Democracy vs. capitalism: a question

[gotlucky]

@JimmyJazz

Also, you said: “Property rights require no arbitrary monopoly on force. And yes, I very much reject a national entity enforcing property rights as well. Property rights is people owning stuff and trading for what others own. And if they can’t agree on who owns what they find a way to settle disputes through private court, it doesn’t require a monopoly on force enforcing property rights.”

I have two questions about this:

-Why would anyone respect the authority of a private court if it had no recourse to force? If it comes to a court case, it’s clear there’s already a sharp disagreement between the parties involved. Why would the “loser” in this arbitration-by-private-court process, is s/he is rational, agree to submit to the outcome? Why wouldn’t they either (1) seek out another private court in an attempt to gain a favorable decision, a process that could go on forever, or expedite things and (2) simply say “to hell with private courts”?

-Even in the private court’s own view of itself, whence would its “authority” (or “jurisdiction”, or whatever you want to call it) derive? (Indeed, going back to my first question, I’m having trouble even coming up with a word for “has the right to arbitrate a dispute between two other parties in a binding way” that doesn’t sound like it implies the decision will be backed up by a monopoly of force: “authority”, “jurisdiction”, etc.,are the words that come to mind.)

These two posts should get you on the right track:

What Law Is

A Praxeological Account of Law