So I'm not seeing why the eleemosynary activity gets cut off all of a sudden? Why wouldn't the same incentive exist to provide people with law and just compensation?
Because it's not charity for goodwill. It's a duty of the job.
The American Bar Association Model Rule 6.1 states that
“a lawyer should aspire to render at least (50) hours of pro bono publico legal services per year.”
And the reason for that isn't about poor people. It's about the belief that government is only fair if everyone has access to it. Obviously, the absence of governments renders the need to ensure equal access moot.
So I don't understand. There's a niche to provide the less well off access to goods and services in nearly every industry. Why wouldn't that be the case for arbitration?
Because arbitration isn't about providing a good or service that you provide to someone else at cost to you (a toy maker giving away one of the toys it manufacturers). It orders someone to provide a good or service or money to someone at the cost of someone else.
When an arbitrator rules in a matter, they are stating that one party must do something for the other party. Imagine if
@HomerThompson ruled that I had to give you $10,000. How will he force me to do it if you disagree with his decision? With threat of force? And how much will he spend to force me to pay you $10000? And why wouldn't I simply point this to him and pay him to rule in my favor.
Now, imagine that it's property encroachment we're discussing. Why would he rule in your favor for free when he can rule in my favor for a discrete cash payment? And when I'm likely going to do it again and pay him again?
At what point does the poor you ever beat the rich me in arbritration?
Would you offer your services pro bono to people that need it?
If I wasn't a lawyer? Probably not - except as a loss leader for paid services. I do it as a lawyer because I think it's an ethical responsibility to ensure access to government by the poor. But access to government is very different from providing access to some private business.
Ostracism by creditors is actually quite powerful if you have credit like someone that just wen through bankruptcy wouldn't you say?
Note that your scenario is premised on government based items. A common occurrence where people assume that the checks and balances provided by government and forced on bad actors would arise without government. Yet if that were the case, they would have arisen without the government in the first place (parental advisory warnings being a no government example; credit ratings aren't).
Bankruptcy being a great example. Bankruptcy is a government tool for protecting creditors from default. Your credit rating, while provided by public companies, arises from leveraging the government's tools from public records to reporting requirements.
Absent the government's role, there wouldn't be a credit rating to rely on.