If ancaps were liberals, liberals wouldn’t hate and fear us so much. I don’t know where you go the idea that ancaps favour votes. Votes go into the religion, communism and tribalism bin; you can implement voting under ancap, but most likely Gnon will swiftly punish you.

Canada has false and therefore unstable moral legitimacy. It will, sooner or later, go the way of the divine right of kings. That Gnon is patient does not mean Gnon is happy.

They have Exit from Canada. They do not have Exit from the American empire. Libertardiarians are right; borders are indeed kind of meaningless. Literally everywhere is a citizen of America now, though there’s unrest in the provinces of Russia and China.

Sure, that’s pretty basic rule of law-as-applied-to-property stuff. Doesn’t negate what I’m talking about. Plus, the history ain’t with ya, at least not at those extremes of: no violation of property rights ever. Ancap stuff is pretty hard to talk about.

But I note you do like to talk about moral legitimacy, but as far as I can tell, that doesn’t require a coercion-less state-citizen relationship. If you tried to abolish the state, or work towards, or encourage it, you/whomever/forces would lose moral legitimacy, and people would clamor for a state again. The state is very, very sticky. But really, what you’re talking about is advanced-stage anarcho-capitalism, and that’s precisely why you think things would look much the way they do now.

Neocameralism is different than anarcho-capitalism. Ancapism is just liberalism. It doesn’t care about competency and order and peace and stability as such. It treats everyone like a special snowflake with a vote. Votes mean nothing. ‘Signing on the dotted line’ means about as little.

Ancaps care about some technical definition of consent, which doesn’t seem to actually matter. Gnon certainly doesn’t care about it. Gnon only includes ‘consent’ as a small part of the moral legitimacy calculus. Ancap to me is about as weird as social contract/other consent theories for empirical legitimacy.

So it doesn’t make sense to bring national defense as an argument against your kind of ancapism. Cities with sufficiently same culture/values would cooperate, and would levy the revenue necessary, and that levy would be procured because you consented to be in that city. What the city says is what goes.

But we already have that now. They’re called states, but without the Ethereal, Mystical Magic Powder Of Consent which requires every snowflake to sign on the dotted line to somehow grant moral legitimacy as a social phenomenon (except it doesn’t. A state like Canada already has moral legitimacy in the minds of its people).

And they even have Exit, too. You are free to leave whenever you’d like.

This isn’t a direct response to NAP stuff; it’s cutting to the chase, instead, so we don’t have to beat around the bush.

inundating the court with risk analyses to guarantee injunctions is beyond the scope

This and similar snarls are tin men.
So 15% cooperate regardless of the rewards, 70% do whatever the incentives say, and 15% deviate regardless of the punishments. That latter 15% guarantee the need to secure your property. Individual-level security is too expensive, so it will be handled by a firm. Effectively this firm will re-create sheriffs and courts, and you’ll have to agree to their terms of due process when you sign up for their insurance.
Much as you get lower health and life insurance by taking a few key health-promoting steps, you’ll get lower security insurance by taking some basic security on yourself, but by and large it will be a division of labour situation.

Waiting for market coordination is imprudent.

Wealth distribution follows a power law. Ancaps like to think no property blocks much larger than a household will exist. Absurd. Most likely whole cities will be owned by individuals, (baronies) possibly even larger blocks (kingdoms) depending on where the inflection points on the economy-of-scale graph are.

Owning a city! Now that would be pretty cool. But it gets us back to an issue that we’ve completely skipped, which is who owns what. How do we decide? Do I deserve to own a city? Am I so meritorious? I think I am. Maybe you could keep your wallet, and I could get, say, Baltimore.

Further, airlines will be held liable for spreading disease. Thus most will implement quarantine unilaterally, antecedent to any coordination.

But it was not a thought experiment for Native Americans.

Yes, Ancap might be a high-tech only kind of political order. That said, feather indians couldn’t have implemented quarantine even if they wanted to, and likely they had no idea they needed to. This isn’t an argument against libertarianism, this is an argument for having what we today call science.

To accomodate entropic problem X, society would be like Y, and society would account for problem Z exactly like so in perfect synchronization. The libertarian rejoinder is that for every thought experiment a damned statist can think up, the market has thought it up better! To accomodate entropic problem X, society would be like Y,

Iif you don’t think it’s a valid rhetorical action, why are you doing it yourself?

Or, the state could just move in and crush it all.

The market will be more efficient than the state at violence, just as it’s more efficient at everything else.

That is what the state is for, after all.

You done been pwned, son. The state is for the enrichment of its rulers. Always has been. Steelmanned ancap is in large part simply admitting this fact.

If you hold a lion on your property, and the lion breaks loose and causes all sorts of havoc, the regular tort of negligence doesn’t apply. Why? Because you had a bloody lion on your property.

First, your security agreement would likely prohibit that for exactly this reason. Second, since you’re likely to end up executed as part of the negligence suit, nobody sane does it in the first place. There’s no practical difference between having a lion and just straight-up murdering folk. If you can deal with murder you can deal with the lion.
Look, I know so-called ‘libertarians’ come up with these retarded arguments, but that doesn’t make them libertarian arguments. It just means that like every group, Sturgeon’s law applies. If you think refuting idiots is a productive use of your time…well, then I guess you’ve got more free time than I do.
Further, your neighbours, seeing you have a lion, are themselves likely to take precautions that seriously inconvenience you, such as declarations of war.

If post-facto system stability cannot be guaranteed and the risks too great, etc., the state has cause to intervene to keep good order.

I can’t believe you wrote that with a straight face. It’s clear you haven’t been reading any good ancap sources. To me it’s a jaw-dropping non-sequitur.

By now, it should be clear that whether action X procures forced labor or ‘is theft’ is contingent on one’s conception of property rights.

This is also a non-sequitur. No, it isn’t clear. You’ve been arguing about something else, which is whether retarded libertarianism is retarded. And indeed, idiots are idiotic.

You can either change your prior conceptions of property, so that offensive act X is no longer aggression, or you can just bite the bullet and say that physical coercion is perfectly acceptable coming from superiors, since the ethical principle doesn’t apply carte blanche to those entrusted with banishing entropy—military, police, for instance.

Gross. A tangle of wrong.
Slavery isn’t aggression if you sell yourself into slavery. Consent is all that matters. This is hardly against property, indeed it is the sublime example of it.
There’s only one philosophically coherent definition of coercion. (Admittedly I seem to be the only one know knows what it is, so it’s reasonable that you wouldn’t either.) If you’ve sold yourself into slavery, the whip is not coercion. You agreed to the whip as an incentive when you sold yourself.
The next bit is another amazing statist non-sequitur. That I can I agree to let someone boss me around is literally the farthest thing from accepting that murderers with badges and uniforms are my superiors.

Likes should be treated alike, and unalikes unalike.

Which is why you need to read some non-idiot libertarians on the topic of consent, else speak not whereof you know not what you speak.