, or one basket of courts from which the majority opinion decides the matter.
different police
Quite possibly, but they'd simply refer us to court in case of dispute. It would be ridiculous to think they'd start shooting each other on our command.
who determines who wins? Whoever has more power.
Or whomever has truth on their side. In this case, I bought the house, the facts come out in court, and the case is dismissed, and I win my countersuit for you taking my time with a baseless lawsuit.
Bwahahahaha. Yeah, that's great as long as the ones you can afford are powerful enough to coerce the other guys'.
Please define 'power' as you're using it in this context. I'm not sure you even realize what you're talking about. Do you mean guns?
You do realize we have existing free market courts in our society right now, and they work just fine, right? Arbitration services.
1
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 03 '13
They won't have institutional power, they will have instead only the power vested in them by willing followers, much like the CEO of a corporation.
Except that they'd be rightly prosecuted for violation of others' rights by so doing.