If the resources were not in use by anyone, then it is just for him to appropriate it. For example, if there was a flowing river that people drank from, it would not be just for him to claim this resource.

This system allows the ones with most Power define what is Just and what is not. No. Our current system allows this. In an anarcho-capitalist society justice dealing is decentralized. Then the right to

to me this is evil I agree. Still, libertarian theory does not promise utopia. It simply promises a society that is more just than today's. Surely it would be better to take the risk of some maniac getting

Please note that "just" and "fair" are not synonyms. What's fair to you may not be fair to me. In the words of Bastiat: justice is the lack og injustice. Some action or inaction is

Let's abandon this strain as clearly you misunderstand me and I you.

The socially necessary labor argument is circular. You determine the value of a product by the value of the labour involved, and you value the labour involved by the value of the product, which depends

What keeps the people from voting with their feet and leaving? Assuming the monopolist is profit oriented, he leaves the people with enough money to survive after water costs. What keeps these people from

I readily accept that the odds of me swaying the author in his beliefs are negligible. However, any online argument has the benefit that it has not two but many judges, and I hope to provide some insight

point being?

The arguments mentioned here go something as follows. "Businesses (in the free market) centralize resource control, therefore centralized control of resources works". I hope you realise that

Let's try this again. Your argument is that the free market does not work to provide the best outcome because one person tried to apply his interpretation of the free market in his business and the free

I see where you're confused. I mean one single director directing all capital from above. In the free market we have many free actors directing their own capital. Not sure what that Salon article has to

Capitalists perform a very valuable function in society, and one that lacks in any kind of socialist society and which ultimately always leads to its demise. This has been described in many works, but

I think the alt-right stands to benefit from an anarcho-capitalist society, and I think it would allow you to form communities that tick off all your boxes and would thrive, but to call the alt-right the

You're already arguing past the point. Any society with public officials is non-free. Those public officials need to be paid out of your pocket against your will so they can spend your money on things

Democracy is ill-suited to elect competent officials. When the cost of irrationality is low, people indulge, and people have been indulging heavily. It is perfectly rational to not want your wages to go