>>11811
>Taking people's stuff away from them on threat of imprisonment is how you protect property.
>>11821
>in ancap they aren't allowed to fight back because muh NAP
I'm not even a NAPfag and I can point out your manifest retardation here. It's "Non-AGGRESSION", not "Non-Violence". For fuck's sake, there's no conceivable way that nobody's wasted their time trying to explain this to you yet. Defense is not aggression. Aggression is initiatory. The guy who starts the fight is the aggressor. The guy fighting back is just defending himself. Every NAPfag and his dog can explain this basic fucking concept to you.
>>11844
>they only property they "possess" is occupational.
So now there's "occupational" property, too? Gee, if only I had known earlier that I could just keep inventing bullshit categories and false distinctions, maybe I wouldn't have had to actually do something productive with my life.
>>11863
>the purpose of the state is to protect the property rights of the bourgeoisie, which cannot be done without said state
First, if you use the word "bourgeoisie" unironically, you're fucking retarded and I can safely disregard your opinion with regard to just about anything.
Second, even presuming against all sense that government DID protect property rights, that in no way establishes that it is the ONLY way to do so. AnCaps recognize that government is anathema to property, and are in favor of other institutional methods of protecting property.
>the only argument i've heard against
Doesn't mean it's the only one there IS. The other arguments are economic, but clearly economics is voodoo to you.
>Private property only exists when exploitation occurs, are you suggesting animals employ each other?
Have… have you actually never been outside? Have you never witnessed a symbiotic relationship between species? Hell, have you never even seen a dog mark its TERRITORY!? You know; the PROPERTY it claims?
Yes, wild animals claim property, you unfathomably ignorant shitsack.
>Morals are rather spooky m8
Proving his point about you sucking at philosophy.
>Without a state you will still get your ass kicked for this retarded nonsense,
Yet you somehow think that this "retarded nonsense" will be how everyone behaves if we abolish economic interventionism? You're directly and unambiguously contradicting yourself here.
No state, no coercive institution, and anybody trying to act like that kind of shit won't get away with it. The norms are self-enforcing; antisocial behavior is maladaptive.
But you somehow think, knowing this, that even absent a monopolistic institution of violence, anybody who attempts precisely this kind of shittery, or hires somebody else to do the same, will somehow avoid this entire mechanism. Do you think paid thugs won't get the shit kicked out of them on account of their paycheck?
You're just mind-bogglingly incapable of comparing your own propositions to each other. It beggars the imagination to conceive of how you manage to avoid swallowing your own tongue.