Take easy ground. Legitimize the market. Don’t refer to it as “the law”, it’s, ‘a’ legal prescription; one of potentially many legal prescriptions.
Any pontification about what the rule “is”, may or may not be based on valid assumptions. The rule itself, may or may not help some people, other people, or may even hurt everyone. There is no reason to suggest any one prescription is somehow “the” legitimate solution to anything. Just because people wrote it down and votes on it, doesn’t mean it’s “the law”. It’s just one legal service firms opinion – their offering of a legal code that you may or may not have any justifiable reason for feeling bound to.
Legitimize the market.
It’s the easiest ground to take. Don’t like a law? Maybe it’s not legitimate. Maybe something else is legitimate in that context. You can be your own entrepreneur in setting legal precedent, offer you own legal prescriptions… if you’re a buyer, you got one buyer. If people like what you offer, you might get more buyers.
“A” legal ruling was issued against me. They said I was in violation of the rules, that they had already ruled that I was violating the rules, and if I didn’t comply with their demands, they would have the local legal monopoly impose punitive pain upon me.
But, unlike some anarchists, who think anarchism is hard to achieve because they don’t understand incrementalism, and have gone to jail because they don’t understand the social dynamics behind “law”, I had better results. I went in with the expectation that there were probably numerous different rules that would serve us better, a buffet of market solutions, and walked out having had “the rules” changed.
That social exchange yielded profit for many. It profited me, the community, and my family. That’s capitalistic activism.
That’s incrementally establishing a market for law.
That’s market anarchism.
I urge everyone to seek solutions that serve humanity better than what exists now, and free ourselves from this monstrosity of a political process that forces rules down everyone’s throat. Whoever said that process should “be” law , that one process should be “the” process we create law by, was simply wrong, ill informed, or selfishly, sinisterly opportunistic. Anyone who knows “the” process we should create law by is wrong – on the grounds that it should be different for people in different situations, and change tomorrow after someone different learns anything new.
He’s a prescription for anarchism: Incremental is the rule. Break it when necessary. Make a new law when you see it suits your situation better. But you won’t start to see opportunities to even creep forward until you legitimize the market in your head. Only then will you see market opportunities appear in the woodwork.
Some people will excel in the area of law creation and succeed in the market. Some are going to suck at it. But then we can see who is good at producing marketable law rather than everyone sit around arguing over ‘what if “the” lawmakers were different’ because we have no competition, and no pricing by which to evaluate the order of our preferences.