So, what you're actually saying is that the only thing stopping you from killing me is the words on a piece of paper, "Murder is illegal," and if it weren't for that, you'd go on a killing spree?

Would you please stop avoiding the questions I ask you? I'm still waiting on an answer to whether or not you would continue to advocate and support a violent monopoly.
And on how, exactly, removing the government's monopoly on law enforcement would make murder legal.

They're welcome to do whatever they want. Among themselves.

Actually, I'm the one in the car. You can keep your horse.

Did I say I would strangle you?
No... I didn't.

And I would advise that you think before you post. If someone tells you that they paid a man to mug you, and kill you if you resist, what would you do?

Violently removing them from your presence would be the nicest thing, I would think. (Of course, you'll probably call someone to do it, since you prefer to do your violence by proxy.)

I haven't threatened to kill you. I have said that I will respond with violence if you threaten me (by advocating that the government should forcibly extract payment from me and kidnap or kill me if I resist) in my presence. I would advise against threatening people.

And I'm still waiting on an answer to whether or not you would continue to advocate and support a violent monopoly.
And on how, exactly, removing the government's monopoly on law enforcement would make murder legal.

How would removing the government monopoly on law enforcement allow me to legally kill you if you don't threaten me with violence?

Unless you would? Would you continue to try and set up a monopoly on violence?

Oh, such a shame... You had me right up until "greater good." People can group. People can collectively decide things. But if they force their decision on even one dissenter, that's tyranny.

AnCap was only first put together as a full philosophy about a hundred years or so ago. Look how long democracy took to get going. You're seeing the first stages of the out-competition right now. And you're resisting it. How does it feel to be the dude telling the man in an automobile to get a horse?

Take away it's monopoly.

I have bad news for you. Land is "capital property."

Have you ever fished the north sea?
First appropriation requires use. Can't just "call" it.
Oh, I agree with you that it is. But if you owned a large portion of a rainforest, would you sell it cheaply, or get as much as you could for it? And if your neighbors did the same, would it still be profitable to cut it all down?
The answer to the tragedy of the commons is not regulations. The answer to the tragedy of the commons is to internalize the externalities. By private ownership.

Do you think homesteading is as simple as saying "that's mine," or drawing a line on a map? No, that's how governments claim land. A homesteader works his land, or at the very least marks it out somehow. To say nothing of actually getting there, which can be a lot of work, as well.

So, you own your mother? And your sister? "Your" can be used to establish relationship without implying ownership. If land is not owned by anyone, that is to say your rightful claim to be there is not recognized by society, when I come in and kick you out, you have no recourse. That sucks pretty hardcore. And I don't see how my having land makes you a slave.

How are the rights of the minority respected by majority rule? If you want the rights of the minority to be respected, you must have a proportionally representative system. Like capitalism.
Well, that depends. If you're just visiting, there's no need to be rude to visitors. If you decide you'd like to live there rent free, though, you'll find that rather tough with my boot up your ass.

And thus the argument that all governments, by their nature, are illegitimate, because they violate the rights they pretend to protect.

Like?

Actually, the best thing we can do is allow market competition to select the best providers of security from that violence, and do so in such a way that those providers do not themselves violate their customers security.

And who makes the law, Hawker? It's a democracy, right? The people make the law. Are you not people?

No? What's this, then?
Sounds like a threat, to me. Pay up, or you get worked over.

Well, it's good to see that you've finally come around and agreed that payment for government services should be voluntary. In that case, I think we can end this conversation, now. You're no longer threatening me.

Yes, that's the way capitalism works. A voluntary exchange of value for value is made, and the new owner gets the materials from the old owner.

Anyone who knowingly supports tyranny is a sociopath. The kindest thing I can and should do is refuse to associate with them. As I stated before, if they choose to make an issue of it, I'll defend myself.

The interesting thing is that when given the chance to own up to your actions, and change the evil of your ways, you wriggle around looking for a way to change the subject.  Do you think no-one will notice?
Answer the question. Do you deny that your beliefs support and uphold the murderers and robbers, making you a danger to me?

Answer the question. Do you deny that your beliefs support and uphold the murderers and robbers, making you a danger to me?

Do you deny that?