Open discrimination on one's own property

[Chapter 24]

What do people on this board think of the libertarian/market anarchist concept that what one does on one's own property holds true for discrimination as well? That is, that as long as it is on your property that you are selling whatever it is you are selling, it goes along with your rights as proprietor to decide to discriminate on said property or not.
When free-marketeers have proposed this they have mentioned that doing this will allow people to choose which business to support - an openly racist one or one that allows all people to use their goods and services. In this way the business owner of the business using discriminatory policies will not make as much business due to people's moral beliefs that racism is wrong. This will, as a result, have business owners rethink their positions on race and, though not in a single generation, racism will gradually - naturally - disappear. The libertarians then go on to say that even as this policy of letting people do as they choose - laissez faire - the state will not use discriminatory policies - segregation - on their various institutions.
I find this not to be a good argument and for one thing a very unrealistic if not tyrannical take on how discrimination should be handled. We can all assume that, oh there's other places to go for that black man that just got denied access to that grocery store/gas station/other retailing location. But how can we always assume this? And does this go for the little mom-and-pop shops only - or are large chains, much larger department stores, and monopolies? Is this limited to little trinket stores and gift shops, or to necessities that include food, water, shelter, and utilities such as transportation.
Secondly this argument proposes that racism will disappear (maybe not in its full entirety and magnitude, but along certain social lines) because if the racist runs a shop of some kind on his property and is making little to no profits due to people not wanting to fund such an asshole, the proprietor will say, "Well, ya know what? This is what I get for being openly closed-off to certain groups, whether they be of a different race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. Guess I'll stop being racist if it means I'll actually make some money." It rather echoes of how I perceive certain ideas of libertarians/minarchists/anarcho-capitalists as putting profit above people.
As this argument boils down to property rights, it is I can say, fairly obvious to know where people stand.
I'm sorry if a thread concerning this topic has been made in the past and there was a huge debate there and now everyone has their mind set on other issues, so maybe if someone could give me a link to a previous thread so that I could look at it and people's arguments for it.

[Robert]

We can all assume that, oh there's other places to go for that black man that just got denied access to that grocery store/gas station/other retailing location. But how can we always assume this?You're right, we can't. If we live in states at all, we must accept reasonable limitations on use of property as decreed by the majority, in this case, civil rights laws. If you don't like it, you can get some of your homies together, form your own little government, and secede or seek "independency" as the framers used to say. Good luck.

Is there actual legislation in the UK and EU concerning discrimination in the use of property?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Luckily right-libertarian ideology will never take hold in any country for that exact reason. Unfortunately, idiotic phrases like "self-ownership" are thrown around with no implications whatsoever about how you reach such a conclusion. I have to wonder if any Ron Paulite arguing in favor of discrimination on personal property realizes just how far the Civil Rights Act took America?

If I step into a restaurant and refuse to tip (due to bad service, or whatever) - can the owner of that establishment just shoot me there? It is his property. :laugh:

[MadMoney]

The same theory applies to internet use. For example, why are people who are listed as having opposing ideologies confined to this section of the forum? Isn't that discrimination on private property? I think it is at least a better analogy than the gross misunderstanding of the idea of respecting property rights found below...



If I step into a restaurant and refuse to tip (due to bad service, or whatever) - can the owner of that establishment just shoot me there? It is his property. :laugh:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Ignoring the fact you compared race to political ideology, I'd like to point out this website is acting as a personal possession. Are you being denied the right to buy the tees based on [x]? There is no exploitation done in registering "revleft.com" anymore than there is trademarking the name "Boobs Cafe" for a local community. I'm really surprised you can't distinguish between property and possession. You can keep your Xbox 360 from being used by whoever you want. At that point nobody goes a shit. You can't outright deny access to natural resources like earth based on "private" privileges.

Pissing in soil (er, "mixing labor with the land") is a shitty excuse for claiming exclusive use to a plot of land without the community's permission to interfere.

If property rights exist, as capitalist (apologists) posit, I can damn well kill whoever I want on my property. I don't need to ask permission before shooting whoever I deem a trespasser. Or is the community going to regulate my property (both land and body) by telling me I have to abide by community standards before someone encroaching on my property is allowed a bullet in his head? Wasn't it Friedman who said all rights derive from property?

The hypocrisy inherit in your arguments is disgusting. Either I have fucking personal property or I don't. (Baconator): Why are you statists? Next you'll tell me I don't have a right to own nuclear weapons. :ohmy:

[pusher robot]

If property rights exist, as capitalist (apologists) posit, I can damn well kill whoever I want on my property. I don't need to ask permission before shooting whoever I deem a trespasser. Or is the community going to regulate my property (both land and body) by telling me I have to abide by community standards before someone encroaching on my property is allowed a bullet in his head? Wasn't it Friedman who said all rights derive from property?

Have fun arguing with yourself. Nobody here believes your stupid straw man argument. Quit trolling productive threads.

[Baconator]

What do people on this board think of the libertarian/market anarchist concept that what one does on one's own property holds true for discrimination as well?

Well sure, you may discriminate. Why not? Other people may discriminate against you as well by not patronizing your property or not allowing you to patronize theirs.

As for the rest of it it really didn't sound like you wanted an answer since you already answered it either on an answer you've already received or just assumed. Set up your question, get the assumptions in order , and then knock it down ! Brilliant. Thats so GeneCosta right there. :rolleyes:

[Baconator]

Have fun arguing with yourself. Nobody here believes your stupid straw man argument. Quit trolling productive threads.

Thats exactly what I was thinking but you beat me to it.

[Chapter 24]

Well sure, you may discriminate. Why not? Other people may discriminate against you as well by not patronizing your property or not allowing you to patronize theirs.

As for the rest of it it really didn't sound like you wanted an answer since you already answered it either on an answer you've already received or just assumed. Set up your question, get the assumptions in order , and then knock it down ! Brilliant. Thats so GeneCosta right there. :rolleyes:

I asked people what they thought of the concept, not what the concept itself means. Who's trying to debate here? Sure there will be debate, but I have no interest personally in taking an argument and then beating it myself, as you imply.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Have fun arguing with yourself. Nobody here believes your stupid straw man argument. Quit trolling productive threads.
Then explain why the right to shoot people on your property does not logically derive from the right to own private property.

This is particularly important for anarcho-capitalists. Without a state to uphold a certain definition of what one may or may not do on one's property, what is to prevent John Smith from deciding that any Jews on his property can be summarily shot? After all, anarcho-capitalism is all about making your own private law.

And don't give me some ridiculous answer about "natural rights." "Natural rights" are meaningless unless there is some authority with the power and the desire to enforce them on people who refuse to abide by them.

[Baconator]

I asked people what they thought of the concept, not what the concept itself means. Who's trying to debate here? Sure there will be debate, but I have no interest personally in taking an argument and then beating it myself, as you imply.

Well, you basically answered your own question. :blushing:

[Baconator]

Then explain why the right to shoot people on your property does not logically derive from the right to own private property.

This is particularly important for anarcho-capitalists. Without a state to uphold a certain definition of what one may or may not do on one's property, what is to prevent John Smith from deciding that any Jews on his property can be summarily shot? After all, anarcho-capitalism is all about making your own private law.

And don't give me some ridiculous answer about "natural rights." "Natural rights" are meaningless unless there is some authority with the power and the desire to enforce them on people who refuse to abide by them.

Shooting someone for trespassing uninvited , especially if the person didn't intend you lethal harm , still has severe social consequences for the shooter in a Market Anarchist society. Market Anarchists believe in absolute property rights, not those granted by the state. We're on board with Proudhon, (state) property is theft.

Just like money and goods in the free market follow a universal trade principle (without any state in particular) so does a market for solving disputes. I'm afraid you're making assumptions about a philosophy that you seem to know little about.

www.freedomainradio.com (http://www.freedomainradio.com) has a special section under videos , called Anarchism, feel free to listen to what its really all about. :D

I agree though, one may not just claim to have 'rights.' Rights don't exist in objective reality as they are only a concept in people's heads. However, this doesn't mean the concept can't be objective and descriptive of behavior in reality. Of course, in order to prove the concept of rights valid, it must be logically consistent and tell us something about behavior in reality that is universal to all human beings. I haven't heard a good philosophical argument yet to challenge the logical consistency of self-ownership from which property rights is derived. You're more than welcome to try to show self-ownership to be contradictory , illogical , and inconsistent.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Shooting someone for trespassing uninvited , especially if the person didn't intend you lethal harm, still has severe social consequences for the shooter in a Market Anarchist society.
Really? Such as what?


Just like money and goods in the free market follow a universal trade principle (without any state in particular) so does a market for solving disputes. I'm afraid you're making assumptions about a philosophy that you seem to know little about.
Market for solving disputes? I'm afraid you're making assumptions about people that you seem to know little about. What makes you think John Smith has any interest in solving his disputes with people who happen to be Jewish? What if he gets a bunch of his friends together, and they happen to own a lot of property which they use to generate money, purchase guns, and proceed to find a, *ahem*, final solution to their "dispute?"

If you just assume that all people want to live in peace - well, then, you're an idiot. For example, I don't want to live in peace with you, and I have no interest in finding a "market solution" to our dispute. We want two fundamentally different types of societies. The only possible solutions are for one of us to impose his preferred society on the other, or for a third party to impose a third kind of society on both of us (which is currently the case). There is no possible arrangement that would be acceptable to both of us.


Of course, in order to prove the concept of rights valid, it must be logically consistent and tell us something about behavior in reality that is universal to all human beings.
Ok, so what does it tell us about behavior in reality that is universal to all human beings?


I haven't heard a good philosophical argument yet to challenge the logical consistency of self-ownership from which property rights is derived. You're more than welcome to try to show self-ownership to be contradictory , illogical , and inconsistent.
I don't think self-ownership is contradictory, illogical, or inconsistent. I think it leads to undesirable consequences and is therefore evil. I don't think you're stupid, Baconator, I think you are evil. And I think evil must be fought relentlessly. Therefore, given ideal circumstances (which are extremely unlikely to ever be present in any society, sadly), I think you should be shot. Any questions?

I can show that property rights cannot derive from self-ownership, or at least not from self-ownership alone. In order to derive property rights, you must begin from self-ownership plus the right to declare ownership over previously unowned objects. Just because you own yourself, that does not necessarily mean you can own anything else you come into contact with. An additional principle is necessary.

[pusher robot]

Then explain why the right to shoot people on your property does not logically derive from the right to own private property.

Because all property is not equal. The most important property right, the one from which all others are derived, is the ownership of one's self. Derivative property rights are just that, derivative. They are of a lower order. Logically, then, a derivative property right (e.g., land ownership) cannot trump the fundamental property right (self). Therefore, depriving someone of their fundamental property right (by killing them) for the sake of a derivative property right (exclusive use of property) is wrong. When they conflict, the derivative rights must yield.



This is particularly important for anarcho-capitalists. Without a state to uphold a certain definition of what one may or may not do on one's property, what is to prevent John Smith from deciding that any Jews on his property can be summarily shot? After all, anarcho-capitalism is all about making your own private law.

It would be a wrongful deprivation of the Jews' fundamental property rights. However, for the Jews that come on John Smith's property, if John Smith threatens to encroach their fundamental right, they are entitled to encroach his fundamental right in response. I.e., justifiable self-defense. Also, the relatives of those Jews are certainly entitled to seek redress for their wrongful deaths in any private civil courts with jurisdiction. Finally, if a community decides to cooperatively fund a police force, I suspect they might have something to say about it as well.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Because all property is not equal. The most important property right, the one from which all others are derived, is the ownership of one's self. Derivative property rights are just that, derivative. They are of a lower order. Logically, then, a derivative property right (e.g., land ownership) cannot trump the fundamental property right (self). Therefore, depriving someone of their fundamental property right (by killing them) for the sake of a derivative property right (exclusive use of property) is wrong. When they conflict, the derivative rights must yield.
That reasoning implies that no physical force may ever be used against a person's body, except to defend another person's body. But this means that anyone is free to violate any derivative rights they wish as long as they put their bodies on the line and make it impossible for you to stop them without harming their bodies.

So, what are you to do if someone comes onto your property - say, onto your bed - and absolutely refuses to move, no matter what incentives or threats you use?


It would be a wrongful deprivation of the Jews' fundamental property rights. However, for the Jews that come on John Smith's property, if John Smith threatens to encroach their fundamental right, they are entitled to encroach his fundamental right in response. I.e., justifiable self-defense.
So, basically, they should fight it out and see who wins? If you agree that this would be the primary means to resolve disputes in an anarcho-capitalist society - brute violence - then I have demonstrated what was to be demonstrated.


Also, the relatives of those Jews are certainly entitled to seek redress for their wrongful deaths in any private civil courts with jurisdiction. Finally, if a community decides to cooperatively fund a police force, I suspect they might have something to say about it as well.
And if John Smith refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of those private courts or police force? They fight it out and see who wins?

[Baconator]

Really? Such as what?Social ostricism, bad credit , bad reputation, target of vengence. Would you associate with someone you know cannot think rationally and would probably murder you?


Market for solving disputes?Yes. Where there exists a demand and supply ( people want disputes resolved , goods are provided for that) exists a market for such things. The government merely hold a monopoly on dispute resolution organizations such as courts. Large disputes can be solved with private service.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0603/p01s01-wome.html



I'm afraid you're making assumptions about people that you seem to know little about. What makes you think John Smith has any interest in solving his disputes with people who happen to be Jewish? What if he gets a bunch of his friends together, and they happen to own a lot of property which they use to generate money, purchase guns, and proceed to find a, *ahem*, final solution to their "dispute?"I've made no assumptions, you did. You assumed that everyone will turn psychotic and sociopathic and murder one and other. If John Smith is proven to feel he doesn't have to solve disputes with other people ( regardless of ethnicity) then he cannot really be trusted can he? Which Dispute Resolution Organization would even want to do business with him. How many people would want to do business that has trouble being trusted by a Dispute Resolution Organization? If John Smith wanted to buy a house from you would you do business with him if he can't even insure himself for a large transaction like that? Even if a group of Nazis wanted to run a muck, thankfully they're much easier to stop than a monopolized institution of force like government ( Nazi Germany). The innocent Jews and supporters ( like you and I I'm sure) can organize protection for those Jews in danger. Are you blaming private property as the culprit for racism?



If you just assume that all people want to live in peace - well, then, you're an idiot. I never claimed such things. I think thats a communist position actually. And it appears that you are making the assumption that most or all people would prefer to live in a condition of mistrust and danger. I don't really believe that to be the case either. I think most people would prefer to not worry about being murdered , raped , mugged , etc.


For example, I don't want to live in peace with you, and I have no interest in finding a "market solution" to our dispute. We want two fundamentally different types of societies. The only possible solutions are for one of us to impose his preferred society on the other, or for a third party to impose a third kind of society on both of us (which is currently the case). There is no possible arrangement that would be acceptable to both of us.This isn't accurate at all. I have no wish to impose my will upon you or any force upon you or people who think like you. All I ask is that you return me the same decency. I have absolutely no problem if you and a bunch of your comrades or associates want to pool your resources together and voluntarily create a commune. I think its great , just don't force me or anyone else who doesn't want to join and don't try to take our stuff with force.


I don't think self-ownership is contradictory, illogical, or inconsistent. I think it leads to undesirable consequences and is therefore evil. I don't think you're stupid, Baconator, I think you are evil. And I think evil must be fought relentlessly. Therefore, given ideal circumstances (which are extremely unlikely to ever be present in any society, sadly), I think you should be shot. Any questions?Well then, if self ownership is logically consistent , then it is a valid concept. I think you are indirectly admitting as much. Yet you are saying it is evil which is basically a moral statement which means S-O is immoral. Thats an invalid proposition about immorality or evilness because theres no option to be 'good' or 'moral.' You simply cannot not own yourself and your life unless your dead. Denying self-ownership also render murders meaningless. To murder is to commit aggression to take someone's life. But if no one owns their life , then nothing is taken from them and thus murder is meaningless. Also, the murderer wouldn't be responsible for his actions. The actions wouldn't be his. How can he own the product of his actions ( murder) if he doesn't own his actions , how can he own his actions if he doesn't own himself? To adopt a philosophy denying self-ownership is truly evil since there would no responsibility for victim or murderer. The fact that you believe I should be shot only affirms to me that you are a true Christian.


Ok, so what does it tell us about behavior in reality that is universal to all human beings?Most people ( minus some degenerates) prefer to live. The very fact that you're alive reading this demonstrates that you have taken actions to ensure you're alive based on a preference to live. Me too of course.



I can show that property rights cannot derive from self-ownership, or at least not from self-ownership alone. In order to derive property rights, you must begin from self-ownership plus the right to declare ownership over previously unowned objects. Just because you own yourself, that does not necessarily mean you can own anything else you come into contact with. An additional principle is necessary.Sure they can. You have property rights over your life. Its exclusive only to you and it is not evil to want to keep your life. Are you evil because you're alive right now? If you own your life then you own the energy your life gives you to perform actions. The product of that action ( action/energy/or labor) you're also responsible for and you own. Just like you would be responsible for , and own , your action for murdering someone , you would also be responsible for , and own , the product of something you create with your labor . The product of your actions/energy/labor is your property because it wouldn't exist without your labor in the first place.

Unowned objects? Well, if I find an unowned orange laying around and I consume it, I am claiming ownership over it. I am necessarily claiming exclusivity over it since only I am consuming that particular orange at the time and whatever is consumed of it belongs to only me. My body then appropriates the nutrients from the orange and adds it to my mass.
Something like an unowned plot of land is the same concept. The land might not yield much produce right now but if I irrigate, fertilize , and seed the land to grow wheat , then I own the wheat the land produces because without my energy that wheat would not come into existence. See, its not land thats really important, its the produce created as a result of my energy on that land thats important.

[Baconator]

Edit

[pusher robot]

That reasoning implies that no physical force may ever be used against a person's body, except to defend another person's body. But this means that anyone is free to violate any derivative rights they wish as long as they put their bodies on the line and make it impossible for you to stop them without harming their bodies.

It implies no such thing. To the degree that physical force results in less than death, it is less than a complete infringement of the fundamental right. It's not as though this is a binary condition of infringed/not infringed. There are degrees of infringement that must be considered.



So, what are you to do if someone comes onto your property - say, onto your bed - and absolutely refuses to move, no matter what incentives or threats you use?


You physically remove them. Their infringement of your property right, though derivative, is great enough to outweigh the tiny infringement of their right to self-ownership. (One might argue also that physically moving a person does not actually infringe their right to self-ownership at all, it only infringes their derivative right of free movement. In this case, you have two derivative rights involved, so you still weigh the degree and cost of infringment.)



So, basically, they should fight it out and see who wins? If you agree that this would be the primary means to resolve disputes in an anarcho-capitalist society - brute violence - then I have demonstrated what was to be demonstrated.


I agree to no such silly thing. You asked how one might deal with an extreme situation, and I provided a possible solution. How you reason that means that this is the "primary" means to "resolve disputes" is utterly incomprehensible. Here is your logic:

1. A person has a right to kill another in defense of his own life.
2. ???
3. Therefore, all disputes are resolved with violence.


And if John Smith refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of those private courts or police force? They fight it out and see who wins?

What happens if John Smith refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the state courts or police force?

What happens if John Smith refuses to recognize the democratic decisions of his communist community?

What happens if John Smith refuses to recognize the consensus decisions of the proletarian vanguard?

What do you think will happen? If a person is resolutely anti-social and destructive, society under any ideology has no choice but to destroy him.

[Baconator]

Ah pusher. I think we fundamentally agree on economics and, in general , the non aggression principle. But damn it ! :laugh: I just wish you weren't a statist ( even a smaller govt libertarian type) :(
Ah well, yet another great post by you. :D

[Bud Struggle]

If property rights exist, as capitalist (apologists) posit, I can damn well kill whoever I want on my property. I don't need to ask permission before shooting whoever I deem a trespasser.


Come on down to Florida, Gene! You got your (apologist) wish.

The Florida Castle Doctrine Law.:)

http://diodon349.com/Conservative_Corner/florida_castle_doctrine_signed_into_law.htm

[pusher robot]

Ah pusher. I think we fundamentally agree on economics and, in general , the non aggression principle. But damn it ! :laugh: I just wish you weren't a statist ( even a smaller govt libertarian type) :(
Ah well, yet another great post by you. :D

Thanks! I flip-flop as to whether I think a stateless society is possible. I think it would be a worthy social experiment. It's too bad there are no more territories to found a new country.

EDIT: Another experiment I'd love to see is a for-profit municipal corporation.

[Baconator]

Ah yes. I used to be like that too...when I was flip flopping between minarchist and anarchist and finally decided on the later upon becoming more educated about philosophy. I think I've dabbled a bit with many ideologies. When I first became political I was something of a semi-Marxist in my high school years. Even joined a young socialist's club. Still know people in YPSL. I never really saw any good reason to accept Marxist 'economics' but I was intrigued with the whole class struggle theory and historical materialism thing ( no I wasn't insane :laugh:)
Shortly after HS I turned more conservative enjoying Rush Limbaugh on a normal basis and reading Ayn Rand. After that, didn't like the whole militarism and imperialism thing so I gravitated towards small govt libertarianism. At first I was a bit hopeful of someone like Ron Paul. Even though I started swaying heavily Market Anarchist I still saw a glimmer of hope. Ron Paul appealed to me because he was anti-militarism and against the welfare state. Then there were things about RP that just didn't click with me. For one, he claims to be a free trader ( and kudoz for slamming Nafta) but then he wants to ramp up border patrol , even a wall , and deport 'illegal aliens.' Then he denied evolution outright and declared his support for ID-iot design (creationism). He claims to be for the principle of self-ownership but then has problems with a woman choosing what to do with her own body ( abortion). So yeah, I found this is the position of most small govt libertarianism. Finally , Market Anarchism just made the most sense and was the only rational choice. Just take libertarianism to its logical conclusions and you'll see thats correct.

[Baconator]

Ah. Forgot to mention. Another problem I had with RP and a lot of minarchist libertarians is this addiction to the Gold Standard. Not that I'm necessarily against it but I don't like the whole idea of a nationwide 'conversion agency.' That was Von Mises' idea and I disagree with that aspect of it. I certainly believe in 100% backed money and going to private currency but I don't think it necessarily has to be gold. I prefer to leave it to market forces to decide whatever emerges as money.

A while back ago I started reading a lot of Benjamin Tucker , Josiah Warren , and Rothbard which drew me to individualist anarchism as well. Similarly, I was taking Econ in university at the time and through Rothbard I became very familiar with Austrian Economics as well.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It implies no such thing. To the degree that physical force results in less than death, it is less than a complete infringement of the fundamental right. It's not as though this is a binary condition of infringed/not infringed. There are degrees of infringement that must be considered.
First, let's get back to the initial question. I have asked you how why the right to shoot people on your property does not logically derive from the right to own private property. You have explained why the right to kill people on your property does not logically derive from the right to own private property. Close, but not close enough. So is it ok to do anything you want to people on your property, short of killing them?

Presumably you will answer that retaliation must be proportional to the infringement. But that's a very hazy and subjective notion - what counts as "propotional," who gets to decide it, and what happens if the aggressor and the victim disagree on whether the retaliation was proportional to the crime?


I agree to no such silly thing. You asked how one might deal with an extreme situation, and I provided a possible solution. How you reason that means that this is the "primary" means to "resolve disputes" is utterly incomprehensible. Here is your logic:

1. A person has a right to kill another in defense of his own life.
2. ???
3. Therefore, all disputes are resolved with violence.
Not quite.

1. When two people are in a serious dispute, if one can kill the other and get away with it, he will probably try to.
2. Lacking central authority and uniform legislation, those with sufficient property and resources at their disposal to fight off retaliation from private defence agencies can get away with anything.
3. Therefore, all serious disputes involving at least one party strong enough to fight off retaliation from private defence agencies will be resolved with violence.

I can further add:

4. One private defence agency or group of agencies will inevitably be stronger than its competitors (in terms of firepower).
5. Therefore, from (3) and (4), the stronger one will use violence to eliminate the weaker ones until it becomes a monopoly - and hence a state.

Moreover, a private individual with a given amount of firepower is far more dangerous than a modern state with the same amount of firepower, for three main reasons: (a) most modern states are subject to at least some popular control and try not to get their people too angry, while a private individual is not limited by such controls, (b) states can't run or hide from retaliation, but individuals can, and (c) states are usually composed of several groups with conflicting interests, which can sometimes balance each other out.


What happens if John Smith refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the state courts or police force?

What happens if John Smith refuses to recognize the democratic decisions of his communist community?

What happens if John Smith refuses to recognize the consensus decisions of the proletarian vanguard?
They fight it out and see who wins. I have no problem with that. You do. I do not claim to uphold an ideology that is based on a "non-aggression principle".


What do you think will happen? If a person is resolutely anti-social and destructive, society under any ideology has no choice but to destroy him.
Yes. Now go one step further and realize what this means: That society will destroy any person who resolutely opposes the fundamental principles of the social order. So it is nonsense, ridiculous utopian nonsense, to talk about a society that does not enforce any rules on anyone. All societies enforce certain rules on people, under threat of violence if people do not comply with them.

I don't see that as a problem. You might.