Perhaps, “the pot calling the kettle black”? 
..I think not. Having a whole book on how Socialism doesn’t work, publishing numerous articles stating such, not having a academia position because you are not a socialist/fascist, being called ‘dogmatic’ ‘uncompromising’…then secretly being a Socialist? Ridiculous to say the least. I think there are nationalist overtones to Mises. He was a Minarchist. He allowed for the existence of the state and so did Rothbard for a time. However, just because one is a Minarchist doesn’t make them a Socialist. Statist…perhaps.
“if one company ripped me off what would stop the private court from ripping me off.”
The thing that stops companies from ripping people off is profit/criminal charges. If the damages are small, they leave this company in exchange for better competitors. For large rip offs, prepare to become a criminal. The courts/police would be especially scrutinized.
This is altered in the case of government. For example, FRB (Fractional Reserve Banking) is a scam that government protects with institutions like the FED.
“What if I been rip off from all my money how can I afford private police and courts”
Insurance, you would pay beforehand for a service that would help you in case this happened.
“If I stole a $1 candy from walmart you think they’ll let me get away if they seen me? f*ck no. What is small to you? apparently its not worth pursuing justice when you get rip off by “small” amounts. Sounds like a great argument for taxation of the super rich doesn’t it.”
Non sequitor
“Some free market advocates are just as fanatical as socialist some of them think their won’t be any white collar crime whatsoever.”
While some are fanatics, that is a strawman. They still realize that there will be crime, its just they believe the market provides the best method for a solution.
“Well this country was founded with the belief in justice.”
No it wasn’t. It was founded in opposition to certain British policy.
“The reason I believe the government is failing at doing this is because it spends to much time doing other crap like war,welfare,regulating etc.”
Non sequitor.
“Bad laws drive out good laws”
Good description of government.
“So private militaries won’t steal from people?”
If they do, they should prepare for punishment, as that will be pursued by courts and other police.
“what about the people who can’t afford defense in the private sector?”
Defense isn’t as much of a concern, as they don’t have much to lose. Charity and altruistic people can remedy this. Also, defense is really cheap with competition driving down prices.
“A private military or government would quickly get destroyed by communist or fascist or anybody with nukes.”
only if the battle is heavily lopsided in favor of the government will the government win. The private military has more efficiency and lower cost than the government. They would also develop effective solutions to nuclear threats.
“And a private military can easily turn against its employer kill him and steal his assets.”
And lose its reputation and become criminal in the process.
"What if the private police don’t recognize the Will? "
Others will learn from your mistake, and refuse to trust that organization with the handling of wills.
"the jokes on you since you advocate such an absurdity as private courts and police. "
The joke is on you since you implicitly advocate legalized crime.
“The court doesn’t have police so how can they enforce their ruling?”
Reputation. If you refuse the rulings of reputable courts, why would anyone want to do business with you?
“again the guy with the biggest wallet always wins since he can hire a bigger private government than you can and he can use it to steal others land and property.”
Everyone else bands together to prevent him from doing that. That plan does not work in practice.
“You both believe in this crazy utopia that doesn’t exist.”
It is not a utopia, nor does it claim to be.
"Private governments will never exist and neither will a Marxist utopia. "
They have existed.
“So a private government can never become totalitarian?”
Before it did, other governments would prevent it from becoming criminal.
"so you have secret powers which enable to see if your going to ripped off or not? "
no
"you think private governments can’t be totalitarian. "
They only are if people want them to be. Which defeats the purpose.
“so because I disagree with anarcho capitalism I’m a socialist right?”
No, you are a statist.
Miniarchists are technically socialists as far as the production of security is concerned.
Perhaps a misunderstanding/misreading of what I said? My whole use of the term “socialist” to describe him was based entirely on his own repeated use of the term “for the greater good[of mankind]” and his claim to know what that was- indeed, that goal [philosophically proving what was in the best interest of mankind] was his entire motive for writing Human Action etc. No?
For myself [ ie in my own personal definition] someone whose ultimate concern is always “the greater good” of mankind, and who professed , or professes to know what is in the best interest of the majority of mankind, is always socialist, [as that is no different from what all of the more standard definition socialists claim to be primarily concerned with ] - and frankly I cannot think of a better term for a person who is so inclined- perhaps someone here has a better term to use in Mises case?
To be clear, I would personally label anyone who claims to be concerned with the greater good of mankind, and who claims to know what that good actualy is, as a socialist.
I understand that my personal definition is a little “off the wall” to most here- and so I threw it out there half tongue in cheek, and half seriously , and I do not expect anyone else here to agree with my definition - so thanks for your observations.
Mises tried to retain ‘value-free’ economic decisions so perhaps you misread his ‘utilitarian’ views as socialist ones.
Did he? Where’d you get that from?
from a book called Human Action.
Actually the “greater good” is pre-socialist. Comte took over the phrase and killed it’s previous meaning. It comes from the pursuit of happiness which means what is best for the social animal - human - is liberty and flourishing. The greater good society used to mean a virtuous society, in other words, a society of liberty and justice. Thus a good society, and for the greater good means in liberty lots of people, not just a few, can flourish. It’s a recognition of property, life, and thus rights.
So I don’t know if Mises meant it in the Auguste Comte socialist way when it was hijacked by him in the early 1800’s and all his logical positivist inclinations or maybe he actually meant it in the: liberty leads to a flourishing of human activity.
Thanks. 
I guess all that anti-communist bs got to his head in the long run. In his effort to argue against the state, he ended up arguing for it.