Quote ah2:And the issue with this is that there is literally no transaction that has absolutely zero externality factor. Virtually every productive process we have creates waste (this is not the only type of externality but it is a significant one).I think the anarcho-capitalists would agree that every action has some level of external consequence. The question is to what degree they violate the property of another. It is the disputes over property violations that must be worked out. There are some externalities that are property violations and some that aren't. The goal would be to prevent property violations.
Quote ah2:Who decides what our rights are? Do I have a right to not look out my window and see an ugly chainlink fence on my property line? By the time you get done saying people can't engage in any transaction that has an externality effect on someone else, you will have economic gridlock and no one will be allowed to purchase, sell, or trade anything.
Determining whether or not a property violation ocurred and to what extent would be the purpose of arbitration. In short, I believe that such decision would be made by the courts under anacap. The difference would be that no single court would have a legal monoopoly. The goal is the same as under our current court system however: equitable adjudication of property rights violations.
Quote ah2:Additionally, telling someone that they can't sell something due to an externality effect is FORCING them to do something which violates the original statement of your position.
I think that an anacap would argue that there is a difference between forcing someone to stop violationg your property and forcibly violating another's property. I don't think that anacaps oppose protective force. I even believe they recognize the need to use force to recover stolen property.
Quote ah2:LIBERTARIANISM IS INHERENTLY PARADOXICAL AND CONTRADICTORY.
Not sure about this. Hopefully we can discuss this further.
Quote ah2:You still didn't answer my question about free-rider problems or the issue of pervasive de facto racism that would literally prohibit someone from their means of subsitence which ostensibly you still believe we all have a right to given the quote above. You also have not addressed the issue of private courts and hwo you would get companies to willingly submit to a judge that was not already in their pocket or had their best interest at heart (that is, without FORCE).
Frank, you're overworked and underpaid! I think you need to hire a staff to answer ah2's questions! I'll try to help out as time allows...