I get this question a lot. If there is no government how do you deal with stabbers and murderers, and attempted murderers? Wouldn’t an anarcho-capitalist society just fall apart in chaos?
Well, what they do now is destroy the home of the guy that did the stabbing, and that is the best we can hope for. This is a total waste of capital. In a private property society, the owner of the property on which the crime was committed, whether it is a sidewalk, a street, a park, whatever, would have his private insurance company apprehend the criminal, but what would likely happen is armed citizens would apprehend him, or kill him. If he survived, he would be tried in a private court very quickly. If convicted, his assets would go to the victim according to Perek HaChovel. If he did not survive, any assets go to the victim. Instead of destroying the guy’s house, it would be sold to the victim who could do with it whatever he wanted.
If Arabs had their houses handed over to a Jew after a stabbing, they wouldn’t stab. What the hell is the logic of destroying a house when it can be easily given over to the victim?
If the criminal had no assets, he would be his victim’s slave until the debt is repaid. A slave does not mean he is in the the victim’s house, because who would want his would-be murderer hanging out with him? His slave meaning whatever he earns, those wages are garnished and given to the victim until everything is repaid. If he was killed and had no assets, then nothing can be done. He’s dead, that’s enough, especially considering what happens now. Which is he is rescued, sent to a government hospital for taxpayer funded medical care, sent to a government prison for taxpayer funded housing and food, and then released when the next government soldier is kidnapped and exchanged for a bunch of murderers.
The Jewish Libertarian 
Loving this post and “A fascinating Jewish response on anarcho capitalism”. I just told a Israeli guy I am a Libertarian so I am not sure how that will be received. Have you read http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/08/a-libertarian-israeli-on-israeli.html as I think some of the points are valid and would love to hear what you think if you get time at some stage.
You’ll see that mine is actually the first comment under that article. I’m a big fan of Bob Wenzel.
What exactly is a “private court”? Who enforces its decisions?
Before the state decided to monopolize the justice system, people went to private judges to resolve disputes. Imagine if we lived in a country where the State monopolized food. You’d be asking “What exactly is a ‘private supermarket’? Who chooses what food will be on the shelves?”
The way the Jewish justice system works is that the plaintiff chooses one judge, the defendant the second judge, and the two judges then decide on a third.
Decisions are enforced by the insurance company (police company) of the owner of the property on which the crime is committed.
So, basically, the execution (figurative or literal) is handled by a private company beholden to one of the litigants? Wouldn’t they have a vested interest?
Of course. But the free market works by balancing all vested interests through contract. A private judge would not agree to take a case where the police company that arrested one of the litigants will not abide by the decision, whatever it may be. If a company loses reputation for being fair and abiding by court decisions, it will not have clients and it will go out of business. If it wants clients, including judges that work with it, it will abide by whatever decision a private court makes.
There is also the matter of the insurance company of the defendant. It may indeed be the same company, in which case there is no vested interest on net. Or it may be a different company, in which case not abiding by the decision of the court could start a war between insurance companies, something that would deplete their capital, which no company wants.