If I understand correctly, all possible rules/laws fall under the competence of the contractual jurisdiction, which can establish any rules on its territory, including the age of majority, and may adopt anything from a Sharia court to any other system, being limited in the adoption of laws only by the NAP regarding other jurisdictions—that is, entities that have not entered into an agreement with them to comply with their rules. Meanwhile, the institution (I don’t know what to call it if not a state) that legally stands above the jurisdictions is not concerned with establishing such specific rules, but only monitors compliance with the NAP. I admit that I may be catastrophically mistaken, as I have only recently become acquainted with libertarianism, and I would be glad if you could clarify these nuances regarding jurisdictions and their right to establish any rules on their territory.
анонимный вопрос
Regarding contractual jurisdictions, I have already had to answer. In short: a jurisdiction is not a territory, but a venue (legal competence), and a contractual jurisdiction differs from any other by its voluntary nature. Specific parties to a specific conflict agreed to have their case heard in a specific court and entered into a contract with that court. But today, for once, we are not talking about the court, but about the rules, so jurisdictions have nothing to do with this at all.
Any owner of a territory can theoretically establish any conditions under which they are willing to tolerate the presence of outsiders on their territory. Outsiders can either follow these rules or sabotage them if they believe that the potential costs of sanctions for sabotage are lower than the costs of following the rules.
The closer the rules established by the owner of the territory are to those that are understandable and familiar to people, the less effort the owner will have to spend to ensure their compliance. Yes, I can establish a ban on weapons, photography, and clothing on my territory, but if potential visitors to my beach are not yet used to the fact that beaches can be nudist, I will initially have to conduct a long explanatory campaign. And even then, it’s not a given that I will manage to convince people about weapons and photography; perhaps they will only agree to undress, and then I myself will give in and change the rules. Thus, from the sum of many private wishes and actions, spontaneous orders emerge, which eventually constitute our understanding of a norm. It is for this very reason that all these endless discussions of the criteria of “normal” exist.
As a result of many private actions, certain criteria of a norm become practically ubiquitous, receive precise formulations, and become generally accepted principles. In fact, this is exactly what the non-aggression principle is—it is a convenient convention, the observance of which reduces friction in society, and therefore societies that adhere to it tend to prosper. Meanwhile, some criteria of a norm remain purely a matter of taste. In one community, it is the norm to consider a person over 16 years old as having legal capacity, while in another, it is any member of the tribe who has passed the initiation rite, regardless of the age at which they passed it.
