Why libertarianism is so dangerous.

[JKDS]

Last thing:

I think its naive to believe that things will be better by changing the system, when people are the problem. In cases of crime and being property defended, the issue is that most people think the defendant is guilty merely by being brought into a court room. This belief wont change just by having companies with insurance plans or whatever. People will still have the belief that the person is a criminal, and isnt entitled to jack shit. That will negatively impact the fairness of anyone insured.

Just like an asshole playing clue is still an asshole when he plays monopoly. Game changes, players stay the same.

[wufwugy]

In cases of crime and being property defended, the issue is that most people think the defendant is guilty merely by being brought into a court room.

Couldn't this be because "the people" are bringing the charge? The prosecution represents the state, which is supposed to represent the people. Contrast this to a civil case (which all market law would be). Now there isn't a democratically backed state coming down on one lonely defendant. Instead it's one party backing one claim and another backing a different claim. Even in the case of Shotgun Wuf v Thuggie, my insurance company would be representing me while his insurance company would be representing him. There would be no automatic assumption that I'm guilty because there would be no assumption that there is a democratically backed government that extended resources to put somebody they believe to be guilty away. Instead Teh Thuggie's insurance company would be doing its due diligence to get the best result that would most satisfy its customers, while mine would do the same.

I think the assumption of guilt you describe is a product of the system itself. The crux for why is that the state system has embedded in it the assumption of rightful prosecution in the eyes of the masses. I think this effect would disappear without this state monopoly.