>>21446152/3
>Two parties in disagreement are not strictly bound to shuttle all arguments and disagreements through a court, they may simply haggle an agreement between themselves right on the spot. Yeah, except that rarely works and certainly not on an advanced level. Ex: man assaults another person and breaks their leg, That person demands payment for damages. The man doesn't have to do shit because without someone backing the injured party, he has no power to force the man to pay for his assault. Inb4 'society' judges NAP violation
1) Kangaroo Courts are considered illegal for a reason
2) People in society may side with the assaulter, just look at Hong Kong, where protesters support a man who MURDERED HIS WIFE and escaped to HK to avoid prison.
3) If the man who did the assault has more influence, power or wealth he can simply ignore local resentment, and without a governmental state enforcing over-arching laws, he'd get away with it openly... just like in the 1890s actually, up until Teddy Roosevelt enforced anti Trust laws and regulations.
>Nor are courts bound to declare such agreements null and void simply because it was not arbitrated in the court. You're avoiding the main point and trying to wiggle out of this.
>I don't need to go to court or a government office when ever I buy an commodity from my local flea market. Stop shifting the goal-posts.
>As for private property, that can be simply enforced by the use of force.Yes, and that force has to be organized/paid for. A single person cannot enforce a private property like a factory. In other words it requires a state/state-like apparatus to enFORCE the property.
