Until one side runs out of resources to keep growing their army. Can you really not see how this might be a problem? You might want to read this sometime: Arms race - Wikipedia
What if the majority was paying the courts to always find them innocent when they committed crimes against the minority?
Yep. At some point the cost of the army becomes higher than can be justified by what they are protecting. There’s your upper limit. But there is no upper limit to several smaller ones joining together. Thus the inadvisability of growing your own army instead of cooperating with others.
No, but then neither omnipotent beings nor inalienable rights exist.
By definition, omnipotence isn’t bound by the rules logic. So yes, an omnipotent being can create an object in a logically contradictory state of both being movable to it, and unmovable.
Since you agree there’s actions other than contracts that count as a waiving of rights, then it’s simple to say choosing to enter or remain in a legal jurisdiction counts as implied consent to it’s laws, including tax laws.
Did you miss the “individual services” part?
“No” is not the correct answer.
Ok, they pay the courts to always find in their favor in civil suits. Maybe you need to make it clear what you mean by “individual services”.
It would have to be agreed upon by the majority and written into the social contract. The minority would of course have the right and freedom to give up their property and move elsewhere to a place where they aren’t a minority.
By whose definition?
Tax laws are not “rights”. Anything other than “rights” has to be covered by signed contracts.
Ok, Yes, but then neither omnipotent beings nor inalienable rights exist. Happy?
As Tao pointed out, it’s a pointless question since omnipotence isn’t bound by logic.
Each individual subscribes to the court/police system. Individually. The subscriber base is big enough that any one contribution is not enough to skew the system.
Who decides what’s a “right” or not? You’ve claimed that these rights are axiomatic, so who picks the axioms?
Unless someone’s really rich or powerful, or lots of people join together.
Says who? And why?
“Yes” is not the correct answer either.
What happens if two inalienable rights conflict? The answer is the one that violates the other is forfeit. For some reason you don’t like the answer. Why?
Seriously, this “discussion” has devolved into several posters desperately trying to come up with some kind of “gotcha”. It is kind of amusing. You ask what a “libertarian society” would do, then when you get the answer, you don’t like it. If you don’t like the answers, don’t ask the questions.
The Universe. The Creator. God. Pick whichever you like. Haven’t we done this already upthread?
Then you weren’t asking the correct question.
If someone is “really rich and powerful”, can he jump the line in a supermarket?
And does God give us these rights directly, or do we have to depend on enlightened ones, such as yourself, to reveal them to us?