Presumably into the past, or we would not be aware of his condition.

Someone used a machine they owned, and thread and cloth that they owned, to make a coat. The man then bought the coat from that person (apparently as part of a suit, since it matches his pants).

Doesn't change the morality of any of the actions depicted.

And in that event, it is entirely within my rights to kick you out of my house, or take back my gold bar. I can exclude you from the use of my property, whereas I cannot exclude you from the use of the randomly generated private key.

Yes, digital trespass is well established in case law.

Pennsylvania was full anarchy. The only difference (and what allowed it to be taken over) is that the Quakers were full-on pacifists, rather than the "porcupine pacifist" of a N.A.P. respecting anarchy.

Well, "bitcoin" could be considered the bitcoin developer's "monopoly" if it gained all of the market in digital currency. That's really unlikely, considering the amount of competition it already has.

Nor was I trying to. "freedom" has a meaning, agreed up on for many, many years:
This can be "distilled" down to a very simple phrase: "absence of coercion."

Then you're trying to cram too much meaning into the word. This is why new words are created, to hold the excess meaning, when the old word is insufficient to convey the concept. Or clarifying words can be added, for instance, your concept of "capitalism" is more properly "State capitalism" and edges into the "new" words "corporatism" or "fascism."

"Anarcho-capitalism" is much easier to write than "free market anarchy with strong individual property rights," but it conveys the same meaning, because capitalism is a free market system, with strong property rights, and adding "anarcho-" to that indicates that indicates that it is an anarchy, and thus all rights are held by the individual.

You need to learn the difference between "highly improbable" and "impossible." A private key collision is quite possible, just not very likely.
There's no need. As you point out, it's much more likely that if someone has your private key without your permission, they committed trespass to get it.

Sigh.
It doesn't matter if the monopoly is formed via competition or merger, a natural monopoly is still a natural monopoly.

That outlaws cartels, not monopolies (please take note, that is the proper pluralization). And "pretty sure" is a poor basis for argument. Monopolies are anything but illegal in the US. You just have to go through proper channels to establish one.

The reason violence is the dispute resolution method of choice in the drug market is because of the regulations making participation in that market illegal. They have no legal means of resolving disputes.

So you've planned everything out for only 20 laborers, including yourself? You've got everything fully thought-out for a small group of people, including how it will scale if more show up? And what to do if only 18 people fall for buy into your plan?

OK, progress. Now: what if not enough people think it's AMAZING enough to move there?

And if they don't think it's as AMAZING as you do?

I have. It basically amounts to saying, "Now, Geoffrey, Tommy called shotgun. You can ride in the front seat on the way home," though.

Essentially, mediation.

OK, let me make it really simple for you.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime. Give a man a fish every day, he'll depend on your good graces to survive.

The key element of "property" is excludability. If someone randomly generates the same private key as you, you can't make them stop using it. If someone randomly walks into your house, you can kick them out.

Well, to stay strictly on-topic, we should limit the discussion to monopolies on money. Specifically, the service of providing the commodity that is used as money in a marketplace.
This is patently and provably false. The computer market is one of the least regulated on the planet. Cars have only safety and emissions regulations to contend with (and many companies voluntarily exceed those regulations). Food, similarly, has only health and safety regulations, and a few labeling requirements. You chose the worst possible examples for natural monopolies, since all of those industries show robust competition, in a largely unregulated (free) market.
Well, at least you can see some sense.

I know, and I chose to use that as a springboard for a rant, and to further make my point.  It's nothing against you personally.

Your wallet is data (it's even got a .dat extension) and as such is not protected by property rights. Your harddrive (or other storage medium) is physical property, and it's that which is protected under property rights, including against trespass.

Why can't anyone understand what I'm saying? That answer makes no sense, using the definitions of the words I have decided on!

I guess I will just have to explain them to you, since nobody gets the meanings I chose.
"Glock" is an interrogatory, indicating that the speaker desires to know the reason for the specified actions.
"elbow" is a verb, meaning take the trouble to do something.
"watermelon" is a preposition, used in conjunction with "elbow" to indicate the subject of the sentence.
"Chinese" is a noun, and the first part of the subject of my question, denoting the language we are currently using.
"macaroni" is a plural noun, and the second part of the subject of my question, indicating the single distinct meaningful elements of speech or writing.
"chicken" is an adverb, used in this case to mean "since that is so." It modifies "elbow."
So, I ask again, if you're going to pick out of thin air the meaning of the words you use, glock elbow watermelon Chinese macaroni chicken?