And yet, the difference is that the state does not own the land it claims to, these individuals would.
And you can always buy the community from its owners. You can’t do that with a state.
Underscoring the fact that in anarchy, rights will have a value set by the market process rather than being socialized via the state.
Does your right to not be raped have a value set by the market process?
Land ownership is not the point.
I said that such a community may formally comply with libertarian law. On the other hand I would never regard people who are obsessed with suppressing all dissident thought as libertarian people. Rather I’ll consider them totalitarians in the realm of ideas.
You can play the religious persecution card and call me a commie, but I’m not buying it.
I think this is fair enough. I mean, a similar scenario would be a voluntary communist enclave or something. We wouldn’t consider the people necessarily to be libertarian, but as long as they weren’t agressing others then it’d be ok.
Yes. Guns or men willing to use them on your behalf cost money but you can probably get either for pretty cheap. And protection from rape comes with the territory for female family members.
On the other hand, good luck finding someone willing to protect your right to purchase child pornography.
And a child may not have such money. A child may be held captive by the very person raping him or her.
I wonder what is actually under dispute in this thread
Yes. I would see a communist association in the same light. On the other hand communism is based on allegedly rational principles, so dissenters in a communist community could, in principle, try to argue. against the system. However in the case of religious communities there’s nothing to appeal to. Either you accept dogma X or you get lost…
Actually your comment underscores your misunderstanding of the nature of a free society. What you describe is closer to gang warfare. Which by the way is one of the common mischaracterizations of a free-market in security used by statists.
…
The nature of anarcho conservatism ? Or something like that…
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here, that children require the protection of their parents?
I said ‘allegedly’. Communism is nonsense buy they at least try to make it look rational.
I am disputing Byzantine’s claim that rights have a “market value”. Rights are inherent. They exist whether or not one can “purchase” them.
How big a problem do you think this would be? Most adult men worth their salt would kill a child rapist upon detection were it not for the state’s ruthless persecution of any enforcement of justice outside its coercive monopoly.
Again, it’s called private property.
Which is why the best thing that could happen right now is for the state to declare murder legal.
Then let me clarify: protection of rights has a market value. Regardless of whether you think you have a right, for example, to purchase child pornography, you have to outbid everybody else who may disagree on the existence of such a right. In application therefore, it would seem to be a meaningless distinction.