Yes I do use roads But it's hard to get around them. The institution that pretends to own the road does not own the road. It has claimed all the roads land all the houses and all the people the live within some lines they drew on paper which are called land. But there were roads before that and there were people living and owning land before they came and declared themselves owners of that land and the people in it.They have the monopoly on force and with that the monopoly on anything. People say they hate monopolies and what do they do they praise the biggest and most violent monopoly of them all.

But they don't own the people, you are free to go, right? So we cannot say that we are enslaved right? That is a salient and important feature not to overlook. We can look at what happens where there is no central government that lays claim to the road, we see it in third world countries, when you try to drive anywhere you get stopped constantly and extorted by gangs of thugs who say they own the road and you must pay them to pass, that is the alternative, sure EZ pass sucks but they don't put an AK47 in your face and demand random amounts of money.

So it also goes with courts. I have not been in one for myself, I once testified however in a case when there was a crime committed ( you know one with a victim) And I would pay voluntarily for a dispute resolution firm or organization.

So when someone's boss does not pay them they are supposed to pay a third party mediator, but why would the person who does not want to pay me agree to do that or to pay?

that is a thing right now because it provides an alternative to the courts, for people who don't want to go to court because of the threat of going to court. Without that threat why would the other party agree to mediation and not just tell you and your mediator to go screw?

But the government still has a monopoly on that too.
But that will change overtime.
Also if I have a problem I first go to the person and try to solve it myself. I don't know but mostly people are reasonable.

Right but that is already not a problem, we are talking about people who are not reasonable.

But what do you do when some people from a ficticious entity comes at your door claiming you have a "contractual" obligation to pay for "services" you never signed and never gave permission too.
And then says you have to pay for stuff that you are morally oppose.

you pay them, if you are lucky you live in America and it is the US government you are paying, if not you live in a shithole and some gangster is the one demanding that you give them money for protection, protection from them.

Also
Using the roads argument and pushing away the crimes this entity does.....I don't know I hear it a lot. When I hear people talk like that, (not only you) It's sound the same as people defending a serial killer because the serial killer helped a disabled neighbour build a shed.

That's not what I am saying, I am saying it is much better to have a serial killer who follows clear rules about who they kill with a monopoly on killing than the alternative which is a bunch of serial killers who don't follow such clear rules.

It's really astonishing how people defend criminals who ruined their whole live. And they don't even see it. A lot of people have a really bad case of Stockholm syndrome. And they practically demand that you develop one also.
People who call you their friend literally want you to be thrown in jail if you ever decided to follow your conscience and moral compass. It's sad, but hey live goes on.

but that criminal you testified against who hurt people, ought they not to have received that punishment?

What is the victim of a crime to do as recourse in the absence of a government?

We know what happens in places where the government sucks and does not do its job, vigilantes and gangsters settle the score.

Here is a good example, when El Chapo was running most of Mexico the murder rate was much lower than when he stopped. Have you read about dominant protection agencies?