Imagine a combative criminal committed a violent act (allegedly), there is no agreed upon court: the criminal refuses to agree. Our current court system relies on both an appeal to God (hand on the Bible testimony) and democratic principles (laws, statues, ect.) A private court would undoubtedly be paid for by the accuser (huge bias implications) and have limited appeals to legitimacy... how can you claim an unbiased position and legitimacy in a private criminal court?
Discussion
I see your points, I'd have to think about it.
The biased courts will be priced out of the market from not providing enough value compared to their operational costs. Its an iterative process just like any industry,
This form of Political Structuring allows for all sorts of societies, it just means that you don't have to live in a society where you disagree with the laws.
Want to be in Socialistic Commune? Buy some land and have at it! Want to have a monarchy that doesn't acknowledge or respect Private Property? Get some land and have at it.
I'm saying total anarchism, though I firmly believe a Capitalistic society will thrive and outperform the other social/economic structures. The Capitalistic societies will not trade with those that coerce their citizens.
"A biased court will be priced out of the market from not providing enough value" . Disagree. A criminal court system paid for by the accuser is in effect a hired lynch mob, the accuser would choose the "court" that provided the swiftest version of "justice". A neutral criminal court system only seems possible when funded and administered by uninvolved third parties. To run a system like that everyone in the jurisdiction would be have to be compelled to pay for it, even if they never intend to use it.
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.