Bitcoin Forum

In a relatively short period of time, I taught myself what libertarianism is. (A word I did not know 6 month ago)
I started with Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, then Mises and now Murray Rothbard.

I think that, as many of you that actually read one of them entirely, they definitively shifted my mind.

The first of Rothbard I've read "Anatomy of State" was not particularly practical... entertaining but not mind shifting.

However "For a new liberty" of Rothbard is impressively practical.
He still has not converted me to anarcho capitalism but I've not been able to contradict any arguments of Rothbard.
Also, there is no argument against libertarianism that Rothbard does not respond to. He leaves to gray area, no untold story, no attack unresponded.
This was, among all the books I read, one of the most mind boggling one.

My question is : Given the limited time I get, what other book of Rothbard would you recommend, covering different grounds than "For a new liberty" ?
I'm not fan at reading several time the same author, because they have the tendency to repeat themselves, thus wasting my time. But Rothbard is a special beast, I'm willing to take the risk.

What are the must-read Rothbard's books ?

I have read only "Man, Economy, and State". It covers a lot, and is brilliantly written.

I've only read Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature.

To be honest, I think Rothbard is overated. I have never been impressed by one of his book.

On the other hand I would strongly recommend Hayek. Either The Constitution of Liberty or The Fatal conceit, both are outstanding.

What Has Government Done to Our Money and/or The Mystery of Banking. Both are great, I think MOB goes into a little more detail. Very relevant for people wanting to understand the basis for Bitcoin also.

I agreed with what you think of Rothbard until I read "A new liberty".
On one book (Anatomy of the state) I read from him he was just spitting on government without really adding much. But that was not the case for "a new liberty".

Though, I realize I might be easily impressed by him, since my basic culture on libertarianism was zero.


Noted, I have "road to serfdom" from Hayek, but not start reading a single word of him. Definitively motivated me to start today. :)
I added the one you cite in my reading list.

Well, since the last 8 months what lead me here today are the natural flow of question that arise when one discover Bitcoin :

• 1. What is Bitcoin (technical level)
• 2. What is money and banking
• 3. What is libertarianism

I don't understand the money and banking matter as much as the technical level of bitcoin, but that's good enough for me for now, I'm concentrating on the libertarian part. :)


Anyway, writting down all the references. I have to profit from amazon premium subscription while I can ! :-o

Well if you're looking for stuff besides Rothbard, then I recall Stefan Molyneux's books to be extremely good too. His three books that are most related to Austrian Economics are Everyday Anarchy, Practical Anarchy, and How NOT to acheive Freedom.

Currently I am reading Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman and it's pretty good from a real world perspective too.

I support this suggestion if you want a excellent book about economics.
So good, in fact, to be praised by Mises itself.

On the way to my house ! :D


I strongly differentiate between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Anarchism does not recognize property right, am I mistaken ?

Yes you are mistaken :)

Of course people always have their own definitions of things. Just like if I refer to Capitalism I'm talking about a free market, but it seems the more mainstream definition of Capitalism is more like what I would call Fascism or Corporatism. My definition for Anarchy and Anarcho-capitalism is essentially the same and what I've found is that Rothbard, Molyneux, Friedman, Doug Casey, etc. are all basically in line. Call it whatever you want, but it's based on the non-aggression principle.

I agree, but 2 things. Some folks are walking around arguing for the abolishment of private property. Quite absurd if you ask me, because that allows someone to take your food, your shirt, even the air around your head.

The other thing, even if private property is necessary for anarchism and capitalism, it is possible to discuss how far it goes with ownership to land, the standard in historic times being occupation of unused land, and if you give it up, it is returned to the pool of unused land. Nowadays if you have land, you have it forever, even if you don't use it. We also have the financial system including rent, and the degree to which a state is used to extend the notion of ownership. Outside land, we have the government created assets like patents and copyrights. Interesting questions with several solutions within the boundaries of anarcho-capitalism.

I believe Molyneux would consider himself an anarcho-capitalist.  He is an advocate of both anarchism and free market capitalism.  He also regularly produces podcasts and YouTube videos in addition to his free books that may interest you.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUVVh2O56_0

Anarchism has nothing to do w AnCap except the word Anarchism

Its like Nazism has nothing to do w Socialism

Anarcho-capitalism is a combination of anarchy and capitalism.

And nazism and socialism is the same thing.

AnCaps don't understand Anarchism. 

Anarchism has its roots in Marxist thinking so the economic system for classical Anarchists would be Socialist.  Anarchism & Capitalism are incompatible ideology.

AnCaps are followers of Rothbard and the libertarian ones are followers of Ayn Rand.  But its all just dumb neckbeard kids.  Nobody serious takes them seriously.  The same dumb kids who think Nazis are Socialists when everyone knows Nazis practice Fascism AND Capitalism

----------------

Chomsky interview about the subject:

Man: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?

Chomsky: There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority.

If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, "they rent themselves freely, it's a free contract"—but that's a joke. If your choice is, "do what I tell you or starve," that's not a choice—it's in fact what was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example.

The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: "No, I'm a libertarian, I'm against that tax"—but of course, I'm still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.

Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard—and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a world where you don't have roads because you don't see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred.19

The whole thing's not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it couldn't function for a second—and if it could, all you'd want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something. But this is a special American aberration, it's not really serious.

You could. I mean, you could get out. That should be worth something.

Yes, I want to live in a world where there is no traffic congestion and no rush hour.
Where even me, or a collective action, can attack a big company for its abuses on my property,
where court decision is not based on whims, but on principle,
where judges are decided peacefully by their reputation, not by authority granted by the state,
where judgment takes weeks and not year,
where I don't have to fear the police and the border even if completely innocent,
where I don't have to ask for permission to what I want on my property,
where I can pay someone for what he is worth on the market,
where solidarity is not synonym of forced taxation,

I would live in such world.
Whether it is possible, I don't know yet, but "a new liberty" gave me compelling reasons it can exist, and that's why I want to read more arguments from Rothbard.

My favorite book that I have read from Rothbard was Conceived in Liberty.  It is three volumes, so not an easy read.
What I got out of it, was the importance of using economics and the struggle between statism and liberty to explain history.

Other essentials are:
Man, Economy, and State
What has Government Done to Our Money
The Case Against the Fed

I've started America's Great Depression...not far enough into it to decide if it is essential, but I suspect it should be on the list.

He has written a lot of essays on various topics.  Those are quite interesting, shorter (sometimes), and specific to a topic you might be interested in.

Actually there are some people that refer to themselves as anarchists that don't seem to understand that the word "anarchy" simply means "no rulers".  I'm not convinced that a truly anarchist society is possible, but I'm not opposed to letting them try it out.  It might work, but I would be happy if we just moved towards a more libertarian, or minarchist, political system that let people participate in an economic system of their choice.

Anarchists can be capitalists or socialists.  As long as they don't condone the imposition of an economic system (or a monetary system) on someone against their will through the initiation of force by rulers.  Just let people choose the monetary and economic system that they want to participate in, voluntarily.

Ayn Rand was an ojectivist, but I don't believe she was a libertarian, I've even read that she despised libertarians.  I've been a libertarian since the late 90's, but I don't think I qualify as an objectivist.  I don't really know all of the details about Ayn Rand or objectivism.  I believe there is a lot of overlap, and I agree with a great deal of her philosophy.  However, I also think she supported the concept of "intellectual property" and state/military intervention in the affairs of other nations.

The reason why anarchism is incompatible with capitalism is that in a capitalist society the ones that hold all the capital are the rulers.  Its not possible to have "no rulers" under capitalism

Anarchy is what happens after Capitalism collapse according to Marxist ideology.  Marx thought to get to this state you need a proletariat revolution first.  Anarchists think you can just skip the revolution part

Holding or owning capital doesn't necessarily make one a ruler.  It's having and exercising the ability to force someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't do that makes one a ruler.  Rulers (governments) certainly have to have assets and resources to impose their will on the unwilling, but that doesn't mean that everyone with assets and resources will resort to initiating violence.  Those that want to live peacefully in a free market can agree to respond with force against someone that declares them self a ruler and initiates the use of force.


So Marx wasn't a statist, but an anarchist?  No rulers would be required—everyone would just freely choose to participate in a socialist economic system?

In a stateless & capitalist society the big corporations have no regulatory body, therefore they would weild most power.

Both Marxists and Anarchists share a common goal for liberating the working class

My error for thinking Anarchism has roots in Marxism.  Anarchism has roots in philosophies pre Marx such as Rousseau

But during the time of the First International,  Marx had ideological conflicts with Bakunin, an Anarchist.  Marx eventually had Bakunin expelled from the group although they share a common  anti capitalist goal

Im not an expert on Marx.  But I dont think he had a theory of what the state looks like in a post capitalist society.  His idea of the modern state is that it serves the interest of the bourgouis class.  I dont know if he just wants to replace that w a state that representative of the working class or no state/ minimal state

In a stateless and capitalist society, individuals still retain the right of self defense, control of property, and association with whom they please.
These rights have the potential to form a stateless "regulatory power".

You are ignoring the capitalist part. 

A corporation is a legal entity created by the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation).  Therefore, there are no corporations in a stateless society.


Me too.  I'm all for liberating the working class from fiat.  I think everyone in the working class should convert a portion of their earnings to sound, honest money.  Also, no one should be forced to do anything against their will or be held as a prisoner, unless they have harmed someone else or their property.


Okay, but can the philosophy of anarchism evolve?  If an anarchist is someone that believes there should be "no rulers" in place, ruling over him, then there is no power in place to force him into an economic system he doesn't want to participate in.  Socialist anarchists can cooperate with each other and form a socialist society and capitalist anarchists can cooperate with each other and form a capitalist society.  The world is big enough for more than one economic system.


I've always assumed he was for a revolt that called for the working class to take over the reigns of power rather than eliminate the reigns of power and become the new rulers.  They would then use that power to establish a socialist economic system and force that system on capitalists as well.

No corporporations but AnCapistan has companies?  And these companies can get as big as Exxon or Apple?  The point is same, the bigger these companies get the more power they wield.

Why to care about a big company ?
A big company on a free market only means they make greater and cheaper products.

It is not like they have the power to force anyone to buy their stuff. If they can, I'm interested to know how.

If its a utility company that has a monopoly then you have to use their service whether you want to or not.  It already happens now with things like cable TV providers.  Or internet pipes like Comcast

But the more serious problems for example is that if a company pollutes your backyard but you can't "vote w your dollars".  For example a leather dying company that dumps its waste into the local river but its revenues come from overseas or they are selling their products B2B so theres not way for the consumer to protest simply through the market mechanism.

Another example would be a pharma that sells over the counter opiates that gets the community addicted to drugs or even quack medicine/ supplements that could be fatal to the user

Exactly.  In an anarchist society there are no rulers for the companies to fund election campaigns for.  There are no rulers prepared to do the bidding of the companies.  There is no government for them to buy out.  If a company begins initiating the use of force, then they are now, by definition, either the government or criminals (some would say one and the same).

Most monopolies are established and protected by the state.  Eliminate the state and there are no longer rulers protecting their monopoly.  In fact, in a statist society it's the state itself that often attempts to establish a monopoly on a particular service.  There would be nothing preventing multiple companies from providing me with these services in a stateless society and there would be nothing preventing me from choosing from multiple cable tv or internet service providers in a free market system.

Yup, that's why Chomsky says Anarchism is incompatible w Capitalism.  You are simply replacing a democratically elected ruler with a market dominant ruler.  In Ancapistan the mechanism that regulates power is either "market choices" or "NAP".  But most people would still exist in the consumer/ worker category how much 'voting power' do they really have?  We already have these problems EVEN though there is a democratically representative state & regulations.  

For example; if the people of Brazil don't want Monsanto doing business in their backyard, how can they voice their objection?  They already don't buy their stuff.  But at least for now Brazil govt can ban Monsanto.  If there was no govt this would be impossible.  The AnCap argument would be, "who cares if 2 private parties conduct business together'.  As if there is no collateral damage that arise from the business.  So if there is collateral damage wouldn't you say it is a conflict with your NAP?  If there is a conflict, who resolves the conflict absent the state?  Private court?  Wait so a private company is to hold trials?  So a bunch of farmers sue a giant company like Monsanto in a private court?  Easy to see who has more money to pay off the judge.  Who gets to choose which private court to use if there are competing courts?  And what is the extent of jusridiction of each private court?  All sorts of problems arise if you just think a little harder instead of sloganeering

AnCap can't work because it commodifies justice.  Justice needs to be impartial and if there is a profit motive it can't be impartial.

Nope that's not true.  In America we have anti-trust laws.  The state allows some temporary monopolies like patents.  For utility companies they allow some regional monopoly but its highly regulated.

The state did not establish Microsoft.  Microsoft is a private company that out competed the competition to be tog dog.  But competitors like Netscape complained and anti-trust laws forced MS to remove IE from Windows

If a company is both bad and in a monopoly, you don't have to search very far to find that the cause is government itself that protect them.

The allocation of TV channel, cable and water conduct and even electricity cable, is business of the state.
Most of these infrastructure is financed by the tax payer, and you are severely restricted to own your cable or channels by law.
These is property of the state, granting themselves the right to decide how to allocate "fairly" the scarce shared resource that a private party is forbidden to provide.

This create an artificial scarcity that only big companies (or with good enough connection) can afford, protecting them from competition.
You have nice story about such monopolistic crappy companies, like Bell, where the state helped them to kill their competitor by preventing the development of their own network. (either with legal restriction or subsidies to bell)

Quoting Rothbard

The only business that can give rise to a monopoly are those benefiting of network effect (telephony was in this case).
Preventing competitor by law of intellectual property the monopoly of developing this to Bell did not helped.
But even with such attempt after the patent expired, competitors were attacking Bell but Bell was then protected by the state with tax payer money and politicians.

Now let's see Myspace, MSN ? these benefited from network effect but died after all, not helped by the state. (well I think I already made this case some month ago on this forum :p)

1.  You cannot make an argument that govt protects monopolies because it is A FACT that there are anti-trust laws.  Don't be intellectually dishonest just so you can argue Rothbard.  He is absolutely wrong about this.  If you think the govt protects monopolies then how do you reconcile the existence of anti-trust laws?

2.  I'm not making an argument whether monopolies are good or bad.  My argument is that without the state there is no mechanism to deal with bad monopolies.  If there is only "market choices" you are stuck with the monopolist.

3.  Patents grant a temporary monopoly on the intellectual property.  That is all.  Just because Google patents search, it doesn't mean no other companies are allowed to create a search engine.  They just can't use google's methods.  You don't seem to understand the spirit of patents.  Its to promote competition and innovation.  So Yahoo couldn't steal Google's methods back in the day.  And if I come up with better method, Google can't steal my patent.

The state established the intellectual property laws that allowed Microsoft to become a monopoly in the operating systems market.  They were giving away IE for free, which is their prerogative and not a threat to anyone's safety or a violation of anyone's rights.  They weren't forcing anyone to use it.  Lots of applications, utilities, and operating systems themselves are free.  Should Microsoft sue Ubuntu for making operating systems available for free and use the force of government to force me to pay for an operating system?  I use gmail for free.  Should someone that wants to charge me for webmail service have the grounds to sue Google and force me to pay for webmail?

Where are you going with this argument?  First you claim that the govt is responsible for abetting MS road to monopoly by establishing patent laws.  Then you say they shouldn't have tried to break up the MS monopoly.  Then you say no monopolies exist despite these patent protections because competitors like Ubuntu exist.

I'm so confused what your point is except you wanna say: govt = bad. 

Some reading about Bell http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1994/11/cj14n2-6.pdf (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1994/11/cj14n2-6.pdf)

Trailer :
Here is how they prevented competitors to make their own network.

Telephone, television, water pipe or electricity, the strategy is the same : creating scarcity by law, then distribute "fairly" to the big guys. Wonder why there is no competition.  ::)

And then Bell got broken up by the state in 1982.  What is your point?  That the state can grant as well as breakup monopolies?  Yes that is true.  (Although the grant of monopoly would come with some heavy regulations)

My question to you is without the state mechanism, how do you deal with harmful monopolies?  (Monopolies that are in conflict with your NAP)

Without state there is no such thing as harmful monopoly. Either you provide value and make money, either you don't, loose money and die.

If the company is harmful to the point of initiating force (conflict with NAP), then, this become a government.
So then, the question is how to prevent that from happening.

Rothbard talk about private police and court, but this is a whole chapter of a book.
Since NAP is violated, the libertarian is in right to defend itself against it with force. But he would most likely use a private police for that.

If the company does not recognize violation, then, there is a private court to decide of the matter.
Such private court arbitrers are assigned by the 2 parts voluntary.
Each arbitrer has an incentive to not cheat, because this would affect his reputation, and thus diminish his customer base.
Such private court existed between merchants in the middle age, down to 1920.
In 1900, voluntary arbitration took hold in the US.
He takes a very long example in ancient Ireland, where tribes had a leader, but he could be attacked by everyone in court, and could not impose force against subjects.

I can't make justice to Rothbard, he discusses about that very deeply for a long part of "For a new libery", but that's the general idea.

Are you arguing that the market is inherently ethical?  

If a rich Brazilian land owner leases his land to Monsanto and Monsanto's crops wipes out the indigenous crops making all the local farms go bankrupt.  Then they spray pesticides that gets into the drinking water and people get sick.  This will be resolved how?  Because in the current system the people have a representative in govt and govt can sue Monsanto on their behalf and also govt can ban pesticide spraying

I'm not making this up.  This is reality.  How does Ancapistan deal with this?  And don't use the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in your argument

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2014/apr/13/brazil_public_prosecutor_demands_ban_on_Glyphosate/

You've proven that private courts existed in the past.  Did they work well? If they're so great why dont we have them anymore?

Well, again, for pollution Rothbard has written a whole chapter on that.

As you guess I would tell, Monsanto is not an enterprise that rose from the free market.
Libertarian are against patents, which is the only reason why Monsanto is where it is.

Also, they have some dubious link with politician, european Union almost forced every farmer to use Monsanto's seed by outlawing any seed that have not been approved by a commission... "For public wealth".
http://www.naturalnews.com/040214_seeds_european_commission_registration.html (http://www.naturalnews.com/040214_seeds_european_commission_registration.html)
This is only for Europe, there is interesting stuff to learn about them with their tie to the US government.

But this is not the subject of your question.
Your question is : What if a business violate NAP and refuse the judgment.

For Monsanto, this is clearly a violation, any arbitrer would clearly see the violation.
So either Monsanto accepts the judgment and so will pay the victim.
Either Monsanto does not accepts the judgment, and would have a moral sanction, be ostracized, discriminated.
Customers and partners would stop making contract with them, because they would know that no government would protect them if Monsanto refuse judgment.
Also, private police would refuse to protect them from aggression, because it is not in their interest to serve customers against the law.

Rothbard made a whole chapter also on this subject, and I'm always a student, but this is the general idea of the argument.

Rothbard goes even further by condemning the court for having weakened law and allowing pollution on massive scale during the 19th, to the point where collective action against industries was forbidden for "national economic interest". (Air and Sound pollution alike)

He explained that by making it legal, it kills incentives to develop technology that limit it pollution.
The government taxes the polluter, so what's the problem ? you would say .
The problem is that it is the small guy's farm, right next to the factory that suffer from pollution. So it should be his right to defend his farm. A tax does not help this guy.
The small tax does not match the prejudice of the victim, and worst, it does not compensate his loss with a dime.

There were a couple of points, not just one.  Sorry, I'll try to make it al ittle easier for you.

1. Microsoft became as large as it is/was because of government (via intellectual property laws).
2. Microsoft could afford to give away free web browsers (because they were so large).
3. For some reason, some individuals see #2 as a problem, but not #1, which led to #2.

I'm saying government power shouldn't be used to protect and establish monopolies.  Seems strange to call upon government to break up a monopoly that it's responsible for creating.

Furthermore, you stated that "anti trust laws forced MS to remove IE from Windows".  Even if we assume that #2 were possible without #1, what's wrong with #2?  Why is it a crime to give away software for free?

Yes, it truly is bizarre, baffling, and downright illogical how the government works when we start thinking about it a little bit.

Oh OK.  You have some facts mixed up so you are drawing conclusions from errors

1.  Govt didn't protect MS.  MS might have some patents but those patents protect inventions only.  It doesnt prevent competitor to create competing OS (Mac OS, Linux, etc.).  MS came to desktop OS dominance on their own

2.  MS was investigated for antitrust because competitors Netscape charged MS with monopolistic practices.  By this time Gates was already gaining reputation as a ruthless businessman.  Then DOJ brought the case to trial

To answer your question why you can't give away something for free.  You can but not with the intent of snuffing put the competition.  Rockefeler did this w Standard Oil and got busted.  So there was legal precedent

Laws are sometimes baffling.  So we have a justice system to interpret these things

Microsoft's entire business model relies on the concept of intellectual property and using the threat of government force by making "unauthorized copying" of their software a crime.


Ruthlessly using intellectual property law to his advantage?  To the point that he was making so much money with Windows that he could give IE away for free.


Being able to provide a product or service at a lower price than your competition should be commended.  Just because government made the mistake of punishing someone for doing this in the past doesn't mean they should keep making the same mistake.  Two wrongs doesn't make a right.


And the more baffling those laws get, the more expensive it gets to cover the cost of all the lawyers, court costs, regulatory compliance, etc.  I don't advocate taking the current justice system away from those who are happy with the way it works, and what it costs.  However, those who aren't happy with it should be free to choose one that they prefer, but government likes having a monopoly on that sort of thing.

Stop right there!

Corporations are a product of the state. Monsanto and others using copyright or patent laws to shelter themselves are the worst kind of evil. Who enforces their bullshit? The state of course! In a free market businesses can still get large and cumbersome, but at least it would be to a point. They'd be much more at the mercy of their customers and competitors to keep them in line.

What is it with you guys and the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?  You guys keep bringing this tired argument.

Corporations are product of law.  Are you saying in Ancapistan there are no laws?  If this is what you guys think you are more batshit crazy than I thought.

A stare-you-in-the-face difference between a corporation and an association of investors in the free market, is that any free association has the same rights and responsibilities as single individuals, while corporations, using the coercion of the state, have less responsibility and more rights. One important detail is the cutoff responsibility to pay creditors in case of trouble. It is right there in the word limited in the company category, or Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung in german.

The point of twiifm was not whether Monsanto or Microsoft could exist or not without state.
The point is what happen if a powerful company violate NAP, which can happen, and Rothbard talks about the subject a lot. And which I explained in my previous post.

By the way, Microsoft might have been helped by patent to get where they are, but let's be clear : today, it is a truly great company, and thrive not because of government and patent protection but because customers love their product on overall. I am one of those. (That said, I don't defend windows 8 atrocities, but Microsoft is way more than that :))

I don't like IE (I used to be a web dev), but it is a violation of NAP to prevent Microsoft to give IE free and by default on their own OS.


I don't agree with your point. A patent for licensing an idea is clearly wrong from libertarian perspective.
But I don't see how it is against NAP that Microsoft do not want you to copy your software.
Buying a software is a contract where you exchange software against conditions and money, and you sign it by using the product. If the contract specify you should not copy the software, then you should not.

It is a valid breach of contract of copying, and should be judged as a NAP violation.
But the contract should not be enforced by public means.

If someone develop a better substitute, he should not be prevented to do so because of patent violation.

In the case of a violation of contract, the victim (Microsoft) would need to be compensated by the violator. The problem is that such violation is so minor and widespread, that it can't be enforced cost effectively.
I suspect that in a libertarian world, as they are doing now, Microsoft would only control companies for their licensing, and not consumers for this reason.

In fact the whole music and movie industry fall into the same bucket. The problem (in france) is that government is fighting for them to make pursuit cost effective for the company. (If the government see you are downloading torrent of some label, they can ban your internet connection)
Without such government enforcement, music and movie industries would always exist because there is more supply than demand, but would find different and more enforceable business model. (concerts, premium package, cinema, or other derived product)

You are describing a cooperative vs a corporation.  Both can be limited liability.

You can form a cooperative now if you want.  No need to wait for a stateless society

I think we agree.  I understand that Microsoft doesn't want people freely copying their software, and that's fine, but it should be their responsibility to prevent it, (without using force) not the taxpayers'.  I believe Microsoft has lots of well-paid lobbyists to try to enact new intellectual property law and modify existing law in their favor.  Not just US law, but also other nations around the world and international trade agreements, etc.

I can see how this might work in an anarcho communist system.  But once you introduce a profit motive then every actor along that chain has a motive to be corrupted by money.  Or not even corrupted, just do business as they should.  Give preference to the highest bidder

Private police means private security, no?  Wouldn't they serve whoever paid them.  And if there are competing firms Monsanto would just find one willing to take them as client

Private police means they defend people against NAP violation. They have no right to initiate force and are subject to the same court.
If someone owns a street, he will have incentives to use private police to protect his street and passengers, because criminality would decrease the value of its property.

For Monsanto, would you consider to do business with someone that you know have a scam history, and have a high chance of scamming you ? because I don't.
Monsanto will find it harder to find security (not impossible but harder), and the reputation drawback would also influence customers, not wanting to be scammed and condemning their violation.

The impact of such violation is more costly than just paying the plaintiff + buying back the farm at a premium (if Monsanto don't want to invest in technological solution for the pollution)

Inside commercial stores, their is no public police, only private police that are already working with the same rules. (and without being armed)
Such private security are also not here just to defend the store owner, but also to defend their customers.

It is not because the poor can't buy such police for himself that he will not benefit from it when he goes to a store or walk on a private street. (Street that is most likely financed by the stores and cars)

You can note that most of the criminality today do not happen inside commercial stores, but in public area.

Correct, it is always possible to act more responsibly than the law requires, but in the current situation we are not fully protected from a corporation in error. They can declare bankruptcy and walk away.

Perhaps they can.  But the majority of corporations don't do this

What's stopping you from creating a corporation and doing the if you think you can game the system?

I have spoken.