The words you are using here, "murder" and "theft" commonly mean illegal killing and illegal taking, respectively. In other words, there exists some legislation that defines the difference between "illegal" and "legal" killing, and "illegal" and "legal" taking.

The term "illegal" implies a legal code, not a moral code. And legal codes are by definition a form of legislation, are they not?

Of course under ACism an owner has complete freedom to subscribe to any "free market" Model Rule legal code vendor they wish, and purchase their legal codes, and promulgation/legislated those rules. Or they always retain always the freedom to "roll their own" as they say, and promulgate/legislate whatever rules they feel like.

Bottom line, under ACism there can never be any independent morality, full stop... as under ACism the property owner gets to define morality as what they feel is right, do they not? Otherwise people can "voluntarily" just simple move on to the next property owners property, amirite?

No, a murder is a murder even if it's legal. Do you not think the droning of that kid was a murder just because it was legal?

OK lets bring this back to ACism... Under ACism wouldn't that depend on whether the owners had promulgated an anti-droning law, or other relevant legal killing regulations, upon their owned territory?

Otherwise wouldn't any honest and moral ACist court have to dismiss the case in absence of any applicable law being broken?

No. Again, owning property doesn't give you the right to initiate aggression.

No. I didn't mean to imply that the owner of the property that was droned was doing the droning, or condoned the droning in any way.

What I was saying was that if the owner hadn't happened to promulgate a rule that explicitly outlawed this kinda droning then, or other explicit anti-killing rules... no honest ACist court could interfere, because no law has been broken.

This gets back to what I was asking before... Under ACism, and ACist morality... there is no higher authority that can force any owner to promulgate any particular rule upon their owned territory. And there is no higher authority that can force an owner to pay for the enforcement of any particular rule they didn't promulgate upon their owned territory.

Is this correct? Or am I confused?

tom- What we're trying, Oh God we've been trying, to get across is that you aren't an anarchist. You say you are, but then you say **** like:
That is heroically at odds with the idea of anarchy.

Like, TomCollins keeps gradually shrinking his list of people who ask "interesting" enough questions for him to try to answer. (Even though his answer to literally every question is "I think it would be better than the status quo just cause, I can't explain why. I also don't know what the status quo is. Trust me!")

That's because what he wants is questions that let him dorm room bull**** up some counterfactual mechanism for how all the functions of government could be replaced by something that isn't called "government" just so long as everyone agreed to be excellent to each other. Discussions about "ACism" are just an opportunity for people who don't know anything about the world to guess at how it might work.

tom, if you want some flavor of authority to do all the functions of government, you're not an anarchist. If you want lower taxes and legal weed and all that, there is a respected and coherent political philosophy known as "libertarianism" that was invented by John Stuart Mill and John Locke and other people who don't need to vanity publish their writing as .pdfs on a neoconfederate blog.

But anarchism is not what you want, because anarchy is ****ing horrifying. Free markets in children? Voluntary slave contracts?

So if I call it tomnianism you'll instantly have no problems? Tens or hundreds of thousands of posts in this forum because you don't like my phrasing?

The higher authority is the morality of the action. An ACist says initiation of violence is wrong whether it's written down or not. The people enforcing this are not in a hierarchy they are all on the same level under the morality of non aggression. An insurance agency can intervene against droners on anyone's property under any rule-set because the morality of non aggression trumps all.

acism is racist, and there goes flywf again lol

Fly, why is it so important to you whether or not we are "true" anarchists or not? Non-monopolistic provision of law may very well be impossible but i think if you are the type of person that wants a free market in the provision of law then you are AC. I think it's pretty obvious that a condition for a free market legal system is that child porn (and whatever other heinous strawmen you can come up with) is controlled for in a similar way to what our system provides now. It's not like you are honestly worried that we are going to get bamboozled into some heinous **** by mises.orgs secret conspiracy to sell children of to rich land owners are you?

http://xkcd.com/386/

Seriously I get tilted by the hilarious arrogance of making a ****ing thread to "explain" a childishly simple political philosophy where the OP categorically refuses to answer >50% of the questions asked of him. fezjones and razrback and TomCollins and the like are trolling all of us.

Also, my point is that you don't want a free market in the provision of law. You might think you do because for whatever reason you've become emotionally attached to the phrase "free market", but nobody wants a free market in the provision of law, because that's anarchy. There is no law without coercion, and without law there cannot be a functional society.

I know, I know, [ ] mises.org vanity published .pdf. Oh God we know all about that ****. The person who wrote that .pdf wasn't a lawyer and didn't know anything about anything! Stop believing everything you read on the internet just because it seems plausible and has that magic "free market" phrase!

Seriously, ian, when you see posts like, oh:
Are you like "excellent rejoinder, I'm definitely on the winning side of this debate with this guy carrying the flag for Mises"? The "statists" of this forum don't spend any time whining about ACists "tarding" up the forum the way ACists complain BITTERLY about being asked rudimentary questions about their own political views(or, God forbid, being reminded of the checkered history of every single Rothbardian scholar), but oh man it's insulting to everyone the way this forum gets tarded up by people opining about how the free market will solve pollution because the EPA sets maximum arsenic levels.

Few days behind on the thread, will be rifling off a few responses here and there...

You mean Microsoft vs. Dropbox + Amazon + SonyEriccson + Softbank (contracted/storage) + dropbox's legion of investors, many of whom are billionaires, some of whom are very influential social activists, all of whom have a vested interest in the dropbox entity and its bottom line?

You mean to ask me why Microsoft would spend (how much in your expert opinion?) on identifying, isolating, and violently attack/kidnapping dropbox's key people in an effort to stomp them out, and risk the consequences of complete ruin,

instead of just using resources it already has at its disposal to build SkyDrive? Or just buy the company peacefully?

You cannot have seriously thought about this.

Reality: Microsoft just plopped down $300 million in an investment to go head to head with Apple and Amazon in the e-book market. TechCrunch link

Hypothetical: Microsoft just plopped down $____ million to wage war and wipe out Apple and Amazon in order to seize the e-book market.

So, in your head, where violence doesn't have any costs, I can actually see how you might enter a number there less than $300 million. But I'm asking you to think about the costs that will appear on Microsoft's financial sheets for once. When you've established that, then think about the opportunity costs of being violent with other businesses instead of peacefully transacting with them.

That dictionary definition said it too.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to your fancy AS made up definitions for commonly used words that actually have entirely different definitions. As far as I'm concerned, that's private ownership.

After assuring me of what I don't want, you skipped the part where you explain why law must be provided by a monopoly, but I should remind you we already falsified that assertion.