Arbitration only works because courts stand ready to enforce arbitral decisions. Without the power of the state to compel performance of contracts or obedience to adjudicated decision, people would welch on contracts and NOT PAY. It happens all the time, but the law acts as a backstop to protect the performing contractant. That this can be done in arbitration rather than in a full-blown court proceeding is admirably efficient. But it wouldn't work at all if the state were not willing to stand behind binding arbitration and enforce arbitral decisions.
As to the enforcement of contracts, the jurisdiction over contractual disputes between citizens of different states has ALWAYS reposed in the Federal Courts. It's written right into the Constitution. Your assertion that the federal power does not extend to the enforcement of contracts is in error on the plain text of the Constitution, q.v.
There is freedom of association.
There never was freedom to abuse any freedom.
What constitutes an abuse of freedom has been largely defined by law. Firing somebody for being a Catholic, and refusing to hire somebody because he's black are both examples of things that have been outlawed. You don't have to admit Catholics or blacks into your house, unless you hold open the doors of your house to commerce and become a public inn. Then you DO. Which is as it should be.
I'm bad with names, but I have a feeling we've had this conversation before. There's something eerily familiar about your religious certainty that nothing would work right in this world without a bureaucrat and a cop handy to pull levers and shoot bad guys.
Without the power of the state to compel performance of contracts or obedience to adjudicated decision, people would welch on contracts and NOT PAY.
Bravo Sierra. People are sinful, so they will indeed lie, cheat and steal when they think they can get away with it--but usually they can't, and the government is not the primary reason. Companies that bilk their customers quickly end up with no customers. We have a word for that; we call it "out of business".
There is freedom of association. There never was freedom to abuse any freedom.
Sorta like there's free speech, but not hate speech? I can associate freely, as long as I don't stop associating with the people you want me to? That's big of you, herr kommisar.
You don't have to admit Catholics or blacks into your house, unless you hold open the doors of your house to commerce and become a public inn. Then you DO. Which is as it should be.
You're saying if I decide to do business with Joe, it's right and proper for a bureaucrat and a cop to come along and force me to do business with Frank, Bill and Mary as well? And you base this on the belief that doing business with whom I wish is "abusing my freedom"? I don't deserve my freedom if I plan to use it a little too freely for your tastes? Yup. I think we have had this conversation before, and I realized that you were visiting from DU. But once again, you had me going for a while.