So you don’t seem to object to voluntary association, am I correct? But if this type of society is considered valid and moral, then taken to its end, one then must object to democracy, or the imposition of the will of the majority upon those who dissent, no?
Not if a society’s charter is democratic.
But if one never agreed to such a charter, for example, if a parent did, but the child did not, and is now an adult with his own lawfully owned property, surely you don’t imply that he is subject to the terms of a contract he never signed or gave any sort of consent to, do you? No such individual would be held to a contract he never agreed to in a court worth it’s salt, would it?
I guess not. But they didn’t agree to some free society contract, either.
I’ll take definition #2, Alex.
This was all a hypothetical… as in, what if an individual or group of individuals created such a charter and all voluntarily agreed to it.
So you’re okay with any citizen claiming their independence and opting out of the system of taxes and welfare programs, on the condition that they write a charter for their property? And if yes, why?
On the condition that they stop using dollars, public services, and everything else the government is handing to them, yes. Because no one is stopping you from just living in the woods or renouncing your citizenship.
living in the woods
*Maine Free State
This is a good troll. No one considers “defending one’s customers from assault and larceny” to fit under the definition of “anti-competitive behavior” but you. I already told you that those firms wouldnt be prevented from offering services, they would simply encounter resistance when attempting to actually perform aforesaid services. Still, this isnt what anyone would consider a problem. if youre so concerned about “anticompetitive behavior” then wh arent you concerned about the prospect of rapine, which is quite anticompetitive, as a manufacturer cannot compete if his machines were stolen, a store cannot sell products if its products were stolen, etc. Why do you think it is “bad” to prevent thieves from stealing, but its “good” to allow them to steal?
Your equivocation on anticompetitive behavior wont work. The phenomenon that you label “anticompetitive” is itself a competition. Its as if you are a packers fan, so when they play the cowboys, you accuse the cowboys of anticompetitive behavior for tackling guys, blocking guys, sacking the qb, etc. Youre ridiculous.
I agree with you there. I’m saying that there’s no particular reason why agencies would only attack other agencies which agress on their clients. They’re free to attack any other agency and even exploit that other agency’s resources without harming their own customers.
The cowboys aren’t eliminating consumer choices from the market. Warring agencies, though, are.
Thank you for adding some meat to your argument. Youre incorrect on both counts. First of all, these agencies would not necessarily even attack the hostile agencies. Thats one thing I keep telling you, imagine a scenario where the defense agency refrains from attacking the hostil agency. All they do is defend against attacks. so the hostile agency is free to offer aggressive services. So, we wont be hearing this anticompetitive nonsense anymore 
Secondly, there is a reason, and its a very good one. Aggressive actions are not profitable. If they are making money by defending their clients, they have very good reasons to maintain their brand, and acquire new customers. This means more voluntary associations, and therefore more profit. Its a positive feedback cycle.
now what youre going to say is, who makes sure that every agency does that, instead of turning to robbery? I’m not a utopian. I just know that freedom is a state of mind, and people have to choose to abandon it, it cant be taken away even unto the flesh torn from their bones.
So you agree that aggressive agencies engage in anticompetitive behavior?
Why would they not attack? Are you just betting they won’t turn society into some Somalia POS?
Attacking other agencies doesn’t prevent them from defending their clients. In fact, they can use the profit from their aggressive actions to invest in better protection for their clients. They can practice both business models, even.
Yes, in fact conflicting legal systems cannot coexist and anticompetitive behavior by one or the other is inevitable.
Airplanes can be made out of spruce. Looks like youre out of arguments, Malachi wins again.
On what? That under your theory, exploitation isn’t supposed to be profitable? If you don’t want to explain how the state is able to profit from it in a way that “private defense agencies” can’t, alright.
We have been over this. The state doesnt profit, it destroys wealth.
So you’re saying the state doesn’t profit. Does it lose money? Does it perfectly break even? Those are the only other two options. If it loses money, when will it run out?