It is naive to think that common law implies a complete absence of state authorities. The fact that customary laws are not made by legislatures does not mean that there are not judges or magistrates or constables acting on governmental authority to execute those traditional laws.
By what right would you deprive someone of their liberty? You may say this is justified if one violates the rights of another, but on what authority are you acting? If someone refuses to accept the principles of your society, what authority do you have over them?
The question of the double burden: in a society with out public legal institutions, if I am completely plundered of all my possessions, I would not be able to get justice unless I can pay for it. That is quite an imposition.
It looks like having public entities to administer justice is not too high price to pay -- a form of insurance -- to avoid that double burden. Does the state -- and thus the taxpayer -- then bear the burden? Yes, but if the system works it will be cheaper in the end than relying on private enforcement.
Do I conflate the various senses of the word "public"? I don't think so, but as gated communities become more common it's easy to imagine some of these senses being conflated. While there are distinctions to be drawn, it is possible that some senses of the "public" sphere may be lost if the state were ever to disappear.
By what authority do we do this now? Doesn't our right of self defense exist regardless of the existence of a State? And aren't our notions of due process an extension of self defense?
It is naive to think that common law implies a complete absence of state authorities.
Really? Despite the fact that numerous legal systems including the original English common law itself have operated without state-appointed judges, public prosecutors or any of the trappings of modern "justice"? These courts were not established by the government, they arose naturally.
By what right would you deprive someone of their liberty? You may say this is justified if one violates the rights of another, but on what authority are you acting? If someone refuses to accept the principles of your society, what authority do you have over them?
On what authority do government courts act? How do they attain this mystical "authority" that normal people supposedly do not posess? C'mon, x, even our Founders (who supported the State) recognized that rights derive from the people not from the government.
(Your last question, about someone who refuses to accept the society, is cogent. I address the problem of dissent below.)
The question of the double burden: in a society with out public legal institutions, if I am completely plundered of all my possessions, I would not be able to get justice unless I can pay for it. That is quite an imposition.
As opposed to the absolutely free justice I get today? The proportion of my tax dollars that currently go to law enforcement could easily go to some kind of "legal insurance" fund. This is not a double burden, this is the same burden paid in a different way.
It looks like having public entities to administer justice is not too high price to pay -- a form of insurance -- to avoid that double burden. Does the state -- and thus the taxpayer -- then bear the burden? Yes, but if the system works it will be cheaper in the end than relying on private enforcement.
Cheaper? You sure? Basic economics: A monopoly maintained by force will produce worse product at higher cost.
To go back to an earlier point, you asked whether a legal decision could be imposed on someone who dissents from the legal system I advocate. As with all issues, this is a question of property and contracts. There are a few possibilities:
1) The accused is a transient who enters the community from without. He is trespassing, thus his legal theories are moot.
2) The accused is from the community and has pre-existing "legal insurance." He is contractually obligated to stand trial. He may attempt to persuade the court to his point of view, of course.
3) The accused is from the community and has no insurance. He pays legal fees out-of-pocket.
4) The accused refuses to go to trial. Any legal claims he brings against others will be ignored by the community until he resolves the pre-existing dispute.