LOL
Except you’d never get to the sandwich shop, because you can’t move 10 feet off your property without negotiating access. So there are no common, free roads, no common sewer or power systems, no common infrastructure.
No way that beef made it from a farm to a city sandwich shop negotiating passage every 100 feet.
…and every time a house or business gets resold you get to start all over! What an adventure!
But the beauty of the system is that you CAN control who owns property around you, merely by refusing unwanted persons access to it.
So any neighborhood of all one group would be able to refuse to allow one of their own to sell to an outsider merely by refusing that outsider passage to and from that property.
Or say Fuck You to a neighbor by refusing to allow his paid Fire Department subscription plan from crossing your property to save his house. Same with an ambulance.
You know, because public property is theft and completely unnecessary.
Could this be the post you’re thinking of?
He didn’t want to be Speaker, and now we know he *really *doesn’t want to be President.
And nobody responded directly to it either, as far as I can see. Sad!
Somebody remembered it six years later; I can live with that.
The market of ideas had spoken!
Thanks! 
That one always makes me laugh.
To be fair, it was a hell of a good post.
Well the underlying base premise is seriously flawed.
No laws against anything, but somehow courts exist. Why would they? How can you sue someone for harming you when they can clearly demonstrate that their actions broke no laws? How would the court enforce their decisions when there are zero laws to back them up?
I sue you because your unregulated coal plant is dropping mercury laden acid rain on my property. What case do I have when you’re not breaking any laws? And even if I can prove that I am being harmed, what recourse do I have when the company can just turn around and appeal the verdict based on the fact that they have broken no laws and there is no legal basis for the decision?
Reminds me of a guy I worked with 15 years ago who called himself an Anarchist and said the best solution would be for everyone to live in small villages. My question for him was what happens when a Serial Killer comes through. His answer was that the village would shun him and refuse to have anything to do with him. Ok, how does that stop him from killing all of you? And what happens to the next village he moves to? “Oh, you’d pass the word on to other villages so they would shun him too!”.
Sure, because simply shunning serial killers resolves the issue completely. :smack:
Otherwise, the same crap. You have to negotiate with surrounding villages to make roads and allow traffic.
Nevermind that ALL of modern society is based on shared infrastructure and economies of scale. A world of small villages is a fading world where knowledge is forgotten, life spans are decreasing and Human society is dying.
What about anarchy precludes the judicious & voluntary use of violence, be it by an individual or by the community ? Makhno wasn’t exactly a peacenik, you know. Quite the contrary, by definition anarchists condemn the State’s de facto monopoly on violence, since that unipolar dynamic is the basis of any and all social hierarchy. Anarchist communes can have law enforcement, and laws.
The Law of the Mob with zero outside accountability? :dubious:
Holy Shit!!! What a moron! I mean, being dumb enough to think it is one thing. Being dumb it enough to SAY it to a reporter is a whole new level of stupid.
Did the reporter get her drunk first?
Why would they need to do that? For 30+ years the Republicans have been selling fear and anger, using truths, lies, half-truths and distortions to create it without regard to actual facts.
Get people angry on bullshit and that bullshit anger is going to come out.
Something like that, but not quite. The Mob rules with mindless emotion-driven violence, not reason. And the terms you use presume that there’s no accountability within the Mob ; and that the purpose of the whole thing is nefarious whereas anarchy is an *optimist, *rather benevolent utopia at heart.
Don’t get me wrong : it doesn’t work, won’t work, can’t work. Especially at scales wider than a monkeysphere. But as utopias go, it’s far from the worst.
Many (most?) tort cases involve allegations of negligence that are not necessarily related to breaking a law. Negligence can be established by breach of a law, but doesn’t have to be proven that way. A plaintiff needs to establish duty, breach, causation, and damages. The duty can arise independent of a law or regulation. In other words, in your example, you could sue a coal plant for poisoning you even it their conduct did not break any laws.