Let’s say a person is found guilty of robbery by three known arbitrators, yet he refuses to pay damages by relying on some insignificant shady arbitrator. Here are my questions:
Will it be fair to call the robber an outlaw as of that moment?
Will the victim be justified in forcing the robber to pay?
Will a security firm contracted by the victim is justified in forcing the robber to pay?
Will another security firm NOT contracted by the victim is justified in forcing the robber to pay?
My thoughts,
I, as an insurer, would still offer liability cover to him, of course at a (much) higher premium. So, no, being covered he would not be an outlaw.
Perhaps in some cases, but I suspect liability insurance would be developed to provide a speedy resolution to such cases. The insurer would pay right away. Otherwise, if the guy is uninsured, I myself would not have any issue with the proper use of force by the victim.
If it comes to force, i.e. the robber is uninsured, than I myself would think it proper for the victim to be able to transfer his right of retaliation to whoever he wishes too. So, specialized companies would probably spring up.
if the victim agrees post facto with that, its fine for me. Otherwise such a company is itself culpable of aggression.
Watch this Eugene, about 20 mins from the link I sent (1 hour 5 minutes), until about 1 hour 25 mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFOUqurUgFk&feature=player_detailpage#t=4001s
Nothing could be done. The whole stateless society would collapse and lead to a reptilian nazi-dictatorship. That’s why we must bury the whole consept of anarcho-capitalism.