I never said software market. I was responding to the claim that you can't corner a market through competition. I would argue that Microsoft has managed to do just that.
And I agree with your assertion that linux is the winner, and as an ex-nerd with +10yrs experience in HPC Unix/Linux I couldn't be happier.  

Somehow I doubt that the withdrawl from nicotine is as bad as the ones from other, more serious, drugs. I don't think I've ever seen anyone hallucinate when they hadn't had a smoke. Irritated and twitchy yes, but that's about as far as it goes. Withdrawl form other drugs makes people go batshit crazy.

Edit: What, copyrights are bad? What about patents? Also bad?

That was covered in the thread previously about a house waveing service. Go back a few posts.

Again, missing the point. Never mind though.

Glad to hear that some things shouldn't be allowed.

I can't corner a market through competition? Really? Tell that to Microsoft. They have what, 95% of the market?

Yes I'm being vague. I'm not a criminal organization and don't know which areas will be profitable. But you can be sure that there will be such areas.

Would you concider the italian mafia a small band of thugs? That's the people you'll be competing with. Not me.

If we disregard all the violence caused by alcohol you mean? No, they don't generally do that. Alcohol isn't addictive the way crack-cocaine is either. That might have something to do with it. I can't really say since I don't know enough about addiction.
I'm not sure you know how prices are being set though. Drugs will be dirt cheap? Not really. They will have a price that the market will bear. That will not be "dirt cheap". You will still have a lot of crack-heads who won't have enough money to buy drugs.
Are you serious about government having no incentive to reduce drunk driving? Do you have any idea on how much a traffic accident cost? Lost revenue/taxes. You must be mad if you don't think they have an incentive.
Where I'm at roads are constantly being rebuilt according to the latest safety standards. Perhaps you have a shitty government that needs to be voted out at the next election? Some people say you get the leaders you deserve. I won't go that far though.

If you see taxation as theft, then yes it is unethical. If you see it as payment of services rendered it's not. I see it as unethical to not pay for the services you use and benefit from.

Private property isn't an answer to the question weather or not something is violence or not. Violence is violence. It's either violence when both do it, or neither. Make up your mind.

Same here. I don't think any less of those who have a different opinion. They're just wrong and can't help it. 

You're completly missing my point. I was talking about doing things I don't like because the benefit is greater than the discomfort.

Human trafficking is quite profitable. Would you like to legalize that too? Child prostitution? When it comes to drugs I think the profit per sale will go down but the market will grow enough to make up for it, and they already have their organization in place to corner the market if it becomes legal. But I think you're right. They will move to the more profitable areas if others diminsih.
Defending life and property are great motivators. That's why I expect most people will choose my company when I show up at their door with an offer of "Choose my company or else...". The prices are about the same as the competition.
It should also be fun living in your area, with drug addicts running around looking for another hit. They'll either be dangerous on the street looking for money since they can't hold a job, or dangerous at work because of their addiction. Not to mention the people driving. A problem today, worse with increased supply.

The land isn't unowned. We, the people own it, it's governed by the state. Would you like an "eviction law" for tax evaders?
Homesteading sounds nice but isn't really practical is it. With that I would like to clarify a previous statement. Practicality IS a reason for doing things. It's not a reason for doing unethical things, but we all do things just because they're practical. Like buy food in a store instead of growing it ourselves, and there's nothing wrong with that.

And what about that gated community example. Was it violence to have you pay when you turn 18 and have an income? Or tossing you out? Or is it only violent when the state does it?

I like my job, I don't want another way to support myself. I don't like ALL aspect of my job, but I still have to do them. The benefits of having a fun job outweighs the boring parts of it. What I was saying is that we all have to do things we don't like at some point, and it's not because of acts of violence or coersion.

Criminal organizations have a focus that a group of average persons doesn't have. They can put a lot of money into making their protection agency the monopoly in a market, both by legal and illegal means. You will most likely never be able to organize something that can compete with that.

What if the rules are that each member of a household above the age of 18, and with an income, must pay the fee. For this they get all the benefits of the gated community, including a parking spot, even if you don't have a car. Is it an act of violence yet?
Oh, and forcefully being separated from your loved ones isn't an act of violence if done by a private firm?

If you don't pay state tax, would you prefer that they would strip you of your citizenship and put you on a plane to Al-Shabab controlled areas of Somalia who gratiously agreed both to take you in and not to tax you. Is that less violent than putting your ass in jail? After all "If you refuse to follow the rules set forth by the property owner, you can be evicted.", and since we all own the property (land) and have agreed to certain rules which you refuse to follow, we could just evict you? No?
I'm not seriously suggesting this. Are you?

We can call the enforcements of rules violence if you like, and the state and private companies are equally guilty of it, if you see it that way.

English is my second language, so I might not find the proper english word at all times. I'm glad you're not being a jerk about it though.
I'm unwilling to do some things at my job, still have to do it, because what I get out of doing it is greater than what I put in.
Same things with taxes.

Average Peaceful Citizen Security Inc won't be funded by fundies from around the globe. Criminals have a lot of money to spend. I'm not so sure a honest company would have a chance if there isn't a rule enforcer around.

I might have to read up on homesteading. So the tax from the gated community isn't an act of violence, even though being born isn't consent, but tax from the state is?

What's the difference between a failed state and a non existing state?

A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

I pay over 50% in taxes, because of democracy. The sword isn't that hypothetical to me. Although I must admit that it's not literal. That would hurt.
The reason for my high tax is that I make more than the average person. Poor me.

But I'm still curious about those violent special interest groups that should take over when the police goes away. Should I go with Al-Shabab Security, or Aryan enforcement Inc? I can't really decide which rules I like best.

If your parents lived in a gated community, and when you turned 18 set you up with a flat there, would the community fee be an act of violence against you? Where's the difference from a state? I don't see it.

Sent.

Well, you could try to change the law. You just need to get enough people to see things your way. No need to leave if you can do that.  And being born doesn't imply consent. Using services that you know the cost for does. And some services are bundled.
I don't see how I'm being inconsistant. Please explain again.

If the law targets me specifically it's arbitrary. If by some chance it would apply to me and 99 others because of something we do or have, then, it would suck to be us.

If enough people vote for it, and it becomes a law, yes. And if it applies to me and the house I buy. I doubt that I will buy such a house though.

The fact that the laws were in effect before you were born, decided by those who lived before you.
If you can convince enough people that your service somehow benefits society and make this into law it still wouldn't apply retroactivly.

There's the difference.

Agreed, practicality isn't an argument. On person one vote. We decide together. That's more moral than "whoever has the most money decides" or "the most violent decides", which is the end result of anarchism.

No, I decided that your example was intellectually dishonest and not worth refuting. Laws aren't retroactive. New law, applies to those who buys such a house AFTER the law came into effect. Those who buys a house after that can't complain. You know all this. Yes, certain tax rates only applies to certain people, like if you make more than a certain amount. If you don't like that, don't make that amount of money. Do something else with your time. You know this beforehand.

Taxation is agression? Paying for services is agression?
I agree with you though. I don't think anyone at all should be allowed to initiate violence either. That's what the police is there to prevent. To handle those who do anyway.

What you call mob rule is what I call democracy. It's not a perfect system, but it beats every other system out there right now. Including anarchy.
Your example with your "house waving" service is hilarious but not really intellectually honest. You know, as well as I do, that the services that is provided to you are democratically decided and applies to everyone, no specific individual. So if you can get support from enough people in your community that certain house types should be waved to by... ah screw it. It's too silly. Why bother.

So basically you suggest that anyone should be allowed to initiate violence? Sounds like fun. Well, not really.

My point exactly. We're in agreement about something. Isn't it great? 

Right. So who would you like to have the legal use of agression in your area?

I even made the relevant part bold in the answer above. "...security of person." Is rape compatible with that?
Agreed, services can't be involuntary, but if you benefit from them you should pay for them. And using services is the same as giving your consent, and in democratic societies you also agree to pay for services that benefits the society, if that's what the vote sais. If you stop using each and every service that the state provides to you, and get this accepted by the majority in your society, then you can stop paying taxes. IMHO.

Except that it isn't theft. Its payment for services rendered.

I quite enjoy Article 3 of the UN declaration of human rights.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Sure, I'll play.

I wish to lend 10 BTC and receive at least 12 BTC as payment.
Funds should be returned to address 1BezcZpa6fYYvLaoTzzymKq9k9qz8EpTGS