Naw, I've put the finger directly on it several times ITT. Here is another thing that is 100% wrong...

Yes, you, just like everyone else, is expected to explain what you spew. What you spewed above regarding "absent state actors" is 100% wrong. You need to explain your comment, or admit it is wrong.

The hilarious thing is that the reddit ACer is in fact wrong. However, none of our resident ACers, including the 1st 2+2 Dean of ACism himself, Borodog, has even the slightest idea why they're correct. Basically they're just guessing, and they just got lucky.

But all of them, like ACers always be, are too ignorant to know, too lazy to find out, and so un-curious they don't even wanna hear the correct answer. Instead they're whining that myself, someone who does in fact know the correct answers, is even ITT. Not only do they refuse to ever chat about ACism, they're resentful when others do indeed chat about ACism.

LMFAO @ACers !!!1!

Voluntary institutions will inevitably be no different than any state actor.

Love our double standards in this forum!

Hey GT still waiting for you to say who controls how individual towns define the NAP, you have any desire to explain that?

There are no voluntary organizations within a capitalistic system as all transactions are backed with the threat of violence even to those who aren't a strict party to the transaction. The only truly voluntary system is one where the onky inviolable property is on one's person, once released from your person then it returns back to nature, free to be claimed by the next person, the Grab What You Can World.

AS EXPLAINED ITT it came from a lone reddit post. You do understand that. So why don't you just ask the lone poster on reddit (who we really do not know what their true colors are) what he was thinking instead of badgering people with a posting history about it.

Individuals are enterprising, and problem solvers. Government is just the opposite of that, chasing gains from enterprising people through coercive means. There's no reason why enterprising people cannot problem solve their way through challenges such as crime, roads, law, environment, and defence. Absent of the coercive means you become enterprising as people were meant to be. The true laziness comes from people like Shame Trolly, formerly MissleDog, who are clueless how to do anything which is why they spend time on the interwebs hurling broad brush attacks at ACists.

Enterprising persons can start a company where you log your property claims, and others who have similar problems of their things being taken can register their claims, and set-up a home defense system, or heck, just lock the door. There are all kinds of ways that the free market protects property. Have you ever heard of ADT?

Conceivably, they could buy insurance against theft, have their property clearly defined, and have their own defense systems to reduce premiums.

The only thing this all relies on is a paradigm of enterprising behaviour and private property.

That makes a lot of sense and the "you only own what's in your hand, everything else belongs to and is part of the community" is probably the economic system used for most of the history of human societies.

Right, but the involuntary violence is in there. Logging a property claim doesn't make something yours, otherwise I can log the entire world as a property claim, neither does locking a door make something mine. If I padlock the Chase building that doesn't make the whole building mine. Everything in ACism (or capitalism) hinges on using violence to enforce claims even against people who don't explicitly accept them, that's why people go to sleep hungry despite a supermarket being down the block or why a homeless man has to sleep on the street instead of inside an empty building, because the police will come along and use violence against that person whether that person wants that violence or not. It's involuntary.

I, personally, would find a firm to register a claim of the entire world to be of illrepute, and shop at another firm that registered claims more properly. Competition keeps everything in line. Why should I accept the claim of someone fencing off a large piece of land unless they meet some logical criteria such as "working the land", "improving it", etc.? Why shouldn't I shop at another firm, or start one my own? Through this kind of market intercourse who justly owns what is determined.

This is superior to enacting a bill in congress to "make it so" as it were. Without the Captain Picard to "make it so", entrepreneurs put on their problem solving hats, and profit.

I, personally, do not want to go back in time before capitalism, and enjoy companies such as Amazon who make life easier. Would a company like Amazon form in an ASist society? If not how? Isn't Amazon good for society?

So if I register property X at company A as mine and you register property X ( same property) as yours at company B, how is the dispute settled?

No, the "it's a lone reddit poster" isn't an explanation of why ACland == rape town in some ACists mind. My understanding from half listening to ACists is that society is organized around the NAP, but it turns out the NAP is fungible and can be defined by each society! So if two towns have competing NAPs what happens?

It is arbitrated by an agreed upon 3rd party. There is almost always an out-of-the-box way to resolve disputes peacefully, though there is no guarantee that all disputes will be peacefully resolved. This depends on how far people are willing to take their conflicting ideas of property, and territory, and is still a problem on the national scale where you have essentially the same problem, Country A claims X, and Country B claims Y (which includes part of X), how do you resolve it? Either with arbitration or war. War is of course expensive, and used as a last result as it is the absence of law and the opposite of society.

I'm not a dogmatic anything, socialist, anarchist, capitalist or w/e. I think a conventional capitalist social democracy handles Amazon ok, except more restrictions on monopolies would be helpful.

But, the anarchist answer I think would be anarcho-syndicalism.

I think it's a dramatic misreading of history and human nature to think that large great activities and organizations require someone getting rich off of them.

But anyway, Amazon is probably bad for society.

Assuming that they are sociable, then they trade with each other. There is no way around subjectivity when answering question such as, "What is aggression?", and "What is property?", even questions as "What is rape?" is not always so cut-and-dry, which is why there are juries to decide in the current legal paradigm. Likewise, in a private law society, there will be competing agencies who answer such questions who are beholden to their consumers.

Tax is not theft. The government put us on the moon.

hahahahahahahahah. Who was that guy who cornered the market on a drug and raised the prices 1000%? Capitalism is inherently competitive not cooperative, competition implies conflict. It's a circle you can't square.

lol, so when everyone is struggling to feed, cloth and provide shelter for themselves 16 hours a day society will somehow be better? Societies only start to advance when there is enough free time for people to invent the next version of society.

The most powerful wins that arbitration regardless of whether it's a war Lord, a feudal Lord, or a nation state. Ultimately the accumulation of land/property depends on coercion and force. Wars are avoided most of the time simply because it's obvious who would win.

No. One major store to buy from is not beneficial to consumers. A bunch of small and medium sized stores that compete with each other is much better.

ACland relies on people being nice to each other. People are often nice to each other for no reason...

NASA is far behind other firms such as SpaceX, and Boeing, if you have been keeping up on the next coming space race.

It was his right to set prices as he saw fit. Without law there is nothing but chaos, which is what you support.

Yawn.

Then, by all means, go ahead and compete with Amazon, and figure-out how to quickly distribute, and be customer centric, and compete with Target, etc.

No, it doesn't. It is in people's self-interest in the short term to respect each others property claims.

One of the towns is rape town, I don't think your assumption holds. "Trade" isn't an answer to competing NAPs either.