анонимный вопрос

Here, it seems to me, the confusion is caused by the claim about contract jurisdictions—that they will replace the state. “Yeah,” a person says, “so every house in the village will belong to a different state; what kind of mess is that going to be?”

What does the fact that a person’s house is in a certain jurisdiction actually mean for them? It means that if the house becomes the subject of a conflict, or if a conflict occurs on its territory, the resolution of that conflict (if the homeowner for some reason decides not to do it themselves) is handled by the jurisdiction.

The only case where a conflict arises with such an approach is a boundary conflict. For example, there is a dispute over who owns the fruit from a branch of a tree growing on one plot that overhangs another plot. In this case, both jurisdictions would have to be involved, and it becomes their task to agree on how to resolve the conflict.

And, obviously, if a client is not satisfied with how their contract jurisdiction handles conflicts, they look for one that presumably will do it better and enter into a contract with it. In general, fundamentally, nothing here differs from buying home insurance or a contract with a provider for connecting a home to the internet, gas, water, or electricity. Except that changing a jurisdiction is much easier than changing a gas supplier.