Apparently, the technique of using cap-headlines on posts is offensive to Rothbardians, who need a safe place – right next to the Social Justice Warriors – that is free of ratio-scientific argument, and where they can desperately cling to their collective suspension of disbelief free of threats that would contradict their self-worth-sustaining variation of right-Marxist ideology.
Let me help you: incentives. While neither a commune without property or a Private Voluntary Society with property is possible for the same reasons: incentives. And why? Because with or without property (a) neither can hold territory from competitors, and so must be held as a ‘ghetto’ by a political entity that can, and (b) communes that depend on normative and institutional communism (rothbardian institutional communism), and communes that depend on normative, institutional, and propertied communism (marxist total communism), both lack sufficient incentives to survive competition from non-communist political orders.
Why? Because private, common, normative, institutional, and territorial property is a competitive advantage.
Rothbardianism is just normative and institutional communism, as a proposed subsitute for total communism.
private property, shareholder property, common property, normative property, institutional property, territorial property: all groups need them to resist competition from other groups.
There is no free ride, and no discount available on the range of capital one must protect in order to create liberty.
We must protect ALL Property in ALL forms from parasitism and free riding if we are to create a polity capable of both the incentives to attract, and incentives to retain a population
The age of wandering shepherds and merchants ended. We call those people vagrants, unassimilated immigrant underclasses, gypsies, diasporic financiers and traders: a spectrum of free riders (parasites) And they exist only with permission of the hosts that DO pay the high costs of protecting private, shareholder, common, normative, institutional, and territorial property.
Humans organize. That the kind of people attracted to rothbardianism are those who are less desirable to organize with is the explanation of why they find the idea of an ‘organization’ which asks no common costs of its members. That does not mean these same people can form a polity capable of competitive survival even by incentives to join and stay. It is still preferable to live in a city or the country instead of (costly) suburbia – which is why people do it.
Now, we can construct a contractual society on the anglo model, which creates a market for relationships, a market for private property, a market for shareholder property, a market for commons, and a market for warriors to defend the commons, all within a monopoly we call natural law.
And in this system all property is private. But one cannot escape paying for the construction and maintenance of that society even if that society is constructed for the thorough suppression of free riding on material goods and services.