Anarchism and its variants.

[mikkel_the_dane]

That can happen in the real world.

I would say that a company wouldn’t have the right to do that, even in ancapistan. Though the company would be altering their own private property, they would be in effect violating the NAP. Ones private property can be used freely, only as long as it doesn’t alter or violate someone’s else’s property without their consent. You asked before how this would be enforced. Perhaps it would be common practice for companies to agree to have associations with certain private arbiters who themselves have private watchdog agencies ensuring quality. The people downriver can then go to the private arbiter and present their case, or perhaps go to a private arbiter of their own choosing. If the arbiter rules that the territorial change is in fact a violation of a NAP, then the company would be obliged not to go through with their plans. If they chose to do so regardless, the market would probably punish them and they would lose associations with arbiters and watchdog agencies for example. And the people downriver have every right to prevent the violation of their private property rights. With a private arbiter ruling in their favor, they would have the backing of private defense insurance agencies and would have the means to protect their property. Just a theory on how it might work.

How exactly does your vision answer this problem?

You are to vague in effect. How does the other parties enforce their property right in practice if a company doesn't care about it. You are so close yet you are missing the point.
The company needs to trade. If the rest of the marked wants it to stop the company's workers will stop working for them. Other companies will stop trading with them and that even includes road, energy and what not. And if the consumers buys from the company they will find other companies.

Now when people get tired of that, the following can happen. For a given country, you would get a cooperative trade company where all these cases are dealt with and where you have to be a part of the company to trade with other people in the trade company.
For the USA, it would be the cooperative trade company of the USA and in effect function like a government because it in effect enforces trade NAP between co-owners of the company.
That is in practice how a democratic country functions.

 

[an anarchist]

You are to vague in effect. How does the other parties enforce their property right in practice if a company doesn't care about it. You are so close yet you are missing the point.
The company needs to trade. If the rest of the marked wants it to stop the company's workers will stop working for them. Other companies will stop trading with them and that even includes road, energy and what not. And if the consumers buys from the company they will find other companies.

Now when people get tired of that, the following can happen. For a given country, you would get a cooperative trade company where all these cases are dealt with and where you have to be a part of the company to trade with other people in the trade company.
For the USA, it would be the cooperative trade company of the USA and in effect function like a government because it in effect enforces trade NAP between co-owners of the company.
That is in practice how a democratic country functions.

How would it be enforced in the case that the company does not care what private arbiters say? Through violence perhaps, but hopefully not. Again, I think the way for how exactly it would work is undiscovered and may remain so until the market is given an opportunity to innovate and spontaneously find solutions. Consumers and other companies would hopefully respond by refusing trade with the company in question. The company would lose any valuable associations, hypothetically.

So, in your view, what of those individuals who are not part of a cooperative trade company?

Also, is it logical that resources could be commonly owned by everyone? If it was so, wouldn’t an individual need everyone’s agreement before he altered any individual resource at any time? Isnt such a thing impossible? What am I missing?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How would it be enforced in the case that the company does not care what private arbiters say? Through violence perhaps, but hopefully not. Again, I think the way for how exactly it would work is undiscovered and may remain so until the market is given an opportunity to innovate and spontaneously find solutions. Consumers and other companies would hopefully respond by refusing trade with the company in question. The company would lose any valuable associations, hypothetically.

So, in your view, what of those individuals who are not part of a cooperative trade company?

Also, is it logical that resources could be commonly owned by everyone? If it was so, wouldn’t an individual need everyone’s agreement before he altered any individual resource at any time? Isnt such a thing impossible? What am I missing?

No, the rules of trade are common and thus enforced even with violence if need be. The personal property rights are not just absolute. They are under the common trade rules.
That is how a modern Western democracy function. You are a member of the rules or you can leave. You have a vote and limited property rights.
The most anarchy we can have today is Western democracy. And your system ends the same place unless you don't want enforcement of the common rule.