I mean the faggots. I mean the gays. I mean the men that are so obsessed with pleasure that they rape boys because they get a kick out of destroying innocence.
You're blending together things that don't belong in the same category. Consensual sex between adults, regardless of how you feel about it, is not aggression. Raping children is aggression and it is treated as such under anarcho-capitalism. It is a violation of self-ownership and punishable as a crime.
Peaceful order does not emerge unless you spend several generations killing or imprisoning the fuckwits that don't give a shit about your private property lines so they don't reproduce. And then it doesn't last because retards like you think it emerges on its own instead of out persistent exertion of will watered by the blood, sweat, and tears of our forefathers.
?
Saying you want to impose moral authority at the barrel of a gun is exactly what separates arbitrary rule from objective ethics. If might makes right, then you've abandoned any claim to law, you've just said your will is the rule. That's the same justification used by Liz "consent accident" Fong-Jones.
Order doesn't come from endless bloodshed. It comes from people respecting property boundaries. And that's something people already do constantly in every ordinary interaction. When disputes arise, like your brothers shifting a fence, the fact of conflict doesn't make the rules disappear. It means you bring in arbitration, insurers, or defense associations to settle the claim and enforce it, if you're incapable or unwilling to resolve it yourself. The existence of thieves or frauds does not mean property isn't real, all it means is that property is so real that we need rules to settle when it's violated.
So the choice is not between "naive" property lines and blood-and-soil crusades, it's between rules rooted in objective reality and rule by whoever's will can muster the biggest gang.
Just from what I think about human nature, this would quickly end up resembling a rival cartel/mafioso affair and the "protection" part of it would become a very lucrative and corrupt industry. I think your idea of a free market is too idealistic because it would be unenforceable without state interference. You say that the company's reputation and the consumer's reactions to their evil actions will keep them in check as if they are incapable of deceiving people. They would probably become extremely good at deceiving people, depending on where consumer's rights falls within anarcho-capitalism. I'm assuming we would have way less consumer rights and there would be less obligation for a company to be truthful, because those are also state enforced laws on the company are they not?
Rival mafias, deception, corruption, that is what we already see under states. The reason that mafias persist is because the state creates monopolies, shields cartels with regulation, and blocks people from taking direct contractual action. In anarcho-capitalism, where defense and arbitration are competitive, no firm has any legal privilege to hide behind.
In anarcho-capitalism, "consumer rights" come from property and contract. If a company sells you something under false pretenses, that's fraud and thus a form of aggression. It's actionable, and competing arbitration and insurance firms have every incentive to enforce it, because their own reputation depends on reliability.
Doesn't mean that, magically, no deception will ever happen, but markets punish it more efficiently than states do. A company caught lying loses customers and contracts, an arbitration agency caught favoring its clients loses credibility and collapses. In contrast, a state regulator faces no market penalty for failure and often protects the same companies it "regulates"
The issue isn't whether people are capable of being corrupt, they absolutely are. The issue is whether corruption is disciplined by competition or institutionalized by a monopoly that calls itself government
