> If we allowed complete freedom of contract, law could be privatized, to our common benefit. This Anarcho-Capitalist ideal has never come to pass in any scena

> If we allowed complete freedom of contract, law could be privatized, to our common benefit. This Anarcho-Capitalist ideal has never come to pass in any scenario where it could have happened: That is, there have been multiple scenarios where the established government has broken down entirely, and nobody's ever created this system with government-by-contract or anything like it. We can argument-from-fiction this to death, and many people have, but if it can only happen if it's set up by some external agency it doesn't look like it's ever going to happen, so why bother? > If even a few of us honestly sought truth, we would not disagree with each other. Only if everyone starts from the same premises. For example, does every example of Homo sapiens sapiens count as a human being? If no, then arguing against some plan because those supposed 'non-humans' would be made unhappy by it is worthless. You might as well argue against a plan because gneiss would be put out by it: In the minds of the people you're arguing against, it would be a total non sequitur. A lesser, but more important, version of this is "Does every human matter equally as much?" Again, if you're arguing against people who hold as axiomatic that some matter more than others (due to tribalism, "racial realism", etc.), certain arguments aren't going to work. Maybe we'll have to kill everyone who holds those ideas so we can stop having wars. (Your task: Am I being serious?)