I think it is great that you're doing this :) I have several comments: Security companies in conflict negotiating cost allocation instead of shooting it out: I really, really like this :) It is one of those cases where a free market lets you make agreements that a safer and cheaper for everyone. It reminds me of virtual strikes: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/1125/128.html Lawcorps not ruling fairly: This isn't just due to their rep. Like with any other contract, you're going to have provisions for breach of contract. Unlike government judicial systems, you can go elsewhere to settle a dispute with a lawcorp. Insurance companies require lots of capital: Not true. Even today insurance companies make reinsurance contracts to insure themselves against large losses. Large threats against security companies: These guys need musketeer agreements or insurance policies to cover themselves against threats too large or costly for them to handle. Otherwise you can threaten them into backing down, and most customers wouldn't trust weak security companies. Punishment for stealing: Here you suggest that you just pay the stolen item's worth. There are several problems with this. One is a complete lack of deterrent - it makes stealing risk-free, since at worst you just have to give the item (or its worth) back, maybe plus a small fee for the investigation costs. If you don't want society to devolve into crime, you need a deterrent with at least and expected loss from criminal actions for the vast majority of society, and that means the cost of getting caught must be larger than (item value / risk of getting caught). You could solve it partially with rep, but I'm not really happy about that one. Secondly, having your stuff stolen is more costly than the value of the item. We aren't just on the verge of selling all our possessions at the slightest price increase, so we value our possessions above market price. There is mental distress or at least annoyance from being the victim of theft, and there is inconvenience. Maybe a rule of thumb of 2-5 times the item's worth is more reasonable. Punishment for violence and distress: I think you need to adress crimes that are not primarily about items with a market value. If you get beaten up, it shouldn't just be about compensation for medical bills and lost income. You should be compensated for the pain and discomfort, the distress, the opportunity cost (spare time and enjoyment has value too). Anarcho-capitalism takes freedom very seriously and it isn't just about stuff and money. Idea: some law corps set the compensation at the amount above which their bonus pater AI willingly subjects itself to the simulated crime... Security companies striking deals a la "cheaper to take money and compensate client than to pursue": I'm not 100% sure of how far you think this goes, and I think it really needs to incorporate some game theoretical considerations of repeated games and posture. I sort of get the impression that if it there is an expected cost of 1,000 credits to pursue a thief to recover a 400 credit item and you don't think the thief can pay the fine (and there might even be a risk of not capturing the thief), then they're just going to give their client 400 credits instead of pursuing. This of course makes it risk free for thieves to steal items as long as the expected cost of pursuing outweighs the thief's expected ability to pay, which will end up being extremely costly for the company (and probably make the customers find a different security company). It makes sense in the single case, but it opens up yourself to exploitation, similar to the idea behind "never negotiate with terrorists". In reality, what makes you open to exploitation is the predictability of the response (never pursue if it results in an expected loss). That doesn't mean the alternative is to ALWAYS pursue though. I expect that the optimal strategy is a random mixed strategy, where the randomness makes it impossible for a thief to be sure they won't pursue, and the probability of pursuit can factor in item value and pursuit costs but should be set to make it an expected loss for the thief to steal from the company's customers. Risk, pollution, etc.: This is a major problem in ancap. How do you deal with people who expose you to risk? Is it ok to drive at reckless speeds through streets where kids might be crossing? You can't just rely on compensation from the driver afterwards, can you (even if there's little real death in EP)? If someone is polluting with carcinogens, do you have to wait until you get cancer to sue? My personal opinion is that ancap societies will develop common law that allows you to stop and demand compensation for exposing you to risk, where the common law dictates what constitutes acceptable levels of risk and is of course a constantly developing standard. Reputation and ostracization: This tends to be major parts of anarchistic ideology. Some people just don't want to play along, but anarcho-capitalists of course don't think that justifies robbing you, and unlike other types of anarchism they can't restrict your access to essential resources. Reputation and ostracization could be used heavily. Of course there might still be unfavorable elements willing to deal with you, but your life could become very difficult if large parts of society won't deal with you or those you associate with. For a current day example, look at how labor unions can block an offending company from receiving goods and services from other organized companies. And while special interest groups can't lobby politicians in ancap society, they could subsidize competing companies to outbid the offending company on its major contracts. Freeloading: On Extropia, quite conveniently everything is owned by Extropia Now and they charge rent to cover utilities and such, but a freeloading problem still remains. It is hard to imagine a society without defense, welfare, etc. and many people will be inclined to freeload without forced taxes. The obvious and perhaps only solution is through rep and ostracization. Say payments to "community companies" are made public and it makes you popular to do so. If you don't chip in at all, you take a serious rep hit. If one guy pays to welfare and the other to defense, that's exercising free choice and letting markets control policy, and they'd merely disagree like Democrats and Republicans since none of them are freeloading. Even when capitalism reigns supreme, or maybe especially when captilism reigns supreme, nothing gets people riled up like whenn they pay for something and the other guy gets it for free.

great logo... I havent read the document yet (though I like everything I've read from Arena so far) I decided to get into a new minatures game, and I will be modding and painting the minatures like classic Cylon centurians... I plan to use them in my EP game... so I decided to start a security company that uses weak un-meshed (un hackable) Synths based around them called "Cylon Security" with the catch phrase being... "By your command" imagine my suprise when just now I found bunch of companies calling themselves "Cylon Security" (do a search yourself)