Ok, I can see the appeal of "free-market-conflict-resolution", however, each "conflict-resolution-organization" (CRO) would also need an enforcement arm. For example, if party A subscribes to CRO#1 and party B subscribes to CRO#2 and they can't agree on which CRO should handle the case, each insisting that their personally subscribed CRO arbitrate their disagreement, then CRO#1 and or CRO#2 must resolve their conflicting conclusions, either by FORCE, or by mutually agreeing to another CRO#3 in order to resolve the dispute resolution between dispute resolvers (CRO#1 and CRO#2).
Ultimately a hierarchy of CROs would emerge, and perhaps some balance of power might exist between two or three CROs for some period of time, but eventually a single CRO would either coerce or FORCE the others into de facto submission, thus becoming the Supreme CRO, The Supreme Court so-to-speak, or, The Ultimate Arbiter Of The Law (TUAOTL).
A system like this already exists. Two parties can agree to an "out-of-court-settlement" by agreeing to a mutual arbitrator. A law firm is a de facto CRO and there is a "free-market" of these CROs. The CROs with the "best" reputations charge the most money for their services. This has the effect of insuring the wealthiest citizens get the most favorable outcomes.
A CRO that forces the others in submision is not a CRO anymore. It is what we have now, a violent state that forces everybody to pay for their so called protection. It has a monopoly, it makes arbitrary laws, with which it turns innocent people into criminals.
I think competition for the best service of protecting is better that a violent monopoly that you have to pay which has no obligation at all to protect you and you can't stop paying them.
But the believe in authority under the general population is the problem, not how things will be after the believe in slavery (and that slavery is a good thing) has stopt.
Thanks Peace
edit just curious What is the reason you decline payouts?
What mechanism would you propose to inoculate your utopia from an inevitable TUAOTL?
We are programmed from childhood, even in primitive tribal cultures, to "respect our elders" (parents, chieftains).
Individual helplessness isn't so much "brainwashing" (modern propaganda) as it is much more simply, a REAL-TRUE-FACT.
By voting for my "payout declined" comments and posts, you are supporting the highest-quality-community-approved-content of the top-earners!!!
When you vote for something that's "payout declined" your contribution goes directly into the "reward pool" which gets distributed to all the posts that make more than $20 steem, with the highest percentage of the pool getting distributed to the top-earners who are providing the highest-quality-community-approved-content!!!
So you're not contributing your steem to me, you're contributing your steem to whoever the whales decide "deserves" your steem (but I still get a small rep boost).
Why am I declining rewards?
Imagine a "democratic" system, where you could vote for your elected officials, but your vote only "counted" as much as you "invested" in the election system itself (election tokens)... Now that by itself sounds reasonably "fair".
bUT, now imagine that anyone with a larger "investment" in the election system could ERASE your vote?
Would you continue voting? Or would you just give directly to the candidate of your choosing?
Also, imagine steem without voting. Imagine they just Hard-Forked voting right out of the whole thing altogether.
What's left?
A lot of really awesome stuff, that's what!!
The delegation system is amazing (way better than pa.treon). The steem-token transfer system is amazing (way better than v.enmo or credit-cards or banks). The blogging system is amazing (way better than tw.itter or fa.cebuk). It's all super-awesome!!