Clarifying question regarding the post about vigilantism under ancap

I mentioned an example where a person resorts to vigilantism: relatively small damage was caused to them, the other party refused to compensate immediately, and instead of seeking formal compensation, the person simply causes proportional damage, and the opposing party accepts this, believing it would be cheaper than going to court. You object: that in a free competitive market, it will always be possible to find a reasonably affordable court, meaning the argument that swallowing the offense is cheaper than litigating will prove invalid.

In the case of a restaurant display window that I broke, it is true that the restaurant manager requires minimal effort: one call to the insurance company. Then an insurance agent arrives, records the damage, reviews the camera footage, processes the insurance payout, and then searches for me via the video recording and files a lawsuit, while the restaurant is seemingly no longer involved.

The problem is that while I will, of course, pay the insurance claim without question, I will subsequently create such a stink about the restaurant that they will regret it. These people dared not accept the verdict of my court, meaning they still believe they were right to overcharge and be rude to me; well, that is a very compelling reason to trample their reputation. They have nowhere to run—it is a stationary establishment where visitors go to spend time comfortably, and there are countless ways to ensure the restaurant’s clients experience discomfort. And the restaurant management does not want such problems, so if they can calculate such situations even one step ahead, they would prefer to replace the glass at their own expense without contacting insurance and apply sanctions to the waiter who was rude to me.

That is how my broken windows theory turned out.