You certainly had the opportunity to pursue such retribution (after being beaten by a state agent) but instead, you ran off to another country like a scared kitten.

Not necessarily an unwise action (voting with your feet) but certainly not consistent with your stated belief.
When is there a more appropriate use of this “strategy” than in the case of personal self-defense?

You do realize that I used to be a valiant ancap defender that would have argued exactly the way you are now? And my answer is no. The situations can be caused by either nature or human beings. With nature you can’t hold anyone responsible, but you can call a human immoral if he attempts to take advantage of a natural situation. Cut the strawmanning.

The out man is not the one limiting the in man’s choices. Being stuck in a hole (a non-human entity) is limiting the in man’s choices

If the out man doesn’t help when he can, he’s anti-social, and when he takes advantage of the situation, then he is immoral.

Actually, the out man is expanding the in man’s choices.

Compared to the in man’s present situation, yes. But the out man can expand the in man’s choices vastly by justing help the in man out, which would be the decent thing to do, and it would reflect upon his character as a moral person, unless you hate people or something.

To your second comment:

The difference between possession and property is about time, basically with property you permanently deny someone a right over it even when you are not using it. I don’t really want to go further into this, because I’d rather keep this comments section ontopic (which is going into why voluntaryism is bankrupt). Email me at hernoor08 at gmail if you want me to explain further.

I’m only familiar with her ideas in the context of institutional coercion (Statist Socialists/Communists), so hearing them in a different context is at least fascinating to me.

Well, I used to be a valiant apologetic for ancap for one or two years (it took me a long, slow process to fully abandon it), and these days I’m more in line with the traditional European anarchism, but I’m usually better at framing things for ancaps since I understand the worldview and reasonings very well.

@DixieFlatline
Communists are against monetary systems, I’m not. Ancoms are completely for mutual aid/cooperation taking the place of market competition, I still think competition can be a part although I do tend to prefer the former. So your assertions that I’m a communist are nothing but red-baiting.

@kristian
@NOOR
(i hope no ones said this yet)
voluntaryism is a ethically grounded philosophy, in other words, concerning itself only with actions.

Yep. It completely forgets about the situation you’re stuck in.

the situation you described about the well deals with morality (intentions, and all that other intangible shit), which would have no bearing to voluntaryism.

Of course it’s intangible to your extremely simplistic worldview. I grew out of that.

at the end of the day, the man in that scenario could not be held reprehensible for any illegal activity

Basic social decencies and ethics do not always translate to enforceable obligations.

“What are “the possible bad effects of competition”? Serious question.”

The absence of non-objective laws, the ability of agencies to aggress, the tendency of agencies to become state-like, etc

Can you explain how competing DROs/PDAs share this property?

By exerting power over those who did not give them a mandate to do so. And if they do NOT have this power, then there really can be no justice whatsoever.

In market terms, the market can sustain itself economically, this is true. But ethically and demographically, it is unsustainable because it cannot (on its own) enforce objective law and protect liberty.

“All State intervention is a distortion because it is an institution of coercion.”

The incumbent states are, yes. But you are making a false assumption if you cannot imagine states which are voluntary by near-unanimity.

“Any legitimate “good or service” the State “provides”, can be provided in a just and more superior way on the market.”

Except for ethical justice by means of objective law.

I am not justifying the state at any cost. You show me an articulation of a stateless condition which can be sustained (first of all) and one where objective law can flourish, and I’ll renounce the state instantly.

“To further elaborate on my last post, it is not we, the anarchists, who want to impose our “experiment” upon you. It is you, the Statist, who insists upon imposing your experiment upon us.”

I didn’t accuse you of wanting to impose your experiment. However, 90% of anarchists are closet commies (not saying you are one of these since I don’t know you) and the other 10% are in disagreement over whether murder is justified in bringing about their aims. Yet all use the word “anarchist”. And I am not a ‘statist’, since the definition of that is “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry” – i.e. fascism.

“It’s not an unproven hypothesis.”

In overall terms yes it is. None of the anarchies that ever existed have sustained themselves. Ever.

“We have anarchy in selecting a mate, in choosing what to eat, in showing “common” courtesy, in selecting a philosophy, etc… etc… etc…”

I would call that freedom, not anarchy. And I would argue, as I hope you would, that the fascist incumbent states intrude into all of the above areas.

Fancy an ooVoo debate?

That’s also the point of my analogy. It’s not an unproven hypothesis. It’s proven every single day in almost every human interaction. We have anarchy in selecting a mate, in choosing what to eat, in showing “common” courtesy, in selecting a philosophy, etc… etc… etc…

To paraphrase Molyneux, “we love the anarchy we live, we fear the anarchy we imagine.”

Though the realm of theory (study of human action, markets, the nature of the State) is sufficient, we have endless examples of emperical illustration.

None of the benefits of society are due to the State. None of them. If the State provides any legitimate function, we know with absolute certainty that the market will provide it at less cost and at higher quality and therefore we know with absolute certainty that the State is reducing utility rather than adding to it.

In the grand scheme of things, the vast majority of human interactions are already operating in anarchy. It’s not an “unproven hypothesis” to assert with confidence that with the removal of the State (so that all human interactions will be operating in anarchy), beneficial human society will not only continue, but will undoubtedly improve.