Thank you for the detailed response; it's been a good conversation.

We agree on almost everything other than having ONE group write and enforce the laws -- or law [singular] as you describe. I certainly agree that your single law would be a huge improvement over what we have now:

Any direct infringement on another person's inalienable rights is illegal.

But that would clearly allow for competing groups to function as protectors of your rights or mine; we could subscribe to one instead of another, if, say, the original began to act in a way we didn't like or raised its prices [taxes] too high or began interpreting the One Law differently than we thought proper.

It would, you know -- interpret the One Law in a way that began favoring one group over others. Power like that always brings the weasels and parasites out to "clarify" or "fortify" the law to favor themselves or their particular views, however slightly. Propaganda, money, favors, blackmail, or intimidation are inevitably involved. For that matter, it's impossible to believe that EVERY American would agree on what "direct infringement on another person's inalienable rights" really means.

For that reason, even with the One Law version of government, competition would be essential. For that to work well there would need to be legal agreements between the "governments" (really insurance & security agencies) and each agency would need to include clauses in their membership agreements specifying rules involved in dispute resolution when the other party was subscribed to a different agency. Simple stuff that the market would do naturally.

You don't see it that way, and it's clear that neither of us is willing at this time to adjust our well-thought-out and probably long-standing view. That's fine, of course. I'll keep your idea in mind, although it goes against my Tolkein-ish belief that ANY source of monopoly power -- not just in regards war but also in regards enforcing ANYTHING society-wide -- is an extreme danger that will become corrupted. But perhaps a small ember of Power is needed after all; I doubt it but I have been wrong once or twice in my life.

Thank you for the detailed response; it's been a good conversation.

We agree on almost everything other than having ONE group write and enforce the laws -- or law [singular] as you describe. I certainly agree that your single law would be a huge improvement over what we have now:

Any direct infringement on another person's inalienable rights is illegal.

But that would clearly allow for competing groups to function as protectors of your rights or mine; we could subscribe to one instead of another, if, say, the original began to act in a way we didn't like or raised its prices [taxes] too high or began interpreting the One Law differently than we thought proper.

It would, you know -- interpret the One Law in a way that began favoring one group over others. Power like that always brings the weasels and parasites out to "clarify" or "fortify" the law to favor themselves or their particular views, however slightly. Propaganda, money, favors, blackmail, or intimidation are inevitably involved.

For that reason, even with the One Law version of government, competition would be essential. For that to work well there would need to be legal agreements between the "governments" (really insurance & security agencies) and each agency would need to include clauses in their membership agreements specifying rules involved in dispute resolution when the other party was subscribed to a different agency. Simple stuff that the market would do naturally.

You don't see it that way, and it's clear that neither of us is willing at this time to adjust our well-thought-out and probably long-standing view. That's fine, of course. I'll keep your idea in mind, although it goes against my Tolkein-ish belief that ANY source of monopoly power -- not just in regards war but also in regards enforcing ANYTHING society-wide -- is an extreme danger that will become corrupted. But perhaps a small ember of Power is needed after all; I doubt it but I have been wrong once or twice in my life.