[Apocryphon]

Seems like that’s been baked into the culture of American arbitration since its founding. Instead of top-down collective regulation, which was a relatively new advance made in the last century, the system from the start has always promoted individuals hashing out their differences in courts with torts. I am reminded that Lincoln had the rustic profession of lawyer when Illinois was still a semi-frontier state.

Isn’t that the aim of a libertarian society? In the absence of regulation, of overbearing government oversight or bureaucracy, individuals hash it out in courts? Would think that’s something that the American system since the Anglo common law days and the libertarian ideal agree upon.

[WalterBright]

Regulations that prevent force or fraud or infringing on other peoples' rights are perfectly valid in libertarianism. It's a proper function of government.

[Apocryphon]

So should such regulation should be enforced by government bureaucrats, rather than by individuals pursuing the proper enforcement of contracts via courts of arbitration?

[WalterBright]

I thought I was pretty clear.