OK, fair enough.
But I got the same question for (others) like king_nothing_. My king, you haven't yet responded to the question regarding how consistent your personal theory of ACism is with what TomCollins expressed ITT. But when you get around to answering that question... and if you happen to be familiar with the "father" of ACism, the racist Rothbard, could you also add some comments on how consistent Rothbard's personal theory of ACism is to your own? Same drill... if different, could you elaborate on the significant differences? And why?

One of my profs as an undergrad is a fairly well known Austrian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Vedder

From there it was a short move to becoming an ACist. Here was the announcement a few years ago. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...closet-444400/

OK and TYVM for answering.

So let's say a resident of a nation-state where abortion is illegal buys up a plot of land in an ACist Region whose "social norms" feel that abortion is a form of murder... and then starts an absentee business offering abortions to tourists from such nation-states. Besides vigilante violence, what can the people in this ACist Region do about this activity they feel is murder?

No, not at all. But let me back up...

Because everyone in ACland won't necessarily have the same "social norms", we can assume that ACland will consist of numerous groups, which for lack of a better name, I'll call ACist clans. Each of these ACist clans are completely homogeneous, so much so that there is no need to codify any rules, or sanctions for breaking those rules, customs of adjudication, etc.

In the meantime, geographically all of ACland is split up into plots of land. If we ignoring land owned by those foreign to ACland for the time being... the owners of each plot of land are each members of their respective ACist clans.

So we have a one-to-one correspondence between each plot of land in ACland and the ACist clan that the owner belongs to. Which means logically we have a one-to-one correspondence between any AClist clan, and the land that the members of that ACist clan own. This is what I'm calling an ACist Region. Obviously, given reasonable agreements regarding easements and access, these different ACist owned plots of land that comprise an ACist Region would not necessarily all be contiguous.

This goes back to having an algorithm for visitors to be able to follow if they wanted to abide by all the rules while visiting ACland. First a visitor would have to identify the individual owner of the plot of land in question. Then inquire what that owner's personal rules of conduct are, and what ACist clan the owner belongs to. Thirdly, they would need to orally inquire what "social norm" derived, but non-codified rules, and sanctions, and due process, prevail under that owner's ACist clan.

So I'm not asking anything about "states" or initiated "force" here what-so-ever. I'm just trying to see if I understand the simple jurisdictional rule hierarchy and geographical boundaries that would apply while visiting ACland.

And once again, I'm just asking here... so if I still got it wrong... please, please, please correct me and give an explanation.

Do you think ac will ever be established on a large scale? If yes, describe the process.

A con*tractual society leaves each person free to benefit himself in the market and as a consequence to benefit others as well. An interest*ing aspect of this praxeological truth is that this benefit to others occurs regardless of the motives of those involved in exchange. People may be indifferent to, or even detest, their fellow participants. It is this almost marvelous process, where a man in pursuing his own benefit also benefits others, that caused Adam Smith to exclaim that it almost seemed that an "invisible hand" was directing the proceedings.[3] - http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Labor

In AC-land, how is every one free to benefit in the marketplace when considering the fact in a capitalist society not everyone owns the means of production?

Everyone own a means of production. Or at least of wealth creation and capital accumulation.

I think all they can do is not sell him things like water and electricity. If he is able to overcome these he can continue to offer his business. His neighbors won't like it because he isn't harming any of them. They could also boycott people buying his services, but he isn't forcing people to buy his services.

And this raises some very important questions.

I think we have already established that under ACism an ACist owner may use violence to evict unwanted visitors from their land (even if the visitor hasn't done anything violent themselves).

So under ACism, an ACist owner may use violence on their exclusive geographical domain. But if the owner (or her agents) is the only agency who may use violence, and once again not counting vigilante violence, doesn't the ACist owner have a monopoly on violence on their exclusive geographical domain?

And if an ACist owner, under ACism, doesn't have a geographical monopoly on violence on their own land (once again, not counting vigilante violence) who else under ACism is allowed to commit violence on an ACist owners land without the ACist owners permissions?

I think a land owner would have a monopoly on the use of violence on his land. However, I think most people would trade away part of this monopoly to be part of a society.

And that is exactly the definition of "statistism", is it not? Here, I'll quote our OP on exactly this topic...

They could refuse to interact with the owner of that property and those who go to get abortions. And if they feel strongly enough that it is murder, they could retaliate in defense of the unborn babies. And they either are able to stop it or they aren't and decide it's not worth the fight. There is no moral judgement here on their actions in terms of ACist thought. Some people find this a moral outrage and worth fighting for, and others think it's a moral right and will be determined to protect it.

It's very unlikely that peoples interactions would be limited to only one certain "clan". It's possible that's the case, but just seems very likely. But you could very well have such a system, where some groups have tighter rules than others, and they have their own private agreements to do things their way, and exclude people who don't follow those rules.

But when dealing with the other clans, which is beneficial in a lot of cases, they certainly would overlap a lot on their values (even if there were some minor differences) and would be able to interact with the set of values that didn't conflict. I could have a homeowners association that prohibits painting of my house purple, and other people might live in one that allows it (or has no homeowners association). But I could certainly interact with those people with many other parts of life. I could belong to a group that considers it a moral duty to donate 10% of my income to the poor, and they could shun me if I didn't do so. But such a group still may want to interact with other people with respect to trade or traveling on roads, or limit contact with people in all but the most extreme circumstances.

The monopoly on violence is simply saying *anyone* would be morally permitted to respond to acts of aggression, so long as there was sufficient amount of diligence for ensuring it was responding to the proper people and that the proportional amount of response was given. Ownership does not come into play, other than an owner being able to define who is welcome and who is trespassing.

Two processes I can see-

1) Technology increases and the state chokes itself to death and it arises out of necessity.

2) Civilization reaches remote places (think space) and is away from the influence of large states.

No. He is responding with violence for trespassing, which is an act of aggression against him. Anyone could defend another person in danger, no matter where the property is. If I saw someone getting raped on my neighbors yard, I could stop it.

And depending on social norms, if someone steals my bicycle and takes it to another property, if I use force to get it back, it doesn't matter if I own that property or not, I would be justified in doing so. The owner of the property has nothing to do with this. It would be good if I informed him of why and to get his cooperation to make things easier, but if he wants to block me from entering his property when there is proof that my stolen property is on his land, he would be aiding the criminal and such could be considered an act of aggression.

OK, let's back all the way up.

ACland, regardless of any ACist clans, every plot of land would be divided up among various ACist owners. And under ACism, those ACist owners would have a monopoly on violence upon their exclusive geographical domains.

Now sure they might, as a matter of practicably, trade away their exclusive geographical monopoly on violence to enjoy the benefits of living in civil society. But that would be their "voluntary" decision.

But under ACism, nobody could ever "force" them to make that trade.

Do I understand this correctly?

Not sure if this has been covered....

But lets say MD and I got together while living in AC-land, were not sufficiently satisfied with the system, and formed a coalition of people who were not happy. How would ACists handle this? Would ostracism be the course of action? And if so, could ostracism itself become a fascist tool of sorts to crush political dissidence?

No, unless you have some unique definition on monopoly on violence.

No.

Define monopoly on violence. If I am on someone else's property as a welcomed guest, and someone decides to fight me and I fear for my life, would defending yourself be an act of violence? What if someone steals my bicycle, and I see it sitting somewhere else, and I reclaim it? Is that an act of violence?

So far you two are just "unhappy". OK. Unhappy people aren't doing anything wrong. Why would you be ostracized for being unhappy?