This is a short, recently released book that seems to do a decent job of making anarcho-capitalist or Austrian economic theory more easily approachable.
free online (Scribd/PDF)

The first two chapters are here for you to discuss. It was fun reading at times, even if you get it. I will add a chapter or two every day.

Too much state is bad state. Some of the examples make that point well.

In the sense that a fictitious corporate person "dies" through withdrawal of its government-granted charter for failure to comply with the conditions thereof, yes.

The feds tell me that my corporation is violating regulations, and order me to shut down.

I ignore them, and they revoke my corporate charter.

Do you really think it ends there?

What if I continue doing business? My customers don't seem to care. They enjoy the services I provide regardless of the government's arbitrary approval.

Maybe not, because when you accepted the state's permission to operate as one of their fictions, you agreed to play by certain rules. It's possible you could be personally liable as well.

It is not arbitrary. The government has the fiduciary obligation to go after you since you broke laws made by the people's representatives in the legislature. Pretending to still be the corporation while no longer having license to do so is at least fraud.

Cue hot dog in 3...

2...

1...

Hotdog sales have been temporarily suspended due to swine flu panic. Please standby while we re-formulate to an all-beef recipe. Keep sending your checks, though, since we have to pay some exorbitant bribes to the kosher inspection rabbis.

Wow , your hot dog vigilance deserves a medal. Midnight?! I thought the old folks home had people down by 8pm.

I heard there was some leftover pudding in the fridge so I'm sneaking around after curfew.

Hopefully, lil' smokies remain unaffected.

What in the cases where some see a violation of NAP and others do not? I'm not sure this has anything to do with OP exactly but it came to mind reading it for whatever reason. What I mean is that even in ACist society it seems like you would need a court whose decision is final and is respected, no?

Only one who both the complainant and complained against see as final which is a little easier to organise. If they both agree to be bound by the decision of a particular court who cares what the rest of the world thinks about it.

The winner will care, because otherwise there is no penalty for the loser saying "**** this, I'm not respectin this decision." DUCY?

They agree to respect the decision before it is made ducy?

Why would a clearly guilty defendant in a serious case agree to anything?

Because taking your medicine is sometimes better than the alternative.

Yeah, that's the one thing that I don't quite grasp about AC. I don't see how you can have justice without coercion. You can say that both parties would agree to respect the court's decision, but if I shot a guy, what incentive is there for me to agree to stand before any court? And once you have private courts using coercion to arrest murderers, I don't see what is stopping MADD from starting their own courts to go after drunks and drug abusers and religious nuts going after abortion doctors, etc etc.

And what exactly is the alternative? Are there going to be vigilantes going after anyone who doesn't submit to a court? That doesn't sound very voluntary to me.

Because you agree to be bound by a court before you shot a guy. And if you're running around AC world and you haven't yet agreed to be bound by any court that may come across as a little suspicious and people maybe somewhat reluctant to allow you in their shops, or on their roads, or anywhere.

So? I'm a straight out gangster, I don't care about not being able to enter voluntary transactions because I profit from entering into involuntary transactions.

What alternative is -EV compared to, say, 25 to life in a voluntary prison?

This.

Then we shoot you. Which is perfectly moral by your own code of ethics.

That doesn't sound very voluntary to me, and in any event, we already have people with guns to do that, not much of an improvement.

Starving to death because nobody will trade with you or allow you onto their property?

BTW, I have serious doubts that prisons as you think of them would exist in Voluntariopia.

Did OJ starve to death? I don't see the groundswell of economic pressure against known criminals.

It's perfectly within your stated moral code. It'll be a vast improvement for the 99% of people who aren't violent sociopaths who can now have choice between which private courts they pre subscribe to, and the 1% that are can't complain because they are being treated 100% in line with their own stated moral code, that using violence to get what you want is ok. We want them out of our society so by their own standard can use violence to achieve that.

Wait, you think you should be able to unilaterally open transactions without others' consent, but you're going to object to people doing the same to you? If you open a transaction without consent, you've got zero legitimate objection to someone else closing it without your consent.