@JohnWay55162727 @Mann2609

@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.