Thanks for taking some time. I need to do some follow-up and redirect here:
By imposition I mean by force, threat of violence that sort of thing.
But see, here's the thing. You used "imposing" in the context here: I define rights as those actions an individual can do without imposing on others. But the ordinary understanding of "imposing on others" doesn't involve force or violence; it includes being a disruption or a burden, placing upon them a duty they find onerous.
That example alone, right out of the gate, should highlight the problem with arriving at a meeting of the minds with no shared frame of reference or language/jargon. Without that, you can't have a valid contract. So, again, we're still stuck on the point of "How do you ensure that everyone understands and agrees to the same rights within your stateless society?"
And I still await an answer.
The details of what constitutes aggression, how to detect it and punish it would fall to the contractual agreements between individuals and insurance agencies and between those agencies.
You mention insurance agencies, but we weren't talking about insurance agencies; we were talking of the basic question of rights as understood by the society as a whole, and thus the individuals within it.
But let's go ahead and advance on the point of "agreements between individuals" and put these nebulous "insurance agencies" aside for now. Does everyone in your society have a separate, independent, individual contract with everyone else in your society, properly negotiated and agreed? Or are you proposing a social contract, delineated in advance--and therefore in writing, and somehow deemed agreed-to for purposes of enforcement?
I'd point to black markets in the USSR (which some estimates put at serving 83% of the citizenry) as an example that markets can be established and flourish not only without government intervention, but in spite of government attempts to eradicate such markets.
That's a market, however, not a society. Black markets exist in all societies, to varying degrees, but they are not a common culture, identity, or purpose. I'm talking about human beings functioning in social as well as economic activity, so...an example of a society that emerged from the pure market, please.
Thanks for taking some time. I need to do some follow-up and redirect here:
But see, here's the thing. You used "imposing" in the context here: I define rights as those actions an individual can do without imposing on others. But the ordinary understanding of "imposing on others" doesn't involve force or violence; it includes being a disruption or a burden, placing upon them a duty they find onerous.
That example alone, right out of the gate, should highlight the problem with arriving at a meeting of the minds with no shared frame of reference or language/jargon. Without that, you can't have a valid contract. So, again, we're still stuck on the point of "How do you ensure that everyone understands and agrees to the same rights within your stateless society?"
And I still await an answer.
You mention insurance agencies, but we weren't talking about insurance agencies; we were talking of the basic question of rights as understood by the society as a whole, and thus the individuals within it.
But let's go ahead and advance on the point of "agreements between individuals" and put these nebulous "insurance agencies" aside for now. Does everyone in your society have a separate, independent, individual contract with everyone else in your society, properly negotiated and agreed? Or are you proposing a social contract, delineated in advance--and therefore in writing, and somehow deemed agreed-to for purposes of enforcement?
That's a market, however, not a society. Black markets exist in all societies, to varying degrees, but they are not a common culture, identity, or purpose. I'm talking about human beings functioning in social as well as economic activity, so...an example of a society that emerged from the pure market, please.