Conquer Club

Ok, so assume that all courts, law enforcement, prisons, regulatory bodies (FDA, etc.) are privatized. Let's also assume coercion is not used in any aspect of life.

Example 1
Let's say I breached acontract with another party, resulting in financial damages to another party.

Let's say I have a friend who owns a private court which claims jurisdiction in the are where this occurred. Let's also say that the other party has a friend who owns another private court which also claims jurisdiction in the area. These are the only two courts in the area.

How can we possibly get a fair trial in these circumstances?

Example 2
I claim to have a patent to my invention by registering it with The Patent Enforcement Corporation. Someone else creates an identical invention and has a patented registerd with Acme Patents Inc. registered at the same time.

Who owns the rights to this invention?

Example 3
A single person owns the only private court, law enforcement agency and prison in the area (let's say its a very low populated area like an average county in Montana). Or we could say that a single person owns all the courts, law enforcement agencies and prisons in a wide area.

How can anyone possibly get a fair trial in these circumstances? Given the barriers to entry and the lack of anyone with enough capital to compete with this monopoly, how does the free market respond in order to correct this injustice?

Maybe I've got a totally incorrect picture of what anarcho-capitalism is, but I think these are valid concerns to an outisder.

Anarcho-capitalism, kind of like these guys here? (Note the words written on the shield there on the glass)-



heh heh heh.

What'cha been reaaading, GP?

Nothing really, unless this counts.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176256&p=3851957#p3851957

I was playing poker with a friend's friend one night and we started talking about stuff like this. The guy was, i think, a collectivist anarchist. So yeah, we're discussing this and I keep pressing him on how it would all work in practice, saying I just don't see it being practical without some kind of major shift.
He casually replies with: "Oh, you're right, it can't work now. But I think it'll work after the next major conflict when humanity will return to it's natural hunter-gatherer status".

Gave me a chill the way he said it. Or it might have been the alcohol, who knows.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:He casually replies with: "Oh, you're right, it can't work now. But I think it'll work after the next major conflict when humanity will return to it's natural hunter-gatherer status".

Your friend has a great point. The anarchist philosopher John Zerzan - the political counselor to Dr. Kaczynski during his 1995 trial - posits that the New System will need to be preceded by the dismantlement of technical-agricultural society. Zerzan notes that "banded man" resolved conflicts by the antagonist simply leaving the band (he notes research that shows early bands were based on mutual ideology rather than blood and soil). This was changed by agriculture when nomadic living gave way to fixed habitation and bands were no longer functional. Therefore, all technology from the point of agriculture will need to be destroyed.

Unlike Kaczynski, though, Zerzan believes civilization should gradually be dismantled rather than Kaczynski's position that it should be bombed out of existence, though the two share a basic coherency of belief.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:I
He casually replies with: "Oh, you're right, it can't work now. But I think it'll work after the next major conflict when humanity will return to it's natural hunter-gatherer status".

Ha! You should tell your friend that it's already happened! We have reverted back to hunter/gatherer status. Well, not so much hunting anymore, but a hell of a lot of gathering!

Go down to the local grocery store, you'll see, everyone in there is a gatherer. Hunting out the best deals and gathering what they need with what they have to gather with.

Once, that's all anyone ever did, hunt and gather.
Then agriculture took over and almost everyone was a farmer.

Today, most people aren't farmers, they are gatherers hunting for the best prices.

Your friends scenario can't work until we all revert back into farmers again.
That's how the true anarcho-capitalistic system works. Each and every person labors on their own to provide what they can. Not everyone labors on the same thing, nor can anyone labor enough to provide everything they'll need in life to survive.

That's where the anarcho=capitalism comes in. Everyone is doing productive things, truly productive things. There won't be any bureaucrats, because they do't produce a damn thing. Everyone producing and then trading excess of their labors for other things they don't have the time, resources or ability to produce.
It is all voluntary. With absolutely no need for a governing body to oversee it all. People will protect their own interests and it's in everyone's interest to protect all the other producers as well.

If you are a farmer, that's all you have time, resources and knowledge for, you'll help out the local carpenter if someone tries to rob him because you are in need of the carpenters services to get by.
Same goes with the carpenter, who will gladly help protect you, the farmer, because if some non productive thief steals all your crops, the carpenter will go hungry as well.

In such a system, all the productive members of the society will work together because they all mutually benefit each other. The nonproductive members of the society will starve and freeze to death in the winter. Thus, in the end, all that is left is the productive members of society all working together of their own free will because their own survival depends on it.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:I was playing poker with a friend's friend one night and we started talking about stuff like this. The guy was, i think, a collectivist anarchist. So yeah, we're discussing this and I keep pressing him on how it would all work in practice, saying I just don't see it being practical without some kind of major shift.
He casually replies with: "Oh, you're right, it can't work now. But I think it'll work after the next major conflict when humanity will return to it's natural hunter-gatherer status".

Gave me a chill the way he said it. Or it might have been the alcohol, who knows.

I wouldn't worry about it. Given what I've read on history, it seems that the emergence of the State over any group of people is inevitable, and markets emerge as well (even within barter economies, and even within a hunter-gatherer society). So whatever he believes, it may be true that we could possibly--albeit extremely unlikely--regress to a hunter-gatherer society; however, humanity would continue on with its trajectory of interacting within and developing markets, commerce, industry, technology, and statecraft.


edit: For his goal to be fulfilled, he'd have to be in favor of a nuclear catastrophe that kills nearly everyone and destroys almost all capital. Sounds like a really warm and fuzzy means.

edit: For his model to work, he could actually try in today's world. But competition would likely destroy his little group because people value things differently. If he could find some group of similarly minded people, then by all means, I wish them luck in their hunter-gatherer society. But if his goal requires " a major conflict," then piss on him; he's implying that he wants humanity and much of its products destroyed. If that's true, he may as well join the ranks of cool guys like Lenin and Mao.

GreecePwns wrote:Nothing really, unless this counts.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176256&p=3851957#p3851957

Ah, thanks. I just want a frame of reference.

I'll sit down and pound out a response sometime soon. It's a great OP, but it takes time to be clear and careful in my wording.


Question: (a) should I immediately respond to each segment, or (b) should I first clarify some important definitions to smooth over potential misunderstanding beforehand?

What does the CC gang think? Actually, screw you guys. What does the OP think?

GreecePwns wrote:Ok, so assume that all courts, law enforcement, prisons, regulatory bodies (FDA, etc.) are privatized. Let's also assume coercion is not used in any aspect of life.

Example 1
Let's say I breached acontract with another party, resulting in financial damages to another party.

Let's say I have a friend who owns a private court which claims jurisdiction in the are where this occurred. Let's also say that the other party has a friend who owns another private court which also claims jurisdiction in the area. These are the only two courts in the area.

How can we possibly get a fair trial in these circumstances?

YOu mean like the arbitration clauses most people are now required to sign for various contracts, often without their even really realizing they have done so?

GreecePwns wrote:Example 2
I claim to have a patent to my invention by registering it with The Patent Enforcement Corporation. Someone else creates an identical invention and has a patented registerd with Acme Patents Inc. registered at the same time.

Who owns the rights to this invention?

Most likely one of the companies that has blank offices specifically designed to harvest patents for just about every potential form of technology out there and about to emerge already.

Microsoft, if its even vaguely a computer issue, other companies most of us would not recognize

GreecePwns wrote:Example 3
A single person owns the only private court, law enforcement agency and prison in the area (let's say its a very low populated area like an average county in Montana). Or we could say that a single person owns all the courts, law enforcement agencies and prisons in a wide area.

How can anyone possibly get a fair trial in these circumstances? Given the barriers to entry and the lack of anyone with enough capital to compete with this monopoly, how does the free market respond in order to correct this injustice?

The market does not respond. The market is not involved in justice, just in creating capitol and then primarily for those at the top of the market.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Question: (a) should I immediately respond to each segment, or (b) should I first clarify some important definitions to smooth over potential misunderstanding beforehand?

What does the CC gang think?

prefer you release it in a limited edition, downloadable Kindle text so I can read it on the train as I enjoy a freshly ground brew and a chocolate croissant from Stannigan's - thank you

Overall it sounds like how many of the former soviet states are doing. When there is no legitimate authority to handle things, people cling to whatever semblance of reliability and safety they can manage; family mobs, friend mobs, criminal mobs, co-worker mobs, and hired thugs. Might makes right in this case, what’s “fair” becomes arbitrary to what works.
It really doesn’t seem like anything new; robber barons, corrupt officials, Ancient Rome, there have been countless times when money was the deciding factor over justice.
But to answer your original questions while taking coercion out of the equation as you instructed.

1. Objectively you just have admitted to breaching the contract, thus even if the court isn’t fair, a ruling against you is correct. You would have already assumedly known what you would be getting into by signing a contract with a person who holds all the cards of your own volition.


2. In a free market society, there would be no patent, all information would be free use, and the victor would be determined by outmaneuvering your competition.


3. If you have allowed a just person to buy your courts, you should be fine; this is the risk you take by allowing anyone the opportunity for autocracy.

/ wrote: 2. In a free market society, there would be no patent, all information would be free use, and the victor would be determined by outmaneuvering your competition.

Interesting, because most people would say that patents are part of what allows a free market, else no one has incentive to invest time and energy in developing new ideas.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

/ wrote: 2. In a free market society, there would be no patent, all information would be free use, and the victor would be determined by outmaneuvering your competition.

Interesting, because most people would say that patents are part of what allows a free market, else no one has incentive to invest time and energy in developing new ideas.

They aren't. Patents are state-granted monopolies, but I'm interested in knowing Who exactly says this and why they continue to mistake today's economic system with a free market system.

The underlined may be true, but a future without patent laws is simply uncertain. You could examine the change of patent time-lengths and compare that to the number of patents, but there's several problems with that analysis, which I'm not sure if you care about. Besides, it's off-topic, so please make a thread about it.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

/ wrote: 2. In a free market society, there would be no patent, all information would be free use, and the victor would be determined by outmaneuvering your competition.

Interesting, because most people would say that patents are part of what allows a free market, else no one has incentive to invest time and energy in developing new ideas.

They aren't. Patents are state-granted monopolies,

No, they are state-granted property rights. Why is that different from any other property right? All rights to property are either enforced or not by the state. When its "not" we have anarchy, not markets.

BigBallinStalin wrote:but I'm interested in knowing Who exactly says this and why they continue to mistake today's economic system with a free market system.

The underlined may be true, but a future without patent laws is simply uncertain. You could examine the change of patent time-lengths and compare that to the number of patents, but there's several problems with that analysis, which I'm not sure if you care about. Besides, it's off-topic, so please make a thread about it.

I think you rather need to study the history of our country and why patents were begun. You would be surprised.

AND.. I make no pretense that patents today are fulfilling those initial desires/needs truly. I say that the above is truly why they were initially created. Capitalists found ways to subvert that.

If you strike the word "capitalist" and put in "greedy powerful individuals" or even just "those at the top",then you have how just about every system humans envision get destroyed, including the free market. Most particularly the free market.

Let me simplify the "free market" bit (apart from the patent issue above". Its an oxymoron. Uncontrolled markets are not free, they are a system of bullies.

A truly free market requires some measure of equality. Once one or a few gain too much power they simply turn around and rewrite the rules in their favor.

PLAYER57832 wrote:AND.. I make no pretense that patents today are fulfilling those initial desires/needs truly. I say that the above is truly why they were initially created. Capitalists found ways to subvert that.

If you strike the word "capitalist" and put in "greedy powerful individuals" or even just "those at the top",then you have how just about every system humans envision get destroyed, including the free market. Most particularly the free market.

You'd be more accurate to use the word "Disney" instead of "capitalists"

GreecePwns wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:AND.. I make no pretense that patents today are fulfilling those initial desires/needs truly. I say that the above is truly why they were initially created. Capitalists found ways to subvert that.

If you strike the word "capitalist" and put in "greedy powerful individuals" or even just "those at the top",then you have how just about every system humans envision get destroyed, including the free market. Most particularly the free market.

You'd be more accurate to use the word "Disney" instead of "capitalists"

No, but carry on anyway....

patches70 wrote:That's how the true anarcho-capitalistic system works. Each and every person labors on their own to provide what they can. Not everyone labors on the same thing, nor can anyone labor enough to provide everything they'll need in life to survive.

That's where the anarcho=capitalism comes in. Everyone is doing productive things, truly productive things. There won't be any bureaucrats, because they do't produce a damn thing. Everyone producing and then trading excess of their labors for other things they don't have the time, resources or ability to produce.
It is all voluntary. With absolutely no need for a governing body to oversee it all. People will protect their own interests and it's in everyone's interest to protect all the other producers as well.

If you are a farmer, that's all you have time, resources and knowledge for, you'll help out the local carpenter if someone tries to rob him because you are in need of the carpenters services to get by.
Same goes with the carpenter, who will gladly help protect you, the farmer, because if some non productive thief steals all your crops, the carpenter will go hungry as well.

In such a system, all the productive members of the society will work together because they all mutually benefit each other. The nonproductive members of the society will starve and freeze to death in the winter. Thus, in the end, all that is left is the productive members of society all working together of their own free will because their own survival depends on it.

There are just so many things that could be potentially wrong with that. The fact that it’s so simple seems to be one of its greatest flaws. I would want to help the carpenter not get robbed because I “need” him? Why? There are so many other possibilities that it’s mind boggling.

I don’t want to get killed, and I might only need a carpenter’s services a few times in a lifetime, if he gets killed it might not directly affect me for years, all I would need is a do it yourself book and I could make my own farming equipment, or just wait for another carpenter to come along to fill the void.

You greatly overestimate human kindness; there has always been crime, why would the people in this society be any different? Why wouldn’t I or any other greedy individuals band together with the robber, take over the town and make the carpenter and everyone else our slave?

What safety do you think you can manage by eliminating authority? When everyone simply has the freedom to pursue their own self-interest, when there is no safety net and pursuing the wrong path will leave you to starve and die, the majority will go to what is seemingly “profitable” over what is needed, just look at how so many people around the world make bootleg jeans and handbags.

Middle Eastern drug trade shows that a farmer can’t be trusted to put effort to needed crops over profitable crops when their livelihood is on the line.

This mentality would ruin so many things, extremely important services that don’t have price tags, who’s going to buy biology research?
What about the FDA? Who will care what goes into your medicine? This is no different than a third-world country, the drug company can put plaster and chalk in a capsule and one won’t know the difference until one was on their death-bed.

The only one who could prevent this would be legitimate scientists, a profession that would be quickly killed off for a lack of legitimate reason to work, would each individual buy inspection services?

Of course not; even if there was an agreement they would have no reason not to just get bought off by the drug makers, it’s not like there would be any professional standard of oversight.

The environment would quickly deteriorate to unlivable conditions without any environmental protection regulations.

And when each community becomes so isolated from an all-encompassing culture, there would be no reason to protect a neighboring city from foreign threat, there would be no military, and the ragtag militias formed would have stifled development in military technology and manufacture without a national budget to fund them.

Eventually everything would fall apart; it’s only a matter of being destroyed from the inside out, or from the outside in.


There are many forms of "law enforcement" that a disorganized society just can't feasibly provide.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

/ wrote: 2. In a free market society, there would be no patent, all information would be free use, and the victor would be determined by outmaneuvering your competition.

Interesting, because most people would say that patents are part of what allows a free market, else no one has incentive to invest time and energy in developing new ideas.

They aren't. Patents are state-granted monopolies,

No, they are state-granted property rights. Why is that different from any other property right? All rights to property are either enforced or not by the state. When its "not" we have anarchy, not markets.

(1) Player, patents are state-granted monopolies. Only person A can produce patented-product X, and it is illegal for others to produce that patented-product X (without of course person A's consent). This is the definition of a monopoly. It is state-granted monopoly because patents are granted and enforced through the state's legal system. Therefore, patents are state-granted monopolies.

"Why is that different from any other property right?"
Because not all property rights are monopolies, nor are all property rights granted by the state to particular owners.

"All rights to property are either enforced or not by the state."
Actually, property rights can be enforced by the State or by non-state groups/individuals (like you and me) simultaneously or at different times.

"When its "not" we have anarchy, not markets."
No, this is simply false. Markets can exist in anarchy, and anarchy is the absence of a State. Anarchy is not the absence of rules or laws though. If you disagree, then you're most likely mistaking "anarchy" for "chaos," which are disparate concepts.


Your premises and conclusion are all false; therefore, your argument is not sound. (I'm not even sure if it was valid; it was kind of all over the place).

If you disagree with the above, then define "monopoly," "state-granted," "anarchy," "markets," and "property rights" using a legitimate source because judging from the reasons for your disagreeing (and previous history), it is doubtful that you alone possess the requisite knowledge to be a trustworthy source.


(2) Anyway, "I'm [still] interested in knowing Who exactly says this and why they continue to mistake today's economic system with a free market system."

That's something you ignored. If you don't explain who your source is (yourself?), and why they continue to mistake today's economic system for a free market system, then how can I know that your source actually has the authority to discuss economics and politics regarding patents?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:but I'm interested in knowing Who exactly says this and why they continue to mistake today's economic system with a free market system.

The underlined may be true, but a future without patent laws is simply uncertain. You could examine the change of patent time-lengths and compare that to the number of patents, but there's several problems with that analysis, which I'm not sure if you care about. Besides, it's off-topic, so please make a thread about it.

I think you rather need to study the history of our country and why patents were begun. You would be surprised.

AND.. I make no pretense that patents today are fulfilling those initial desires/needs truly. I say that the above is truly why they were initially created. Capitalists found ways to subvert that.

If you strike the word "capitalist" and put in "greedy powerful individuals" or even just "those at the top",then you have how just about every system humans envision get destroyed, including the free market. Most particularly the free market.

Okay. That in no way answered my questions (see #2).

GP, those are valid concerns, but it isn't accurate to assume away coercion. Nevertheless, a society composed of law and order but without coercion is not impossible... perhaps in the extremely long-run. With anarcho-capitalism (AnCap), coercion used as a means of enforcement remains a definite possibility.

Why?

Ancap is a social order that relies on a strict adherence to private property rights, free enterprise, and spontaneous order. It is not a perfect world, and advocates of ancap would be wise to remember this. Ancap isn't a utopian world, but one which is perceived to be in the long-run better than today's dominant social orders.

When applied to cases like developed liberal democracies (US, UK, GER, JAP, etc.), then a shift to anarcho-capitalism would be very costly in the short-run, and probably not worth it. Nevertheless, considering "anarchy as second-best" in the case of predatory states (Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Libya, Mauritania, etc.), then the short-run costs of decentralizing the State's monopoly within a political boundary would likely be worth it. That isn't AnCap persay, but it definitely entails viewing the "breakdown" of a predatory state as legitimate and worth it, thus secessionists in Western Sahara, Mauritania, Somalia, Nigeria, Sudan, etc., should not be crushed (via the UN) because of that traditional reasoning, "the State must survive," or "place X must not become a 'failed state.'" They should be allowed to secede. Usually, it's because the previous State failed to satisfy their wants enough. (but that's another topic; I'm just using AnCap with practical approaches to development economics--in an extremely brief and simple post).
----> So, I'm going to skip over property rights and free enterprise for now. I'll highlight them if necessary for answering your scenarios.


Spontaneous orders are orders that are the product of human action but not of human design. In other words, the emergence of a market, the use of gold as a medium of exchange or the use of currency A in (nearly) all societies, and more examples of law, cities, and money can be found here.

Basically, spontaneous orders are not top-down and imposed, but are bottom-up and naturally occurring from the interactions of individuals.




Now, I'll work on answering your scenarios.

I think when I claimed that there is no coercion in anarchy, I wasn't really clear. There is no "agressive/involuntary coercion." In other words, coercion is used defensively only (i.e. in response to certain actions).

I forgot what thread you said it in, but you called anarcho-communism a "government" or "state." In my book, this term is incorrect. Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

States govern through involuntary and aggressive coercion. What do I mean by that?
- Borders enforced by gunpoint
- A set of laws and a constitution describing the process these laws are created, enforced on one at birth
- A set of penalties for disobeying those laws, eventually enforced by gunpoint with enough resistance
- Non-instantaneous acceptance as part of the community being governed (citizenship laws) as an added effect, there is the impracticality of cancelling one's membership the community (because of how widespread #1 and #4 are)

Anarchist communities govern with defensive coercion
- Borders may be enforced by gunpoint, but not always (this can be viewed as defensive coercion, anyway)
- A set of laws and a constitution describing the process these laws are created, enforced on one at one's own will (i.e. as a literal contract)
- A set of penalties for disobeying those laws, eventually enforced not by gunpoint but by ejection from the community
- Instantaneous acceptance into the community upon signing a contract

I would say that anarcho-communism fits the bill for the second category. Collectivism does not necessarily need to be enforced by gunpoint.

Original topic : viewtopic.php?f=8&t=155300&p=3860491&hilit=communism#p3860491

Anarchist communism[1] (also known as anarcho-communism and occasionally as free communism or libertarian communism[2][3][4][5]) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, markets, money, capitalism and private property (while retaining respect for personal property)[6], and in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[7][8] direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[9][10]

In order to abolish something, it must be repeatedly beat down.

Markets, money, capitalism, and private property are naturally occurring. That is, these orders are spontaneous orders.

If I sell my tools for $20, that is an act of capitalism. I exercised my private property rights in the act of such a sale. (If you don't like that example, then suppose I agree to pay $7 per hour for 3 people to build X, which I then sell for a profit). And, if more people follow suit, then there arises a market. Since money is a medium of exchange, then anything which is used as money becomes money. Cigarettes in some POW camps (and in prisons) were used as a medium of exchange, thus are money.

In the anarcho-communist world, these naturally occurring phenomena must be Abolished; therefore, any voluntary act within those realms must be prohibited. Coercion would be used against voluntary acts, which in turn would constitute as involuntary coercion. If my friends and I didn't agree with your rules within our own voluntary association, then y'all can kindly piss off. AnComm doesn't allow for this, so essentially there is no "voluntary" acceptance of the AnComm form of governance. Either you accept it, or if you don't, you will be coerced (that's an involuntary exchange, and is involuntary coercion).

Caveat: If AnComm did allow it (i.e. I could voluntarily reject their rules), then I could form my own associations, markets, property rights, etc., and with that, AnComm would cease to exist--at least in my realm. If markets, voluntary associations, etc., proved to be better than the AnComm society, more people would move away from AnComm and to whatever forms of governance were provided in the free market.

If the above caveat is allowed, then AnComm would not be contradictory, but it would render its own goal asunder (because people could voluntarily violate the prohibitions). But that means that AnComm would essentially be a probable part of Anarcho-Capitalism. With AnCap, you're free to form your own AnComm society--as long as you don't violate other people's rights in other societies.


If the caveat is not allowed, then in order to abolish these orders and actions, an anarcho-communist society would have to monopolize the legal system--in order to make its decrees "legitimate"--whereas other legal decrees (arising from the free market realm) would have to be considered "illegal"--even though they are voluntary associations. In the AnComm world, you can't reject the AnComm rules; therefore, there's no right to secede. Involuntary coercion would become the means of enforcement, and with the monopoly on "legitimate" law, the AnComm society becomes a de facto State as it tries to beat down the voluntary arrangements of those exercising their full property rights, using money, trading in markets (haha, even bartering would be illegal with AnComm), etc.

GreecePwns wrote:
I would say that anarcho-communism fits the bill for the second category. Collectivism does not necessarily need to be enforced by gunpoint.

Oh yeah it would, if AnComm entails the prohibition of markets, money, property rights (beyond personal), and "consenting acts of capitalism" (i.e. capitalism).

(Summary of above with reasons given). AnComm would (de)/(e)volve into a State.

With AnCap, you're free to form your own AnComm society--as long as you don't violate other people's rights in other societies.

I would think that this is where we are disagreeing. I would say that this part means that your description of anarcho-capitalism is not specific to anarcho-capitalism but is a part anarchism in general.

All forms of anarchism require this:

- Borders may be enforced by gunpoint, but not always (this can be viewed as defensive coercion, anyway)
- A set of laws and a constitution describing the process these laws are created, enforced on one at one's own will (i.e. as a literal contract)
- A set of penalties for disobeying those laws, eventually enforced not by gunpoint but by ejection from the community
- Instantaneous acceptance into the community upon signing a contract

With the social contract of an anarcho-capitalist community allowing of markets, money, capitalism to exist. These would be enumerated as a "right" in the contract.

Anarcho-communism differs only in the language of said contract (the banning of markets, money, capitalism to happen). These would not be enumerated as a "right" in the contract, but the contract is voluntary just as much as an anarcho-capitalist one is.

In the AnComm world, you can't reject the AnComm rules; therefore, there's no right to secede. Involuntary coercion would become the means of enforcement, and with the monopoly on "legitimate" law, the AnComm society becomes a de facto State.

I disagree. That is where provision #3 in my list kicks in.

Essentially, in joining an anarchist communitiy I am signing a contract allowing me Rights X, Y, and Z in exchange for Responsibilities/Following of Rules/Societal Norms A, B, and C.

Any penalties for breach of contract (by not fulfilling responsibilities/infringing on another member's rights), if any, would be enumerated in the contract.

In a traditional state, resistance to paying the penalty eventually leads to death.
In an anarchist community, resistance to paying the penalty amounts to an invalidation of the contract (i.e. expulsion from the community).