@richardanaya @MrExaminer

well the covenant is incentivised not to, but an outside private body would likely be under contract, theres a lot of incentive to.

yeah forestallment, ud provide easement, and restitution. tho forestallment isnt really smth u can do by accident.

>coercion based on race or religion is, of course, wrong not in terms of law. what do u think libertarianism is?

by profit i dont just mean nominal profit. itd subsume ideological motives aswell. what do u mean by correct the transgression? forestallment?

Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible." -- ayn rand

""Value" is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept "value" is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative-

this is beyond parody, the austrian conception of value is not only compatible its agreed with by objectivism. dont take my word for it, take the ARI's newideal.aynrand.org/p/objec… and Robert Tarr's Economic Theory and Conceptions of Value: Rand and Austrians versus the Mainstream

robot? is that you?

incentives, and determine what is incentivised vs disincentivised, and we know that aggression is never a profitable activity.

>they would not be composed of angels who agree on everything, but rather of human beings. right which is why covenants arent proposed as a system out of nowhere, they are what will appear in a free market, we dont need to assume people are rational we can simply analyze the-

then they would be committing aggression, and depending on how such a covenant is structured likely a state. the good thing is forestallment and slavery are not profitable activities, and without other forms of aggression like taxation its not viable.

forestallment does, otherwise u come to silly ideas such as the idea that u are the monopolist of ur land and body.

>What would be the consequences of violating the rules of anarcho-capitalism? And wouldn't the enforcement of such rules necessitate the use of force and territorial control? force isnt an issue, aggression is, and "territorial control" does not necessitate monopoly-

covenant may not forestall them, if there is a border they must allow passage, any restrictions must be paid for and not used to trap the new non-consenting adult.

>the children of sect members are often subjected to harsh repression, even though their parents may have joined the sect of their own free will which is why a covenant must provide easement, once the child can consent they may choose to leave or stay, if they wish to leave the-

>A covenant may initially have a voluntary component, but later on, it might require coercive mechanisms to sustain itself. coercion isnt bad, aggression is.

good, ive convinced everyone ive ever talked to on it, what im working on is simply a thorough paper on it. im fairly certain ik who wrote this lmao