One need not rely upon the state for protection of anything—be it private property, personal safety, etc. In fact, I would go so far as to put forth that one acts foolishly to rely upon the state for anything, including protection. I am quite capable of protecting my own person and property, even intellectual property. I do so currently and I do so without any help from the state.

That is not to say that I face no limitations. I am under no illusions regarding my capacity for self-defense. If enough people bearing enough firepower came around bent upon taking what was mine, they would surely prevail. But guess what: that is possible with or without the state. Indeed, the state presents as the most likely culprit in such an endeavor. Theft is theft, regardless what the thief calls it or what he is wearing.

So private property is quite possible even in a pure anarchy. It is the act of retaining possession that makes it private property, not the enforcement of rules. In fact, it takes enforcement of rules to abolish anything—including private property. And the presence of rules implies statism, even if it is a minimalist state. Ergo, the enforcer of rules is an agent of the state, regardless what label he applies to his master.

Franc doesn’t disbelieve in ownership, his problem is with property. The strict mutualist position (which Franc, last I checked, has adopted) is that renting out capital is immoral, and so “property” (which includes the ability to rent out your possessions) is wrong.

Franc, you’re an enigma. I’m not sure if you’re the worst evangelist in the world or the best. You make everyone (even your allies) want to punch you in the face sometimes, but you always get them to think about your point. You’re responsible in large part for my conversion to a sort of mutualism, so thanks, you pinko bastard.

If you’re gonna say “you’re just wrong,” don’t expect me to take you seriously. Either tell us WHAT is wrong with the arguments, or admit you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.

They’re just wrong.

Like I said… you don’t understand Anarchism, and yet you pretend that you do. Anarchism does not “fail to take into account” evolution! Have you even HEARD of Mutual Aid by Kropotkin? His WHOLE BOOK is on that very topic, you asshole. It’s a well-known book, you have no reason to not know about it if you know anything about Anarchism, which you don’t.

“That’s why I’m a minarchist rather than an anarchist.”

Then you are absurd, since minarchism is the most absurd and the most contradictory of all political positions. Either you believe in the State or you don’t: your silly middle ground (yea, we need the State, but the State is evil, but it’s a necessary evil, but it should be limited, it should limit itself, even though it has no reason to limit itself, but it’s necessary!) is the laughingstock of pretty much everyone else.

“Don’t be me wrong, though… if we get to a minarchist state and it turns out that magically people stop being acquisitive and venal, I’m all for doing away with that last bit too.”

Actually, minarchism can ONLY work if “magically people stop being acquisitive and venal.” Otherwise, it will always inevitably collapse into a tyranny (ironically, this is what minarchists always accuse Anarchists of, because they are projecting, like any good believer).

“It’s just that that’s religion and not science.”

Oh, I would say you’re projecting again, but I don’t think minarchism is a religion. But it’s certainly not science, that we both agree on.