The ones simply with the ability to put a stop to the squabbling is the "government". They would basically have a monopoly on the use of force. You would not have anything less than this, due to nature of human/animal hierarchical social structures.
You do understand that the concept of a monopoly on force is only as old as Machiavelli?
Market law and rights protection would do a hell of a lot better job than a monopoly.
Tell me, how exactly would a huge bank harm the public?
The same way it does now
By influencing the government? What government?
Sorry, see my post #25 for my reply to these questions. I would say it is older than Machiavelli. Also i want to point out that there are other markets with their potential monopolies other than money creation that are powerful enough to influence "government", them being energy, food supply, water supply. They are the other rhinosceroses (sp?). You might could say government is a collection of all these including armed force. It can't ever be totally free due to animal social structure. I'm not a sociologist or a biologist, just my opinion.