In a truly free society, how do you prohibit stuff?
anything that violatates someone else's life, liberty and property.
Ultimately violence or threat of violence.
uhh you cant? its a contradiction in terms. yes murder for hire will exist in ancap. its just gonna be expensive.
In a free society, how can you limit freedom?
limitgov: In a truly free society, how do you prohibit stuff?
The one fellow has the right answer. If society respect for private property and contract, then there would be no need for prohibitions. It is in the current situation that people use the guns of government to stop others from engaging in peaceful and consentual behaviors that do not harm others.
You cannot prohibit anything in any circumstance. Neither in "anarcho-capitalism" nor in a soviet-style totalitarian world.
The only thing you can do is make those poor decisions taken by other people more expensive, or, equivalently, make any acceptable alternatives to those decisions cheaper.
And there are many alternatives to that, with varying effectiveness and expected costs.
"yes murder for hire will exist in ancap. its just gonna be expensive."
Won't the free makret it make it really efficient and cheap?
Won't the free market it make it really efficient and cheap?
What is generally called the "free market" is the market phenomenon characterized by a very high price for most common forms of retail and wholesale aggression.
And that's because in a cheap violence environment you expect people to employ more violence in their problem solving, including their bargains, thus making the market less "free", as trades would tend to be settle by different degrees of intimidation and sacking.
I don't think the OP was asking about a fairy tale land where not a single soul ever violates another persons rights, willingly or otherwise. I could be wrong, but I believe the question assumed normal humans (even if more libertarian than today's populace).
ToxicAssets:You cannot prohibit anything in any circumstance.
Prohibit != prevent. You can prohibit whatever you want. Whether anyone gives a shit is a different story. In a free society there will be prohibitions, even if only against killing, stealing, and other violations of property rights.
The way you prohibit those is, ultimately, through violence or threat of violence. Direct violence may not be the first option, but the theoretical aggressor could continually say "what if I don't comply?" until you ultimately arrive at violence against their person.
What steps individuals generally agree on taking before resorting to direct violence is an empirical issue.
edit: I think a more interesting question, and one that speaks more on the replies by others, is if the market has incentive structures that promote voluntary compliance with generally libertarian principles before reaching the stage of direct violence. i.e. is it self reinforcing.
Prohibit != prevent. You can prohibit whatever you want. Whether anyone gives a shit is a different story.
Yeah, that's what I meant.