My point was that you relied on laws guaranteed by Government and on its Courts to assert your rights.
On the one hand you slate them. On the other you seem proud of your success in using their guarantees and protections to assert your rights. What you are describing is the set of checks and balances that is supposed to offer fairness for all. Apparently it worked well in your case.
You may well be correct that the courts are too expensive for the average citizen who may be unable to assert rights against a usurper with deeper pockets. Is this an argument for a socialized litigation scheme?
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1
