>
By contrast, in a polylegal system with no central body issuing laws, people choose law firms with the set of laws the like the most voluntarily. If at some point they dislike how a firm does its business and protects its customers interests he may switch to a different firm (how conflicts are resolved between customers of two different firms is a more interesting question, which for the sake of brevity I'm gonna leave out for now).The whole "how conflicts are resolved between customers of two different firms" is the core idea behind law enforcement! If the same rules do not apply to all (and you opt for rules from the law issuing body you want based on your preferences) then there's now "law" among citizens.
Oh, and those "private law --issuing-- firms"? They would also have to have the means to enforce that law. So even if some poor black or latino population could not afford to pay them, a rich white majority will very much afford. Would they be able to enforce those laws to the non participating poor?
The problem is that you try to mix to things that are not compatible, absolute individual choice (at the consumer level even) and law. Law is that which is above individual choice, for it is a trans-individual (social) agreement, and that's the only way it can make sense.
This whole notion is ill-thought. It's not like the government is the problem with prisons. That's the "all I have is the liberal hammer, all problems are governmental nails" notion.
For one, the US has the highest incarceration rate of the western world (or the world, period). That's a problem not due to government. All the other countries have government made laws too. Most don't even allow private prisons at all.
Others countries have so nice prisons that you could spend your vacations there -- and even less crime than the US does, while maintaining a highly competitive economy and even more equality (so less poor people and more vibrant middle class). E.g skandinavian states. So government is not at all incompatible with a perfectly good legal and prison system. If anything, it's the contrary.
>Then don't go to conservative states and don't become a client of such a conservative law firm. These laws may be brutal, but if some group of people voluntarily decides to live by them, not forcing me to leave by them to, why should I be against it?
For a lot of people their home state, and where they have their roots, home, family, property etc means a lot to them. You propose they jump state just so the racist majority (or the richer racist minority) can have the prison system it likes? Wasn't the civil war partly about putting an end to this crap?