You imply that some can rightfully own more water and air than others? Such a property concept has negative externalities because it allows for polluters to own and rightfully pollute the water and air that I drink and breath. With every gulp and breath I would give my consent to some grotesque EULA.

FTFY. Market anarchists, like mutualist and individualist anarchists, oppose capitalism. Anarchism is already fraught with misconceptions. As such, semantics matter. So called anarcho-capitalists would do well to avoid the term anarchy and use words like volunteerism and laissez-faire instead.

Maybe someone like Gavin ought to do this. He's a developer and well spoken.

I suppose that adding that qualifier brings the total to three choices: stop drinking and breathing, find unpolluted water and air to drink and breath, or drink and breath pollution. Of course, the second premise depends on the availability of clean water and air. If clean water and air is unavailable, then one cannot consent to drinking and breathing without also consenting to drinking and breathing pollution.

That's awful. I always thought that companies would just split their stock if they needed more units.

Of course, they're the biggest fish.

Neato.

I'm not degrading anything. My point is that consent isn't necessarily the best factor, or even a good factor, by which to judge an outcome.

Home heating oil is the same as diesel but, at least where I live, you don't pay as much tax for it as you do at the gas station. However, home heating oil has a dye in it. If an authority discovers fuel with that dye in your vehicle's tank, you're in trouble.

Yes, but newly issued stock always existed, the company just hadn't already sold it.

Well, I'll agree that sometimes consensual trade is harmful, as in the case of blackmail and extortion, but these modes depend on threats of force. Regardless, I take it that you mean that negative externalities do not exist in the presence of consent. That brings us to how we value consent though. I mean, we can choose not to drink, breath, or drive. Cannot a polluter rightfully ignore the complaints of the dysenteric and asthmatic on the premise that they consented to drink and breath? If they try to shut him down, aren't they just Indian givers, after a fashion?

Perhaps, although good practitioners use safe-words with no threat of force against their use.

What do you call it when someone imposes a harm on someone else with consent?

That made me think about the implications of the ability to send a negative amount. Probably a good thing the network won't allow it. It won't, right?

I created a thread on that already if you'd like to discuss the topic.

I've read the thread. I didn't direct my comment at you specifically. I just didn't want to do a big quote chain. I was simply addressing the false, but prevalent, premise that search dogs are infallible, not that you believed in it yourself, of course. Please don't take offense at the paranoid stoner reference.

Dogs are not super narc sidekicks. Therefore, a buyer shouldn't freak out if his vacuum sealed contraband purchase came via mail not contained in a mason jar.

Don't be so paranoid: http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/21/the-mind-of-a-police-dog?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FArticles+%28Reason+Online+-+All+Articles+%28except+Hit+%26+Run+blog%29%29

Was it something I said?

That's not anarchy. It's just capitalism at work. Anarchism opposes capitalism.

Even a cursory review of that FAQ would reveal to you that a number of anarchists wrote it. They also cited many other anarchists' works and disclaimed against representing all anarchists except for where all anarchists agree: anarchism is a revolt against capitalism and government.