Hello and welcome to the forums. Thread for beginners.
Extended family. Private children’s charities (e.g. St. Jude’s but for child protection).
Such services would likely be dirt-cheap if produced privately. Some charities might specialize in subsidizing them for poor people living in dangerous areas. Since security does produce a sort of “blanket” effect, people might move near the outskirts of highly protected facilities to enjoy the spillover benefits.
There wouldn’t be the police. The combined functions of security and investigations performed by most public police departments would probably be produced separately, as they are today in the private market.
People would probably be more polite - all things equal - since it’s cheaper to be polite than to pay for resolving a needless dispute.
Courts, in my view, would not be able to compel participation in the legal process. Rather, a dispute would be heard by an arbitrator who would act more as a consultant/referee in assisting the disputants to reach their own agreement (what is today called a settlement).
Intransigent people, in my view, would be taken to be “waiving their right” to settle a matter peacefully. In other words, they are implicitly agreeing to settle the matter by force. Hence, if someone commits a crime then refuses to settle the dispute through legal channels, he can be killed or captured according to the laws regarding the appropriate use of force in the case of intransigence.
The poor might be able to sell their claims to bounty hunters. Finally, there might emerge charitable organizations that focus specifically on subsidizing legal services for the poor.
Clayton -