How are those objective conflict-avoidance principles for people who don't have as much property as they want?
Desire isn't a title. Scarcity means that human wants always exceed available goods. Property norms say "acquire by first use/creation, trade, gift or inheritance; don't seize". If you want more than you have, your options are production and exchange, not overruling the boundaries of others. That's exactly how conflict is minimized, namely by channeling desire into peaceful means, and not by pretending that a want comes with a claim.
What large society has experienced the absence of conflict without enforced rules about property?
What kind of dogshit strawman premise is this? I never claimed "absence of conflict" and I never claimed "without enforced rules about property" either. Conflict exists because of scarcity, and property rules are how you resolve conflict without institutionalizing aggression. Enforcement is decentralized (owners, associates, insurers, defense providers, liability, boycott, ostracism, counter-force) without a legal exemption for a monopolist to aggress as they want.
And how do you account for unequal bargaining power outcomes - everyone will be happy with a freely negotiated contract even if they're poor negotiators?
A voluntary contract reveals demonstrated preference over the alternatives a person has. Fraud, duress, or incapacity make consent null and void, full stop. Markets respond to "poor negotiation" with advisors, reputation systems, standardized terms, warranties, and insurance. The statist "cure" (letting a monopoly declare peaceful agreements null and void by decree) creates the only party with
actual unilateral power.
Show in a clear and concise manner how people respect property boundaries in the absence of law.
You, like many others, are assuming that law = state edict. I reject that premise. Law is the rule that your action stops at the boundaries of others. Enforcement is defense, restitution, and exclusion. "Societal consequences" are precisely what owners and their coalitions impose when they are wronged, without qualified immunity or political sanctuary.
[arbitration, merchant law, Iceland etc.]
Private order comes first. States later codify fragments of what already works (because it works). The mechanism is contract + reputation + exclusion. You can call that "adjacent to the state" if you like, but I don't care.
Do you even understand antitrust?
Antitrust laws exist to make every businessperson guilty before proven innocent. Charge more than your competitors? Guilty of price gauging. Charge less than your competitors? Unfair dumping prices. Charge the same as your competitors? Collusion.
There exists no such thing as a "monopoly" in the absence of a state. Everything that you might colloquially call a "monopoly" is at best a market leadership that's contestable. The moment force enters, it's not commerce, it's crime.
Legal and political structures, done well, temper whim.
Monopoly
centralizes whim. Discretion, selective prosecution, and immunity are not bugs or accidents of statism, they're the core operating system doing what it's designed to do. In a free order, the costs of predation fall on predators. Under the state, they're socialized and often subsidized.
That said, please try better next time. You've mixed many categories and smuggled many premises. You keep redefining "law" to mean "whatever a monopoly declares" and then declare every non-state law "not really law". I'm happy to answer actual questions, but I ask you to follow the AMA format and pose clear questions next time.
Good luck using your counter-charisma and rational arguments against General Butt Naked or Charles Taylor.
This is an AMA, and not fanfic story hour. Either ask something real or kindly vacate the premises so your fellow revolutionaries get question time.
This user is German. He can’t even carry a pocket knife or deny the holocaust might as less defend “muh property”.
Cool one-liner. Question or GTFO, thx.
Have you considered moving on from meme idealogies and learning about how the real world works?
Since you know so much more about how the real world works than I do, how about you explain to me how theft becomes noble when a majority votes for it.
Do you have any question at all? Besides sneering fatalism and baseless assertions, that is. If you don't have an actual inquiry, please vacate the premises.
1. who would build the roads?
Roads get built the same way everything else gets built, by whoever values them enough to fund and maintain them. Can be private companies, neighborhoods, insurers, malls, factories, voluntary associations, the possibilities are endless. Roads are already private in many places (driveways, malls, tollways, industrial parks). The state only monopolized them later.
2a. how would immigration and "borders" be handled?
"Borders" and "migration" are pure state concepts, in the sense that they simply have no referent in reality outside of a territorial monopolist. In a free society, all there is is property lines. Nobody gets to "immigrate" onto land that someone already owns without their invitation or permission. You only get to enter a society to the extent that property owners allow you.
2b. If immigration were allowed, would it nevertheless still be permissible to enforce ethnic homogeneity over certain areas?
See above, "immigration" simply is not a concept in a free society. However, for the ethnonationalists, the good news is that it's much easier to have ethnic homogeneity in a free society than under state circumstances. As a property owner you have every freedom in the world to contractually restrict access to your land or communities on any basis, just like you decide who enters your home. They key difference is that it's voluntary association and not a top-down decree by some far-away bureaucrat that applies to everyone.
3. should parents have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate their children?
Parents don't own children. They brought them into existence and are responsible for not aggressing against them. Neglect that results in aggression (like letting a child starve while obstructing others from helping) violates the child's rights. But no, unless the parents agree otherwise, there is no state-like "legal code". The framework is liability and restitution under property rights.
In case that wasn't clear enough: Everybody has the right to help children, everybody has the right to enforce the child's property rights as an intervening third party. Forestalling/obstruction is aggression and can be met with force.
4. what's the difference between anarcho capitalism and leftwing anarchists, like ancoms?
Ancoms are against private property in scarce goods and want communal ownership. To me that's clearly self-contradictory, since someone still gets to decide and enforce "who gets what", meaning that there is a state. In anarcho-capitalism, property rights come first (I often say that, at its core, libertarianism is just one specific set of property assignment laws, and everything else, from free markets to capitalism to anarchism just logically follows from people obeying these laws).
Basically, anarcho-capitalism is reliant on the existence of a homo novo that has a uniform ideology and acceptance of a foundational concept, otherwise it will be unstable. Just like communism, another boring utopian fantasy based on "but if everyone would just agree on this ideology perfectly, it'll all be great!".
Why bother arguing about it? Just like "fetch", it's not going to happen, Gretchen.
Thanks for the fortune cookie, but if all you've got is "this will never happen lol", then you've got nothing to contribute here. If you're not here to ask, get out.
When their entire argument stands on repeating some regurgitated lines off a 4x5 note card, you know they're full of shit.
I'll take your word for it, since you're leading by example.
You're in a cult. The way out isn't bullshit Internet debates. It's finding something you're actually interested in rather than pretending to be right about something that doesn't even map to the real world.
This is basically old shit mixed with "vibes" and "content". You remixed the playbook with Gen z garbage.
I was making these bullshit arguments while you were shitting in a can when your momma had you locked up in a shed.
Here's my real suggestion. There's really cool shit to learn that doesn't involve creating an imaginary universe that George R.R. Martin is loling at.
Well, you being full of shit also answers my question of what loot the final boss of Reddit drops.
I request that you leave the premises before you spread more of that stench.
