Based on the other unrelated thread, it seemed like it was time for another Q/A thread based on questions and understanding.

Not looking to get into arguments or debate, but mainly to answer questions. Examples might be how something might work without a state. It's impossible to predict exactly what might happen, but educated guesses can be made.

I'll try to answer all serious questions from serious posters, and hopefully some other posters on here can answer as well.

Lol serious posters.

What is the best way to deal with hard water stains in the shower?

Do you think Anyman was guilty?

What should be done to Anyman?

How do you have modern capitalism without any kind of regulating body to enforce contracts, property rights, market transparency, etc?

If someone wants to give me the cliffs on that turd of a post, I'll try my best, but I tried reading the OP and stopped pretty early.

Cliffs: Business in AC-land spent loads of money on armed thugs.

I was harboring a child molester on my property to protect him from a lynch mob. LirvA forcefully invaded my property, kidnapped him, and tattooed him, mostly against the wishes of the town.

How would you have handled that situation?

Please....don't try.

Loaded question.

Simple thing is there would be mechanisms for enforcing contracts, property rights. Capitalism would be impossible without them.

So I assume you mean how would such mechanisms be enforced without a central authority.

Contracts- Most contracts would contain arbitration clauses. When people actually go along with the arbitration, all is well. There are a few potential problems that could occur-

1) Parties agree to arbitration, but one decides to ignore the ruling.
- This would harm his reputation tremendously. Such a person would not be safe to do business with in the future, as long as many felt that arbitrator was fair and impartial. In severe cases, social norms may even allow for enforcing a judgement by using force. The ignoring of a contract could be considered an initiation of force, and the arbitrator/victor could employ people to take away his assets using force. A bank might voluntarily turn his assets over to maintain its reputation, etc... What level of retrieving assets or what can be done isn't exactly known, but it would fall somewhere in that scale.

2) Party ignores going to arbitration. Default judgement would likely occur, then see ignoring the results above.

Property rights - ACism could only exist when social norms have property ownership (otherwise it might be ASism or something else). So society in general would be in favor of property rights and see their value. When someone violates property rights, then such a person would have a bad reputation in the society. They would be someone you could not trust. So this may cause many people to refuse to do business with the person. I'm not sure if that would be enough of a deterrent or exactly how people would react, but depending on the crime, arbitration and insurance could come into play. A reputable arbitrator could decide the case, and someone who doesn't bother to show up would get a default judgement. You also may purchase insurance, and if someone steals from you or damages your property, your insurance company would pay for it. The insurance company would have an incentive to recoup these losses by going after the thief. Social norms would again dictate what *exactly* they could do, which could mean arbitration, going and taking the stuff back, trying to get him blacklisted from doing business with people, etc...

So you are correct, property rights and contracts are an essential part of capitalism, and without some mechanism to enforce both, it is doomed. I just disagree that a monopoly is needed.

Who am I in that situation? Regular Joe citizen?

Protecting someone from a lynch mob seems reasonable, assuming due process has not been given. A suspected child molester deserves some form of due process (details to be determined by social norms of course), and I would hope most people would respect this in the society.

So for the sake of argument, I'll assume there is no due process, and it's basically "he's a molester, it's obvious!" type lynch mob. LirvA entering my property to kidnap him would be a crime. Same thing with him tattooing him.

So try the child molester in whatever court system exists, punish him accordingly, then try LirvA for going vigilante and punish him accordingly.

Why would social norms allow for a violation of the NAP? Like, I think most people see stuff like this:

and they're like "lolno" because that doesn't make any sense at all to a normal person. Ignoring a contract and the use of force are not remotely the same thing. I get the feeling that a.) ACists reject the use of force, but b.) understand deep down that it's an inevitable and necessary component of human existence, and it seems like they try to shoehorn stuff like the above quote into their philosophy to create certain instances where despite the NAP, the initiation of force against someone is totally okay; to me, that seems really intellectually dishonest. Either force is okay or it isn't, and it seems pretty lazy to pretend like someone changing their mind about a contract they signed is the same as punching you in the face and thus makes it okay to use whatever force is necessary to recover damages.

There is a pretty wide area of outcomes depending on social norms. One involves strict adherence to NAP. I'll call this situation the Neilsio-style ACism. In this situation, you basically have shunning. It might be sufficient. I'm not going to rule out the need for more nor am I brutally hung up on a very strict definition of NAP.

Force is certainly OK in many situations. Self defense, defense of others being the most obvious situations. Retaliation for harm done is another possibility for being OK, but again comes down to social norms.

Someone changing their mind about a contract is fine- that's why they have exit clauses in many cases, and they simply pay the exit penalty and go on their way. And I never said "whatever force is necessary". It might be as simple as showing the judgement to a bank and getting them to reimburse you out of their account.

Breaking a contract and not living by the exit clause is the same as stealing in my book, which is a valid case for initiating force. But social norms could differ from what I am morally OK with, so I can only provide you my personal opinion.

I think we can all lol at Nielsio-style ACism amirite?