Sorry Euph, but I want to continue this convo with wuf a little.

Instead of a quote wall, I have 2 main points I wanted to respond with.

First: The State is a complete non-issue in regards to how people see criminals. If you are so much as suspected of doing a crime, the world treats you like a pariah. The best examples are probably how businesses treat those with felony convictions, how colleges hold witch hunts with rape accusations, and how even reckless gossip can destroy friendships.

You can take the past riots as an example as well. All it takes is some redditors or a news organization, and all of a sudden a potential "criminal" is a big fucking deal and needs to be crucified. (The State is the alleged bad guy in this example, but it shows how we treat the accused).

This "negative opinion" (huge understatement) will impact how much businesses care about their customer.

Second: The Judiciary branch is a necessity. There will always be two sides to every story, and lawyers can probably make it seem like theres 80 different sides. The point is that past events are never black and white. Its true that many cases can reach resolution without a 3rd party's action, but many others cant.

Take a traffic accident. Ralph says Steve was speeding. Steve denies it, and says Ralph ran a red light. Ralph claims the light was green. (Note, even without traffic laws, the above would matter in liability because they impact how 'reasonable' each person's actions were)

^^This kind of discrepancy happens everywhere, even when people think they're telling the truth. In such a case, you need a fact-finder (jury, or judge) to determine (based on some evidentiary standard) what the actual facts where. You can't settle or negotiate a case without agreeing about what happened (assuming the disagreement is material).

Take a different example. Company A and Company B have a contract. Company A believes B isnt fulfilling his end of the deal. Company B says "screw you, I'm doing exactly as required". This type of situation will not be resolved without a 3rd party's aid in interpreting the agreement (judge). But the 3rd party's aid is completely meaningless if it didnt have the power to bind the parties.

Regardless of whether you are arguing over laws, policies, contracts, or morals, there will always be situations where two sides just refuse to agree. At that point, you either say "meh, go home", "lets flip a coin / compromise down the middle", or you need to have someone else decide. If you do any option that doesnt require someone else to decide, then you encourage disputes to occur because its gametheory optimal to deny it at that point.

But then take the representative system as a whole. Because there are two sides to every story, I want the company to represent MY side. Screw the injured parties interpretation, I want everything to be thought of in the best light for me. Put on some rose colored glasses, and give me the benefit of the doubt. If I commit a murder, say "I didnt do it", and the company ignores me...what was the point in having them as a representative? I want them to believe me, or I might as well not pay.

But if they are acting as your agent, acting in your best interests that is, then what you've done is create a lawyer. You now have a judiciary, capable of enforcing whatever rules govern the business style market. If there isnt something called a "law", then you are correct in that a formal judiciary doesnt exist by definition. But if you're just talking about a body whose function is to interpret rules and perform biding dispute resolution, then you've got a judiciary in everything but strict definition. Then its just a rose by another name.