have you ever heard the way that government monopoly court apologists talk about the amount of money paid to judges and government prosecutors somehow makes them "neutral".

there are few examples of neutral and polycentric systems of law in history at all. a few hundred years of Iceland's history had this with making the recipient of taxes a choice, and the city of Jericho never had a coercive, centralised system either, but rather, judges who competed with each other to be reputed as neutral and decisive.

outside of that, i think that in the last few thousand years one of the ways that people have kept law from becoming adopted by tyrants as a weapon against their enemies is decentralisation, provincialism, and most especially, local, quite radically different idiom and dialects.

this is partly why there is this idea in many european cultures that a nation should have its own language. when a nation uses a common language the legal systems have the capacity to grow stronger across districts and government in general centralises.