Here I'll give you one more chance. This is something very simple and would happen in real life. Then I will ask some questions. If you can answer them satisfactorily, I'll concede that acland is paradise.

Party A begins work on construction of a house on a piece of land he believes is unowned (there is no central agency that knows whether this land is owned or not) a week into building, party B shows up and says "wait! You can't build a house here, this is my land. My Father left it to me in his will." He then produces a will proving this point. Party A then says "Well, bank of anarchy said this land was free" and produces a document saying the same.

This case must be settled in court, so party A suggests court C because he has used it in the past and they have always issued fair rulings. Party B says no way because party A has always won each case he presented in court C. Party B counters by saying they should use court D, however party A says that court D is wayyyy too expensive for him (Party B has more money than party A) so party A counters with court E, but party B thinks that court is way too far away from the dispute and will have no idea about the facts of the case. So party B counters with court F, but party A knows that party B's brother in law is the judge at court F.

So... who gets to decide which court to use? What happens if they finally agree on a court, but one party doesn't like the outcome and appeals? Who gets to decide what appeals court to use? Who has to pay court costs? What if the party decides not to pay? Who enforces the ruling of the court?

Why?

Is it funny that the poor have no money because the government took it all? ****ing punk.

What little money they do have, there's no point in saving since it will be worth less in a year than it is right now?

Punk. Ass. Bitch.

I guess the "do charities exist in America?" is a good retort to the evils of involuntary taxation. I mean it does sound kind of silly, but it's a good parallel.

I mean, I hate to break it to you but ACism has already been disproved. There isn't any major economist who supports ACism. The closest anyone came to philosophically defending it was Nozick and he backed off later in life.

In any case, what we're left with is someone who can't see that "Propertyless Peter", while an extreme example himself, is representative of the lower classes, much who started out with no capital or land, and who are living paycheck to paycheck and who, to varying degrees, would have to accept the capricious wants of their employers.

To be fair, without central banking and the 1000% inflation we'd all be bazillionairs riding flying cars and paying our movie tickets with gold dust.

Prove that any of that wouldn't have happened with anarchy.

Just yesterday you literally stated that things would devolve into gunfights between insurance companies

Ever heard of marking your property, dip****?

Pretty easy to build a fence, or at least put a sign up somewhere on the property.

If it's just a barren lot with no markings, then it isn't being used, and it's fair game. Unless the guy can somehow prove it was marked or otherwise being used, he doesn't really have an argument.

Just another bull**** fringe case that would be handled easily. As if every court would be so inconvenient, expensive, biased, or littered with people's relatives. Punk.

Lol. You're so stupid, it's kinda beautiful.

He's laughing at the fact that you derided poor people and compared them to rapists and thieves simply for being poor

So your only defense of state sponsored democide, hyperinflation, and slavery is to somehow claim "welp, it would have happened anyway!"

Nice job, punk.

You can't justify the state and all its horrible, well documented acts. You're a piece of ****

Gonna need a citation on the government took it all.

Still lolng at ZOMG the dollar depreciated 95% over 100 years like using a big scary number with a CAGR of like 0.8% annually or whatever makes your case. Like people just take money and bury in the backyard or do something stupid like STACK PRECIOUS METALS or something else equally dumb.

There was an old sign on a tree that said party B lot. It was ignored. Party B was in Europe for a week drawing up blueprints for that lot and he can prove it.

So the thing is now he had to be on the land the whole time?

Also lol fringe case. I have literally seen familial relationships end due to money disputes. These things are not fringe

And you support the downfall of society with no alternative that can be considered, which would encourage rape, slavery, and child labor.

Yep, I'm a piece of ****

There is some irony in that fence building as a method of demarkating land was a major problem when it came to Native American and English settlers. The settlers saw the empty land as uninhabited and free to expropriate while the Native Americas were much more nomadic and didn't have fixed property demarcations. So the settlers would build on what to them was empty land and the Native Americas would pass through and find that their normal travel areas or areas of infrequent planting were boxed off and people with guns would threaten them if they tried to pass through.

Just what I thought. You can't justify the Holocaust, human slavery, or state sponsored hyperinflations.

What a joke you are. Crying about the poor and then hand waving away, or ignoring hundreds of millions of dead bodies piled up by the GOVERNMENT. Not a free market company, the ****ing GOVERNMENT.

The real irony is that you think private property shouldn't exist, and yet you own it/use in your own life. Hmmm.

You need a citation to prove the government took people's money via sales taxes, gas taxes, lotto taxes, and every other tax out there? Government fines, fees, and court costs need a citation?

Where else did it ****ing go?

The Holocaust was perpetuated by a man, slavery was perpetuated by men. Funnily enough, this society you strive for will also... be made up of men! Why in the diddly **** do you think it will be AMY different without regulations? Who is to stop Mr. Burns from controlling things, and using the media to perpetuate what a good guy he is... you know, like Hitler. What stops it in your version of things?

Also, good pivot. Can't answer the simple question of "What happens if there is a dispute over which court to use," so yo lu transition to Godwin.

I, of course, said no such thing.

Big difference between a stable currency or monetary unit and one that declines every year. Imagine the "problem of poverty" if people could save a few hundred bucks a year and 30 years later that same original $200 bought them $275 worth of stuff instead of $125.

Not quite, punk.

The Holocaust was LAW. Government law. So was slavery. The choice was to follow that law, or face penalties, up to and including death.

You can't defend it or justify it.

Hitler was a MAN, and I am also a MAN. Not much difference between us at all, really.

I'm sorry, did I miss something? Are governments not made up of people?

What are you, 12?

The Holocaust did not start because there was a law that said "we must now have a Holocaust." The Holocaust began because a man had an idea of how to make the world better (much like you) that turned out to be ****ing horrific (just like your idea would be) and changed the status quo to fit this new version of things he wanted (much like you want to do.)

The problem isn't government, it's people.

Nice to see that you can't defend the Holocaust without invoking ACland, as if the two are at all related.

Ding ding ding mother****er