I can either argue the merits of a free society or speculate on how it might look. I can't try and do both with undefined turms. OK?
I dig. And "free society" is one of those terms.
I think it is a given based on the original post that a "free society"(NAP) is meritorious.
The overall direction of the original questions are aimed at "how to implement" such a society.
That implementation could be called "how it might look"
or at least the implementation will affect how it might look.
SO THEN . . .
Some might define "free society" as exercise of freedoms apart from exercise of responsibilities.
But that falls short as healthy communities (free society, if you will ) requires exercise of responsibilities along side the exercise of freedoms. I think this is a given BUT
this "requirement to exercise of responsibility"(sufficiently enough to promote healthy society),
in turn, implies some way(implementation) is needed for society to deal with those who fail to exercise such responsibilities.
What are the responsibilities ? . . . This question takes us back to square one - the three beginning questions of this thread . . .
#1 was . . .
Who is the final arbiter of what constitutes harm (offensive force)
and what remedy is available when harm has been inflicted ?
( punishment / restitution / other defensive force )
This first question is basically defining what is meant by NAP.
A common definition (community-wide understanding) of NAP
is essential for the health of a society built upon NAP.
An answer to this question which appears to be arbitrary cannot reasonably lead to promoting health of the society.
#2 was . . .
Who is the final arbiter of determining how much harm has been caused and
what the remedy should be ?
This question is really just an extension of the first question but applying the common definition to specific circumstances.
Again, an answer which appears to be arbitrary cannot reasonably lead to promoting health of the society.
#3 was . . .
If remedy toward the injured party is not consented to voluntarily,
who should extract ( defensive force ) the remedy ?
This question is an extension of the answer to the second question.
And again, an answer which appears to be arbitrary cannot reasonably lead to promoting health of the society.
==================================================================
The fact is (and debating this claimed fact should be the prime starting point as it is the core)
requiring responsibilities is ESSENTIAL to a healthy free society.
The questions of "implementation" simply address how to achieve this ESSENTIAL.
The secondary point to debate would be the conclusions drawn - that is,
Is it true that "arbitrariness" cannot reasonably lead to promoting health of the society.
And this society requiring health is wide-based, though made up of smaller subset societies.