The stateless enforcement of natural justice, that is the provision of the services named “defense” and “conflict resolution” is a kind of science, namely a natural, normative, corporeal science that deals with what entails invasion of a body, a threat of invasion of a body, whether that is a personal body or owned object, proportional punishment, burden of prooof and due process. This “law” limits and is hierarchically superior to contract, “private” law.
It is not necessarily a “materialist” theory insofar as there can be non-corporeal “matter” that does not concern natural justice, such as the “subject matter” (platonic ideals such as charity, virtue, ideal government, etc.) nor is the idea of materialist determinism allowed for reasons of strict, personal liability.
Therefore unlike I had postulated before, ancap law is not some kind of public nor constitutional law, constitutional law historically and anthropologically is the artificial, inferior quality substitute for natural law imposed by governors (monarchies, revolutionary victors, etc) and is predicated on “values”, “interests” and political expediency or administrative decisions.
What “law” is “ancap law” most similar to then? under the civil law rubric of the divisions of law, it would be more or less equivalent to penal law which by the way, in its traditionally emergent forms gave a theoretical framework for codified, constitutional law, namely from the idea of the presumption of innocence and due process in English criminal process, arose the modern constitutionally enshrined theory of civil liberties.
Nonetheless it should be made clear that “ancap law” is not “law” as much as it is necessarily a branch of science. If it is natural it necessarily is a science and if it is a science it necessarily is natural. Therefore natural justice is the inquiry into how to define and prevent conflict between acting persons over bodies by the application of normative, theoretical formulations that can be communicated (rules) and of proportional violent punishment against transgressors as a behavioralist technology of compliance for the maintenance of a minimalist, universal, interpersonal order.
This doesn’t respond to any particular sector’s political “interests”, nor to a governing body’s administrative convenience but to the question, how can civilised coexistence be maintained throughout time?
Then what is justice?
The free use of a person’s bodies (personal and owned) in accordance with said science is just.