Aren't we a robot too? A very advanced one.
Nope, I'm an operator.
(Etymologically speaking, robots are manual workers, labourers. I'm a trained professional who works at desks, tables and flipcharts.)
You know very little about the English court systems.
More than you do, apparently.
They were actually several courts in competition with one another, and common law was used because it was least influenced by the special interests and even incorporated (gasp!) professional jurors. That's why it had to be taken over by the government.
It was created by the government, or at least the king. The professionals of the court were employed by the king (Henry II started this off). I'm sorry if this doesn't fit the liberal anarchist narrative you've built for yourself, but history is clear on this. The Wikipedia entry seems to match pretty closely what the book I was using when teaching the subject in university says....
The Scots lived for 1000 years with no central government.
Erm... the entire history of Scotland up to the union with England was one of a hereditary monarchy. If you mean no democratic government, that's a different thing entirely and irrelevant to your point. Even though the king held sovereign power, like most medieaval monarchs, he held parliament in his court, from the 13th century at the latest. If the Lordship of the Isles sometimes went against the king, that doesn't imply there was no central government, just that it wasn't 100% effective. Some consider the Lordship of the Isles as effectively a second "kingdom" within Scotland -- a second state with its own effective government under the "Mòd" (parliament) that MacDonald of the Isles would call with the lesser clan chiefs.
The 'wild west' of the U.S. was essentially stateless and was actually one of the most peaceful regions in the history of the U.S.
And what is the biggest hangover of frontier law in modern US law today? Plea bargaining. Buying testimony with a "get out of jail free" card.
Besides, there was law in the "wild west". There was a state. There were sheriffs, and judges, and marshals. I fail to see your point.
All of the core assumptions in your argument are wrong, and of particular note is your unwillingness to address how common law applied in the U. S. worked very strongly to protect individuals from pollution while the government pollution laws have worked to protect polluters from individuals.
Well, before restating that you'll have to actually present some facts to support your ridiculous notion of a "government-less" Scotland, and to deny the accepted wisdom of the Platagenet kings' common law courts.
As for pollution... well, all that proves is the system is corrupt. All systems can be corrupt, stated or stateless.
Now, tell me this: without a state, how would a legal system work?
"Common law" is a state system. The common law was a synonym for the king's legal system. It was a power play by the English king to take control away from local feudal lords, as the citizens were given the right to choose the king's common England-wide law in any disputes, as opposed to the local law.
As for insurance companies having agreements to avoid court fees... well... yes. But if there were no courts, there would be no fees, and no fees means no fees to avoid. Without a government there is no-one to enforce the decisions of the court, except mercenaries. How does that do anything but support the entrenched interests of the elites? And as for having a court without state... sorry, once you have a court, you have a territorial jurisdiction with its own laws and norms... and that sounds like a state to me.
Listen to a Beatles recording vs. anything recent.
Except that recent Beatles rereleases have been remastered with extra compression. In fact, I read an article once on "the compression wars" which compared multiple releases of Beatles (or was it Rolling Stones...?) recordings to chart the phenomenon.