So sorry to disappoint you ;-)!  

I don't understand why you can't fathom that and the insurance analogy is a non-sequiter.

 How is it a non-sequiter?

And why wouldn't it be profitable?

Well, I already answered that, and you haven’t offered objections to anything specific. You’re argument amounts to “Nuh-uh! No it wouldn’t!” without ever addressing any points I made. But I will repeat myself, because I enjoy this discussion. Like insurance companies, the agency I’m talking about gets paid a monthly fee whether or not their services are required. So tell me, since you seem to be a shrewd businessman, why would it be in their best interests to act on my behalf in a situation where I am clearly wrong? The only reason it would, is if there was a huge demand for “polluter protection” services. But guess what; if there was such a demand, it would be filled even with a monopoly government around. Think about it, drugs are illegal, and yet there is an abundant supply of them. This is true even in countries that execute drug dealers. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply.

Say Coca-Cola is a defense agency, and its competitor is Moxie Cola. Ok so who intimidates who into complying with a client's decision? If your Moxie would you want to get on Coca-Cola's bad side?

I don’t really understand what your question is.

This is what anarchism is, law of the jungle.

Here’s something for you to consider. Since anarchy is defined as “without a ruler”, our own government is an example of anarchy. Is there a monopoly final arbiter that controls our government? No there is not. Is our government a bunch of savages only adhering to the law of the jungle? Does the senate get things passed only because they have more guns then the executive branch?

But that is because private arbitration involves a contract where both parties agree to the arbiter's decision. If one is in breach a final arbiter, i.e. government steps in and enforces the ruling.

Ok, say one party decides to not to abide by the ruling. Do you think anyone will ever want to do business with them again? I can’t comment on every single detail of this hypothetical anarchist society, but I can surmise that in a situation like this, companies would arise that rated the “trustworthiness” of businesses much like credit rating companies do now. Another option: in my business we are often required to bond jobs that we do. My company has a $40 million bonding capability. Say we agree to do a job for $1 million. If we don’t come through, the bonding company will ensure that the client is compensated.

You still can't get around the fact there needs to be one sole final arbiter.

And how does a monopoly government gain that privilege of becoming the “sole final arbiter”? By what authority do they enforce their will on people?

Now do you honestly think this has never happened or would you like me to cite actual court cases of insurance agencies duking it out for their clients in a court of law?

I don’t doubt that it has happened, but in order to properly comment, I would need to know the context of the situation. Case citations would be helpful, thanks. One last thing, you’ve criticized my contention that the majority can enforce their will on the minority (and I don’t see our checks and balances as impeding this, they are more of a speed bump). If that is not true, then that means the minority can enforce their will on the majority. Right? It has to be one or the other, doesn’t it?