The most important public goods that the government provides are defense, justics, and transportation.  Its not a perfect system, but its the only system that works, and without the government providing them we simply would not have them. 

Can you imagine our entire transportation infrastructure being dirt roads?  That is the best the private market would provide us, as only the government can provide such a public good.  We would literally go back to the Dark Ages, which was the last time Western civilization moved away from government in favor of privitization.

People can choose if they want to shop at a grocery store.  If a store has high prices or sells me sour milk, I can bring my business to another private grocerty store.  Enough people 'vote' against giving that store their business, then that store is no longer in business.

Public goods don't work that way.  Thats why its important to vote for a judge or vote for a politician who appoints a judge.

Whatever system you support, you should strive for it to be the best.  You are taking one idea that works in one place and trying to apply it to everything else, but the problem is that even though a method can work great in one situation it can fail miserabley in another.  You're like a carpenter who thinks he only needs one tool to build a house; the hammer works great nailing the floor down, but good luck trying to cut that board in half.

People can choose if they want to shop at a grocery store.  If a store has high prices or sells me sour milk, I can bring my business to another private grocerty store.  Enough people 'vote' against giving that store their business, then that store is no longer in business.

Public goods don't work that way.  Thats why its important to vote for a judge or vote for a politician who appoints a judge.

Whatever system you support, you should strive for it to be the best.  You are taking one idea that works in one place and trying to apply it to everything else, but the problem is that even though a method can work great in one situation it can fail miserabley in another.  You're like a carpenter who thinks he only needs one tool to build a house; the hammer works great nailing the floor down, but good luck trying to cut that board in half.

Yes it can work. It would work exactly how Anonymous works. You would have like-minded individuals group together to push for a common goal and fill a need in society. Transportation, schooling, etc would all be taken care of. Think of it as a return to guildship minus have lords and we would not be serfs.

Ok, I figured it out. You love being ruled by people. Even if that person does terrible thing to you and the land you will accept that leader as your lord, even if he is only temporary till your next lord arrives.. You love the idea of a republic in which you can elect someone or someone can be elected to control you by someone else elected by people. Rather than actually standing up and taking command of your own life. And its entirely fine thinking this way, the only thing is you need people who will actually run things right and obviously the current system isn't exactly working.

I don’t understand how "choice" would be a benefit in this context. When you have judges that owe their judicial appointment to a political process you create a system where political motivations drive judgements within the system not the law as written; and you end up with an inconsistent legal system full of arbitrary judgements that are supported by no written law or legal precedence. This also tends to result in a tyranny of the majority where anything can be justified as long as it is supported by the majority of voters at a given time; where a law on gay marriage, union reform, or a public healthcare bill that has passed through the legislature is determined to be constitutional based on the desire to be re-elected or re-appointed not based on what the constitution says.  

Elected judges answer to the people, elected politicians answer to the people.  If they do something you don't like, you can vote against them and get them out of office.  For instance, a judge in my homestate was kicked out of office for having his vacation paid for by the owner of a coal company before he ruled in their favor in a major lawsuit.  Now imagine the same people not only trying to bribe elected judges, but actually paying their pay checks.

I don't understand your argument here, I highly doubt any privately employed individual is more prone to bribes than a public employee; and public officials are often bribed in the open in the form of campaign contributions and lobbying. Beyond that, the private company would still be paid for by the government and would still be required to answer to the people (indirectly).

To explain how I would expect a "private judicial" system to operate is a judicial company would bid on a bundle of court cases related to a certain type of law, and based on the track record of the company and their bit price these contracts would be given out. Most likely, the court cases that would be given out would be the large volume of unimportant legal trials, like divorce trials and small civil trials, and the higher courts and most important trials would remain in the hands of the public courts.

That's not how the real world works.  If you want to build a road from point A to point B, you have to come up with funding.  I believe I linked to a simple economics website earlier.