But lets just look at simple arbitration. There may be one person claiming that something was unfair... well if the majority of people agreed then it is more likely that the arbiters are going to agree it is unfair and/or damaging, even though it may not violate NAP. It doesn't have to be an extreme example like I gave regarding environmentalism.
Obviously, our current courts aren't perfect either but at least a general standard exists. In the market, the standard is what the majority says it is, the standard becomes subjective, just as value is subjective.
Arbiters and defense or contract enforcement agencies will promote themselves by proving to the market that "we have been shown to get 15% more damages from cases involving misogynists" or something like that. The majority, not liking misogynists, will voluntarily support those services over those which claim to collect equal damages and they will dominate the market.
All I am saying is that the market is going to reflect the views of the majority in every way. It isn't going to necessarily follow NAP. Unlike government which does the same, it will do so extremely well. Although it may be less likely to descend into complete tyranny, it could be more "civilly" abusive than government because of this.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: