@Rob Roy
Why can't you answer my specific questions using your own words?
Chapter 7, for example, admits that there are people who are dishonest but then goes on to assume that people will protect their reputation. Because, yanno. They can't just move on and find another easy target.
Fucking BS. And then the drivel about 'professional arbitrators'? LOL. Because when you change their titles, they are nothing like judges today.
How come when I point out the obvious flaws in this, you move on and claim that I haven't refuted anything?
Try answering some of these before you declare victory:
If government using their own judges against you to win a case is the problem, why do you want all plaintiffs to choose their judges?
What do you do if somebody who has not consented to this form of government has wronged you? Use my Canadian example. If a Canadian shoots your horse, what can you do about it?