Previously, regarding discussions of statism vs. anarchism, I wrote: “Instead of existing merely on a spectrum of (A) government gets the means of enforcement vs. (B) everyone gets means of enforcement, the theoretical possibilities also exist on a spectrum of (1) nobody is trustworthy or nobody trusts anybody because nobody is committed to the rules of the game vs. (2) everybody is trustworthy or everybody trusts everybody because everyone is committed to the rules of the game.”
Though 2 is an ideal social-systemic condition towards which we should always strive, in practical terms, it is not likely to ever exist, especially as new generations would need to be successfully socialized into even a relatively ideal community of adults. Where there are violations of the rules of the game, people need enforcement via defense or restitution. Defense involves the avoidance or mitigation of harm in the face of deliberate or negligent threat. Restitution involves compensation for past harm. (Another goal of enforcement is basic welfare, but for the sake of conciseness I will set that issue aside for now; suffice it to say that I believe the most efficient and least paternalistic means of enforcement in terms of basic welfare is a basic income guarantee [BIG].)
To achieve defense and restitution and to avoid excessive conflict in an optimal way, people need specialized enforcement and ultimate courts of appeal within given jurisdictions. Various exclusive jurisdictions should exist side by side in a manner that allows exit and entry from one to another, in order to provide comparative and competitive standards among jurisdictions. One’s exit should come before violations of the rules rather than serve as a means of fleeing the requirements of restitution or defense within a given jurisdiction after such violation.