Ask a genuine anarcho-capitalist anything* - *ideally where a libertarian framework is relevant

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

It's definitely not a moral statement. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it just is.

Then why do you even phrase it as "makes right"? You're sneaking in moral categories while pretending to reject morality. That's self-refuting.

I'm simply pointing at humanity and the entirety of our history

No, you're asserting a slogan. Where is your substantiation? If "human nature" really were reducible to "might makes right", then history would contain zero resistance, no revolts, no alliances against domination. Yet those are everywhere. The history you invoke contradicts your claim.

government is just a well organized gang, and law is whatever those with power choose it to be.

Then your whole vocabulary breaks down. If "law" = "crime", then you've destroyed the very distinction your sentences rely on. You can't even make your point without presupposing the categories you claim don't exist.

There is nothing you can do to change that, it has always been the case and always will be

If that were true, then your post is pointless. Why argue? Why write at all? The act of trying to persuade proves you don't actually believe your own determinism.

Look, your stance is nothing but empty assertion. All you're doing is repeat "it is what it is" with no substantiation whatsoever. Your takes refute themselves, you have no evidence, and the moment I take your words seriously they collapse into incoherence.

 

[The Last Stand]

What kind of Mickey Mouse nonsense is this? You've literally redefined law into roulette and then call me naive for pointing it out. If "the law" just means "whatever might get you hit by a club with some probability", then good job destroying the very reason the concept of law exists, namely to make human action predictable.
Under your oh-so-brilliant frame, the shopkeeper doesn't know if defending his store is lawful until the boot hits his neck. The citizen doesn't know if his contract is valid until the gang decides whether the duress of today "counts". That's not law, that's whim.

With you and @Penis Drager 2.0 arguing about the concept of law, therein exists a book that explored the legal philosophical theory of law. Aptly named ... The Concept of Law by a H.L.A Hart.

Now, I have yet to read the book in its entirely, but I found a footnotes summary of it if you'd wish to partake in.

Hart touches on @XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG's dispute of law being absolute by establishing the concepts of rule into hierachry: primary and secondary. Primary rules exist as a directive that exists on action and consequence. However, secondary rules complement the enforcement of primary rule by allowing ebb and flow for which primaries would need to be adjusted for human nature.

If society was governed on primary rules alone, that would just be authoritarianism and would collapse on itself.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

With you and @Penis Drager 2.0 arguing about the concept of law, therein exists a book that explored the legal philosophical theory of law. Aptly named ... The Concept of Law by a H.L.A Hart.

Now, I have yet to read the book in its entirely, but I found a footnotes summary of it if you'd wish to partake in.

Hart touches on @XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG's dispute of law being absolute by establishing the concepts of rule into hierachry: primary and secondary. Primary rules exist as a directive that exists on action and consequence. However, secondary rules complement the enforcement of primary rule by allowing ebb and flow for which primaries would need to be adjusted for human nature.

If society was governed on primary rules alone, that would just be authoritarianism and would collapse on itself.

The problem with your reference book is that it presupposes the very thing that's under dispute. It's as if we'd be having a debate on marathon running, and you drop in a "Philosophy of Anatomy" book in which every single word by the author presupposes that humans have 3 legs.

Hart's entire framework rests on a "rule of recognition", aka some socially accepted authority that decides what counts as law. But that simply is the state, smuggled in under a new name. So when the actual topic of the discussion is whether law can be grounded in objective principles (my stance) or is merely whatever the ruling gang happens to enforce (legal positivism), then appealing to Hart is just circular. It's a positivist book of hymns for exactly the view that's standing trial.

I'd like you to consider this point. Hart's so-called "secondary rules" are supposed to give flexibility and predictability. But who creates them? Who interprets them? Who decides on "the ebb and flow" of enforcement?
Hart's answer to this is "officials". And that immediately breaks down into the roulette problem I raised. The shopkeeper never knows if defending his store is lawful until the gang (or judge) decides which way discretion goes that day. And that's not law, that's whim.

The law I'm defending does not need any "rule of recognition" whatsoever. Property norms are not some inventions by a class of officials, they are objective conflict-avoidance principles that exist prior to any enforcement. Scarcity is a fact of reality, and from that follows that either two people's uses of a good are compatible or they aren't. And the implications of this make property rules universalizable and predictable without needing a priesthood or congress of interpreters.

All Hart really does is describe how states whitewash their own arbitrariness in robes and rituals. If anything, what Hart does is prove my point. Positivism never ever ever gets you real law, it only gets you habit and force underneath a legalistic paintjob.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Then why do you even phrase it as "makes right"? You're sneaking in moral categories while pretending to reject morality. That's self-refuting.

It's the opposite, you're just reading it wrong. It means that morality isn't relevant, only "Might" is. You keep getting hung up on what is right or wrong, and I don't know how many other ways this can be explained to you - there are no morals when it comes to power. "Might makes right" is just a pithy saying to convey the reality that those with power decide what is and isn't "right". You want what's right or wrong to be concrete, like math. But it's not, it's whatever the power hungry fuckers decide it is.

You are trying to overlay morality on to something where it doesn't exist. It doesn't matter if you or I think it is right, in the end power decides what is and isn't "right". That's where it's defined. Not in your head or your heart, or mine for that matter. This is the crux of the issue, and you still don't understand.

But I've run out of different ways to explain this to you. Honestly, back when I thought like you I probably wouldn't have listened to some guy on the internet either. Best of luck in your studies young man. Keep learning.

 

[The Last Stand]

It's definitely not a moral statement. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it just is.

And although you could use that as a basis for a logical argument, I haven't. Again, I'm simply pointing at humanity and the entirety of our history and telling you to see for yourself. But you can't see past your own worldview to see that others don't have the same beliefs as you, and your opinions aren't relevant because they will never play by the same rules as you. Never. Get that through your head.

This is an abridged definition of "natural law" I found:

Key Takeaways: Natural Law​

• Natural law theory holds that all human conduct is governed by an inherited set of universal moral rules. These rules apply to everyone, everywhere, in the same way.
• As a philosophy, natural law deals with moral questions of “right vs. wrong,” and assumes that all people want to live “good and innocent” lives.
• Natural law is the opposite of “man-made” or “positive” law enacted by courts or governments.
• Under natural law, taking another life is forbidden, no matter the circumstances involved, including self-defense.

This is a THEORY, meaning these are principles that are explained in the abstract. All fine and good, but in practice, human beings do not always operate on similar wavelengths of morality. That's the side effect of free will.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

there are no morals when it comes to power

Thank you very much for conceding the anarchist point. That is the entire reason why no man should ever be granted unconsensual power over others. If power means whim, then centralizing power in a territorial monopoly is not "order", it's just institutionalized whim.

those with power decide what is and isn't "right"

True - if you let them. That is why anarchism exists, namely to strip away the false aura of legitimacy that lets rulers pretend that their whims are law. The only way to keep "what's right and wrong" grounded in something real is to refuse to canonize any man's baton as "authority" in the first place.

You want what's right or wrong to be concrete, like math. But it's not, it's whatever the power hungry fuckers decide it is.

Thing is, if that were genuinely true as a metaphysical law, then your own sentences would not mean a thing. You're not writing because "the power-hungry" told you to, you're writing because you think reason and truth matter, which already proves you don't even live by your own proclaimed nihilism.

Every. Single. Observation that you have made. Is actually the anarchist case against the state.
If power without consent is whim, then giving a monopoly of power just puts whim on a throne.
If "might makes right" is all there is, then there is no distinction between government and a gang, which means the state has no legitimacy that you don't also grant to the mafia or Arab clan.
If you really believe everything you've said so far, then the only coherent position is anarchism. Abolish unconsensual power altogether so that order is built on property and consent, not on whim.

So I suppose thank you for making the anarchist case for me. You have admitted that every government is organized crime, that morality has no place where monopoly power exists, and that government-enforced "law" collapses into brute force. That is the anarchist thesis.

The only question left is, if you already see this power for what it is, what's your excuse for not being an anarchist?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

This is an abridged definition of "natural law" I found:



This is a THEORY, meaning these are principles that are explained in the abstract. All fine and good, but in practice, human beings do not always operate on similar wavelengths of morality. That's the side effect of free will.

FYI this "natural law" you describe does not represent my stance.
And neither my stance nor natural law insist that "all humans always operate under this", that makes no sense. The point of law and legal theory is to know in advance what is right and wrong, and that gives you the ability to tell apart a normal interaction and a crime.

Look, it's fairly trivial. If all humans already had a harmony of interests and respected each other's boundaries all the time, then nobody would waste even a single second discussing notions like "law" and "rights" and "law enforcement" and "crime" and "transgression"

 

[The Last Stand]

Human groups (whether it be villages, cities, nation states or AnCap Utopias) are all a slave to human nature in aggregate. Real human nature at its core, is animalistic. If you ever want to see it up close and personal (which you clearly never have), go spend time in a war zone or a disaster zone, and then tell them all about your contracts and property rights. Might makes right, and it doesn't matter if you think that's fair or not.

You want it to be one way. But it's the other way.

Now, I want to ask you something. Exactly what are you disputing with him now? Are you in agreeance with him that under any form of governance, you are under the mercy of whoever would determine law through might?

It doesn't matter if you or I think it is right, in the end power decides what is and isn't "right". That's where it's defined. Not in your head or your heart, or mine for that matter. This is the crux of the issue, and you still don't understand.

Okay, power dictates right and wrong. I have that. Would you say it's impossible for uprisings to happen from misuse of power? If so, that would be incorrect. I want to cite the French Revolution as an example.

I'm trying to reread your discussion with him, but I am lost in your counterargument.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Now, I want to ask you something. Exactly what are you disputing with him now?

Legal positivism (the notion that "law = whatever the people in power say") is a description of how law works when it's being monopolized by the state. I have pointed out many problems with this notion of law, such as the fact that it's whim-based, chaotic, disorderly, and unpredictable. Some interlocutors still cling to the notion that legal positivism is the only valid notion of "law" and every non-state or non-top-down approach to "law" is not actually "law" but something else, be it "justice" or "morals" or whatever.
I am sticking to my principled and substantiated stance that law as a philosophical discipline is a subset of ethics, and that objective ethics grounded in metaphysics exist and can be identified through philosophy. And that the real consequence of legal positivism is to just light all of legal philosophy on fire and replace it with the word "might". Cf. my assertion that the statement "might makes right" boils down to "might makes might", aka 1=1, a completely meaningless tautology. The "law" under the state is pure whim, and it is a complete and utter delusional utopia to think that a peaceful, orderly, and prosperous society can exist under a government as such.
Like, even if you go ahead and declare that everything they say is 1000% true, that power is whim and might decides everything, then the obvious conclusion is that no monopoly of might should ever, for even a second, be canonized as "the law".
My question then becomes "why tolerate this absolutely miserable state of affairs? Why not do something about it? Why submit to a system you already admit is chaos?"

I mean, what answer can people even give for why they're not anarchists?
"But anarchy would just mean fights between gangs"? But the state already is the biggest gang, and gang warfare is the current state of affairs under the beloved state. And under the monopolistic state, you have no exit, no competition, and no recourse.
"But people need a ruler"? Then explain how every resistance, revolt, or secession in history happened. If "obedience to power" really were human nature, then disobedience wouldn't exist. So either I'm not a human or your take on human nature is wrong.
"But at least state law gives stability"? Nonsense, even the legal positivists in this discussion have conceded it's probabilistic at best, and I didn't even need to go in-depth on universal things like corruption, discretion, and selective enforcement. If you want actual stability, you need universalizable and non-contradictory rules, such as those I advocate for.
"But anarchism isn't realistic"? Neither was the Earth orbiting the sun, or germ theory, or the abolition of slavery and feudalistic serfdom, until people stopped. "Realistic" just means "what people tolerate", so stop tolerating state coercion.
"But people are selfish/violent/animalistic/black/____"? Exactly. And that is why people should not be trusted with monopoly power. If people are bad, then why tolerate being ruled by people?
Like, what's the statist excuse?

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

That is why anarchism exists

Anarchism exists? Where?

Every. Single. Observation that you have made. Is actually the anarchist case against the state.

At no point have I ever defended the state, perhaps you're replying to the wrong guy? I've never said the state is good, I've simply said it's inevitable.

Individually, I consider myself something like an anarchist I guess (remember, I told you this earlier in the thread). I've called myself a reluctant anarchist before, because I know that my individual philosophical support for anarchism is simply a moral position that I hold personally. And that's it. And that's all it can ever be. Morality is not universal though, this is what you keep tripping over. You are dead set on there being a right and wrong, but there isn't. You just can't bring yourself to acknowledge that.

Anarchy doesn't exist and won't exist because not everybody thinks like me, and I'm aware of that. I'm aware of the fact there are very bad people in the world who will do whatever it takes to get power and consolidate power, because it is in their nature. This is why I would append the term "reluctant" in front of anarchist. I don't support anarchist philosophy because I think it will work to solve all the problems of humanity. I know that will never happen. I support it because it aligns with my moral positions, but that's all it is. A moral position, and morals are not universal as much as you may wish that they were.

So what happens when I state my moral and logical case for anarchy to a power seeking sociopath? Well he certainly isn't going to give a shit about contracts or the NAP or any of that other shit. He will join with others who are like-minded, and they will take power. They will tax, they will confiscate, they will imprison, they will do a lot of things that I disagree with morally, but it won't change reality. The reality is anarchism can exist in the same way that communism can - only in the hearts and minds of the naive.

Now, I want to ask you something. Exactly what are you disputing with him now? Are you in agreeance with him that under any form of governance, you are under the mercy of whoever would determine law through might?

His position is that if only we could educate the people about the morally and logically superior framework of Ancapistan that we would all be better off for it. I've been trying to explain to him why he sounds like an edgy teenager who just discovered Bakunin, and that he can wish in one hand and shit in the other and end up with the same thing. The strong will still take what they want, and create systems of government that benefit them, and you will never change that because it's human nature. Might makes right, and you can't philosophize your way out of that reality.

Okay, power dictates right and wrong. I have that. Would you say it's impossible for uprisings to happen from misuse of power? If so, that would be incorrect. I want to cite the French Revolution as an example.

Yeah and what happened after that? They call it The Reign of Terror, where The Jacobins rounded up all their enemies and lopped off their heads, and anybody who objected that they were just as bad the old rulers got their heads lopped off too. Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

You know why? Because the bad guys always end up in power. They're the only ones with the mental makeup to do what it takes to consolidate power. The good people just want to be left alone to live a fulfilling life and spend time with friends and family.

Good people aren't ruthless enough to take and hold power. Any pie in the sky philosophy that you have that doesn't recognize that is doomed. The kid above thinks this is an argument for "wHy We ShOulDn'T leT theM hAve PoWer tHen Bro!". Except there is no "let" about it. The power is taken by force. You aren't letting shit happen. The powerful take what they want, you're not giving it to them.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Tsk, you call yourself a reluctant anarchist, but all I see is someone conceding every premise of anarchism and then hiding behind defeatist cope.

Anarchism exists? Where?

Where does the state exist, genius? It exists in people's heads. It's a belief system.

it's inevitable.

An assertion with zero proof, many such cases. Where is the evidence? If "might makes right" were literally inevitable, resistance would not exist. Say it with me: Revolts, secessions, resistance. History is littered with these. All you can do is hand-wave all that away because it blows up your fatalist mantra.

I support it because it aligns with my moral positions, but that's all it is. A moral position

Wrong. Do you know what ideas do? They result in actions. You can't just shrug off ethics as "private taste". The ideas people hold determine what they tolerate, and what people tolerate determines what other people get away with. The only reason states survive is because millions of people share your exact slave cope. "Oh well, power is inevitable, I'm gonna bend the knee, take the jab, say trans rights, and be on the side of Israel". So, good job being part of the problem, you and your kind are the fertilizer keeping Leviathan alive.

So what happens when I state my moral and logical case for anarchy to a power seeking sociopath? Well he certainly isn't going to give a shit about contracts or the NAP or any of that other shit.

True, which is why I have not wasted a single second of my time on planet Earth trying to convince a sociopath to start being a normal human being. Because I know that's not going to work.
But what is your grand strategy? Canonize their sociopathy as "the law" and teach everyone else to submit? You're literally saying "wolves exist, therefore let's crown a wolf as king". Anarchism is the recognition that no wolf gets legitimacy. You don't reason with sociopaths, you contain them like the wild animals that they are. And that's what property, coalition, and resistance are for.

The reality is anarchism can exist in the same way that communism can - in the hearts and minds of the naive.

And here you are, calling yourself a reluctant anarchist. So what does that make you? Naive, or just too much of a coward to follow your own logic?

All you've said so far is pure undiluted cope. "Anarchy is right" (or "I personally prefer anarchy"), "but it will never happen, because human nature, because power, because vibes". No substantiation, no consistency, just a repetition of the same old empty words. You've admitted the law of the state collapses into might, you admitted states are gangs, you admitted morality isn't subjective whim but your own position is moral, and yet you keep pretending that this doesn't add up.

So which is it?
Either admit you're not an anarchist and you worship power like every other bootlicker, or stop playing "reluctant anarchist" and own the fact that ethics are universal and anarchism is the only ethically consistent framework. But you don't get to sit on the fence. Pick one.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Where is the evidence? If "might makes right" were literally inevitable, resistance would not exist. Say it with me: Revolts, secessions, resistance. History is littered with these.

Revolts, secession and resistance don't lead to anarchy, they just lead to other people in power. It's one group of people using power to take power from another group. And then they use that power like every other group does.

Where does the state exist, genius? It exists in people's heads. It's a belief system.

On every square inch of this planet. And it exists at the end of a gun barrel, princess.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Revolts, secession and resistance don't lead to anarchy, they just lead to other people in power. It's one group of people using power to take power from another group. And then they use that power like every other group does.

Well, neat, you admit that resistance exists. That by itself is sufficient to refute your "might makes right is an inevitable law of nature" mantra. If people can and do resist, then domination isn't automatic, it's just cycles of states cannibalizing each other.

On every square inch of this planet. And it exists at the end of a gun barrel, princess.

Where is your evidence?
Show me the state. Can I shake its hand? Measure its temperature? Watch it walk by?
All you can realistically point to are people, guns, and buildings. And that is precisely my point. The state isn't an object, it's a belief system, it lives rent-free in billions of skulls. Take away that mind virus, this delusional utopian belief in the state, and the uniformed guy holding the gun is just another mugger with decent PR.

Or has the state been a metaphysical object all along and I am mistaken about it being a mental leash? Or are you going to invoke Plato and argue that the state is some metaphysical pokemon floating in the aether? I hope I'm at least a pretty princess, and even if I'm not, that's still much better than being a bootlicking peasant

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

You've literally redefined law into roulette and then call me naive for pointing it out.

I'd suggest you Google "naive skepticism." There are many philosophical papers written on the subject.
Tl;dr: naive skepticism is pretty much a (derisive, obviously) way to describe someone who treats "not being 100% certain" as the same thing as "not knowing." It's a silly viewpoint that necessarily leads to solipsism.

To clarify what I am accusing you of:
You are banging on the obvious and trivial point that there's no way to be 100% certain what is or is not going to be enforced and are equating that with having no idea whatsoever. In reality, you can be quite confident what laws are in effect by simply looking around you.

 

[Hey Johnny Bravo]

How long have you been this stupid? When, precisely, did your stupidity start? Did you gradually get more stupid over time? Or did you just get full blown stupid at once? Do you enjoy being stupid? Or would you rather you weren't so stupid? How do your parents feel about stupidity? Are they also stupid? Is your stupidity genetic? Do you have stupid little friends? And a stupid little car? Is your dog less stupid than you? Does your dog teach you tricks? Or are you too stupid to learn tricks? Do you ever take advantage of how stupid you are? Or do you just kind of go with the flow all stupid like?

If you put a twangy guitar behind this, it would sound like a Tracy Chapman song.

 

[The Last Stand]

Anarchy doesn't exist and won't exist because not everybody thinks like me, and I'm aware of that. I'm aware of the fact there are very bad people in the world who will do whatever it takes to get power and consolidate power, because it is in their nature. This is why I would append the term "reluctant" in front of anarchist. I don't support anarchist philosophy because I think it will work to solve all the problems of humanity. I know that will never happen. I support it because it aligns with my moral positions, but that's all it is. A moral position, and morals are not universal as much as you may wish that they were.

Why ARE you an anarchist? What moral positions do you have to support that? And for the sake of curiosity, how do you feel about the Trump presidency?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

"not being 100% certain"

Law exists to give actors advance knowledge of which actions are legitimate and which aren't. If under your definition nobody knows whether a shopkeeper defending his store will be treated as lawful or criminal until the boot comes down, that is whim.
Naive skepticism is irrelevant here. Even if you drop the standard to 80%, it's still a concession that, under your view, law is just probabilistic roulette. And that throws out the window the entire reason why the concept of law exists in the first place, namely stability of expectation.

In reality, you can be quite confident what laws are in effect by simply looking around you.

Spare me that nonsense. The penal code says one thing, enforcers do another, discretion overrides both, corruption and budgets distort all of it.

I'd say you've been the skeptic all along. Reducing law into nothing but habit and gambling odds, then sneering at me for daring to point it out.
But that raises an obvious question. If law is nothing more than a weather forecast of violence, why bother dressing it up as "law" at all? Why dignify it like that? Why not just admit it's force and be done with the charade? If law is roulette, then what is crime? Is it the ball landing on black instead of red?

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

I wasn't familiar the Latin term.

Most people aren't these days, it only survived in Spanish and Portuguese because the new colonial estates in their respective empires were as massive as the old Roman ones. A German comparison would be the former Junker estates but they never had the same degree of exploitation.

Slavery is aggression for violating literally rule #1 of libertarian property norms. Why are you trying to shoehorn an institution that required a state to exist into a stateless system? If you can present the causal chain of events from "here is a set of rules that apply equally to everybody, no exceptions under any circumstances, also literally anybody may enforce them without needing to ask permission" to "the rulers of a megastate hand out conquered land as political favors and fill it with slaves captured in wars of aggression", do it

If I have more weapons and money than you, what is to stop me from enslaving you? If anything slave labor would be the most profitable even if it's not the most efficient, but who cares as long as it all goes back to me!

You don't need an organized state with laws and courts for slavery, just one group with more power and resources than the other. Slavery well predates any kind of organized states or governments, if anything it's the true "world's oldest profession".

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

If I have more weapons and money than you, what is to stop me from enslaving you?

The same exact thing that stops every other criminal. Resistance, coalition, and the financial reality of conflict.
What do you expect to happen in real life? Do I just sit there twiddling my thumbs all by myself while you conjure infinite power into existence? Your entire argument rests on everyone but you not having any agency or will to resist. Do you think I'm just a scripted encounter in a video game and you get to spend all the time grinding and using cheat codes while I'm stagnant?

slave labor would be the most profitable

Relative to what?
In reality, slavery is monstrously costly to enforce. You need guards, chains, constant surveillance, and your "property" spends every waking hour trying to escape or sabotage you. That's why actual slavery was only be able to scaled up under states because they got to externalize those costs onto taxpayers, conscripts, and bureaucrats. Without getting shielded by a state's monopoly, slavery is a high-risk low-return racket that free societies snuff out through boycott, defense, and retaliation.

Slavery well predates any kind of organized states or governments

Spare me that nonsense. The moment they disrespect the boundaries of others, "groups with more powers" are states. Slavery is not some spontaneous equilibrium of free men, it's the outcome of conquest and sustained coercion. Which is exactly why slavery disappears under genuine property norms. There's no tax base to subsidize it, no court system to "legitimize" it, no monopoly to keep it going.

And don't think the irony is lost on me. You're so passionate about liberating "slaves" from the horrors of anarcho-capitalism that your best proposal to achieve it is to enslave people. I mean, you do agree that if your big move against "capitalist slavery" is to LARP as a plantation owner with red flags, it just means you've become very monster you claim to fight, no?

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

The same exact thing that stops every other criminal. Resistance, coalition, and the financial reality of conflict.
What do you expect to happen in real life? Do I just sit there twiddling my thumbs all by myself while you conjure infinite power into existence? Your entire argument rests on everyone but you not having any agency or will to resist. Do you think I'm just a scripted encounter in a video game and you get to spend all the time grinding and using cheat codes while I'm stagnant?

Maybe in this situation I'm just more charismatic, likeable than you and am able to convince people to back me with the promises of land, loot and property? Where are you going to get your power base from to oppose me?

You view people as interchangeable parts who always act rationally and not individuals with distinct personalities and emotions who often act irrationally.

Relative to what?
In reality, slavery is monstrously costly to enforce. You need guards, chains, constant surveillance, and your "property" spends every waking hour trying to escape or sabotage you. That's why actual slavery was only be able to scaled up under states because they got to externalize those costs onto taxpayers, conscripts, and bureaucrats. Without getting shielded by a state's monopoly, slavery is a high-risk low-return racket that free societies snuff out through boycott, defense, and retaliation.

Who cares as long as I get my money? I can kill them if they attempt to rebel or escape and with the proceeds will reward the people who support me and aid in the effort to bring in more slaves.

Those free societies that abolished slavery all had strong central governments and in the case of the US ended up sacrificing hundreds of thousands of lives to make it happen. Slavery continues to thrive in lawless and backward parts of the world.

Spare me that nonsense. The moment they disrespect the boundaries of others, "groups with more powers" are states. Slavery is not some spontaneous equilibrium of free men, it's the outcome of conquest and sustained coercion. Which is exactly why slavery disappears under genuine property norms. There's no tax base to subsidize it, no court system to "legitimize" it, no monopoly to keep it going.

This sounds like the "not true Communism" excuse I hear from tankies who refuse to admit our mistakes...disrespecting boundaries, conquest and coercion are inherent to humanity and will always happen. Liberia, Congo and Sierra Leone and now Libya were fully ancap during the civil wars!

And don't think the irony is lost on me. You're so passionate about liberating "slaves" from the horrors of anarcho-capitalism that your best proposal to achieve it is to enslave people. I mean, you do agree that if your big move against "capitalist slavery" is to LARP as a plantation owner with red flags, it just means you've become very monster you claim to fight, no?

I want land reform, with large estates broken up, ownership limited to an appropriate size and redistributed to individual small farmers and their families and the money and resources to help them succeed. Forced collectivization is something that never works, it was a disastrous mistake because the Soviets and others conflated personal ownership with private property.

And yes, I hate slavery with a passion that borders on the vitriolic.