libertarianism is self-refuting

[Хahar 🤔]

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.   

What are some ways companies use force against the population?

The State does it:  things are arranged so that all productive resources are 'owned' by a tiny minority.  The majority is thus prevented from access to sustenance unless this minority allows it, which they do, typically, in exchange for the labour of the serf. 

The essential source of their power to order the serf about is, clearly, due to the force that the State exerts, and has always exerted, upon their behalf.  If any serf tries to revolt, he is placed in prison or killed.  Many libertarians have difficulty understanding all this because they have a complete lack of a sense of historical context, and assume that the status quo of inequality of access to State power is 'natural'.

Opebo, you seem to have a hard time understanding that libertarianism isn't feudalism or corparatism.

But your anarcho-capitalism is. At other times, I've showed what your total freedom would mean: namely, a lack of freedom for all but the privileged few.

[Хahar 🤔]

There's also the matter of cartels.

Cartels would also be economically inefficient in a free society, because any cartel artificially raising prices will be subject to non-cartel competition able to make profits by selling that good at a lower price.

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.   

What are some ways companies use force against the population?

The State does it:  things are arranged so that all productive resources are 'owned' by a tiny minority.  The majority is thus prevented from access to sustenance unless this minority allows it, which they do, typically, in exchange for the labour of the serf. 

The essential source of their power to order the serf about is, clearly, due to the force that the State exerts, and has always exerted, upon their behalf.  If any serf tries to revolt, he is placed in prison or killed.  Many libertarians have difficulty understanding all this because they have a complete lack of a sense of historical context, and assume that the status quo of inequality of access to State power is 'natural'.

Opebo, you seem to have a hard time understanding that libertarianism isn't feudalism or corparatism.

But your anarcho-capitalism is. At other times, I've showed what your total freedom would mean: namely, a lack of freedom for all but the privileged few.

No, in feudalism serfs lack freedom of opportunity, distinctly different from capitalism. In corporatism/fascism, corparations are able to get political favors from the government, impossible in government if they do not have the authority to do such things.

Without government protection, there is nothing to stop slavery, which is a total lack of freedom. Though this may be uncommon in industrialized areas, wage slavery would be the norm.

[Хahar 🤔]

There's also the matter of cartels.

Cartels would also be economically inefficient in a free society, because any cartel artificially raising prices will be subject to non-cartel competition able to make profits by selling that good at a lower price.

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.   

What are some ways companies use force against the population?

The State does it:  things are arranged so that all productive resources are 'owned' by a tiny minority.  The majority is thus prevented from access to sustenance unless this minority allows it, which they do, typically, in exchange for the labour of the serf. 

The essential source of their power to order the serf about is, clearly, due to the force that the State exerts, and has always exerted, upon their behalf.  If any serf tries to revolt, he is placed in prison or killed.  Many libertarians have difficulty understanding all this because they have a complete lack of a sense of historical context, and assume that the status quo of inequality of access to State power is 'natural'.

Opebo, you seem to have a hard time understanding that libertarianism isn't feudalism or corparatism.

But your anarcho-capitalism is. At other times, I've showed what your total freedom would mean: namely, a lack of freedom for all but the privileged few.

No, in feudalism serfs lack freedom of opportunity, distinctly different from capitalism. In corporatism/fascism, corparations are able to get political favors from the government, impossible in government if they do not have the authority to do such things.

Without government protection, there is nothing to stop slavery, which is a total lack of freedom. Though this may be uncommon in industrialized areas, wage slavery would be the norm.

First of all, nobody with a gun is going to become a slave. Second, if the "Civil" War proved anything, its that slavery is no institution to base your economy on. you will get much better quality labor if it is voluntary. Third, slavery would not be permitted in a libertarian society, so your point is moot and a straw man. Next time you criticize my arguments, make sure the claim is valid.

If I had 5 people with submachine guns and you had a shotgun, I'd be able to enslave you. And why wouldn't slavery be permitted?

[Хahar 🤔]

There's also the matter of cartels.

Cartels would also be economically inefficient in a free society, because any cartel artificially raising prices will be subject to non-cartel competition able to make profits by selling that good at a lower price.

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.   

What are some ways companies use force against the population?

The State does it:  things are arranged so that all productive resources are 'owned' by a tiny minority.  The majority is thus prevented from access to sustenance unless this minority allows it, which they do, typically, in exchange for the labour of the serf. 

The essential source of their power to order the serf about is, clearly, due to the force that the State exerts, and has always exerted, upon their behalf.  If any serf tries to revolt, he is placed in prison or killed.  Many libertarians have difficulty understanding all this because they have a complete lack of a sense of historical context, and assume that the status quo of inequality of access to State power is 'natural'.

Opebo, you seem to have a hard time understanding that libertarianism isn't feudalism or corparatism.

But your anarcho-capitalism is. At other times, I've showed what your total freedom would mean: namely, a lack of freedom for all but the privileged few.

No, in feudalism serfs lack freedom of opportunity, distinctly different from capitalism. In corporatism/fascism, corparations are able to get political favors from the government, impossible in government if they do not have the authority to do such things.

Without government protection, there is nothing to stop slavery, which is a total lack of freedom. Though this may be uncommon in industrialized areas, wage slavery would be the norm.

First of all, nobody with a gun is going to become a slave. Second, if the "Civil" War proved anything, its that slavery is no institution to base your economy on. you will get much better quality labor if it is voluntary. Third, slavery would not be permitted in a libertarian society, so your point is moot and a straw man. Next time you criticize my arguments, make sure the claim is valid.

If I had 5 people with submachine guns and you had a shotgun, I'd be able to enslave you. And why wouldn't slavery be permitted?

Slavery is a violation of man's right to life, liberty, and property. Also, the main difference between polycentric law and centralized government is that in the former, if you do not like the service of your protection agency, you can hire another one instead. You do not have that choice with the latter.

This is, of course, subject to so many things like blacklisting. Also, it'd be impossible to ban slavery.