Dunatis Posted:

You got me there, I was mistaken in thinking that you were at all relying on people not being complete bumholes to each other at least to some degree. I guess for some reason I thought you were arguing that anarchocapitalism would benefit everyone

It does. They wouldn’t be working in the so-called sweatshop if they didn’t think it would benefit them. But you go on and believe that value is objective and precisely what YOU think value should be. After all: you get to rule over everyone, right? Y’see: you don’t get to determine what is of benefit to someone else.

Dunatis Posted:

Because people are known for stringently following the law at all times. The government doesn’t create coercive monopolies just through legal fiat. It takes enforcement of said laws for it to work at all and I’m saying it’s absurd to say that just because it’s not written down somewhere doesn’t mean it cannot in principle be enforced in the same way.

And yet you still need a government for it. You cannot have a coercive monopoly without such.

Dunatis Posted:

How often do people here complain about being banned for something that isn’t a rule written down somewhere?

I see no parallel here.

Dunatis Posted:

There is no special magical quality of influence that a government has that cannot be replicated through sheer financial power

Yes there is. The power of trade is far different from the power of a gun.

Dunatis Posted:

No, they happen because a company does them

Because of government regulations.