"Imposing" is a squishy sort of word, unfortunately; human nature is less rational than rationalizing, as this one blogger I used to follow would say. So the question is then, what happens when the members of your society start rationalizing what "imposition" means? Do you already have some concrete examples of what rights they enjoy, or do you wait until the conflicts begin before lining it out?
By imposition I mean by force, threat of violence that sort of thing. Another way of saying the same thing is that all rights are property rights. Property is properly acquired through original appropriation or voluntary contract. (See Hoppe "The Theory of Socialism and Capitalism" for more detail on this point.
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.
Some examples of rights-based and -honoring societies that emerged from the pure market would probably go a long way toward helping. Surely there are some?
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.
It boils down to letting the market find solutions to the problem of rights protection.
Markets are self-organizing, that's why it's hard to describe exactly what such a system would end up looking like without trying to forcefully impose a top-down system on people.
The core principle of this would be that everyone has a right to defend their rights and the rights of others, and there is nothing wrong with organizing on a voluntary basis to defend the rights of oneself and others.
Most thinkers who have attempted to describe what such a system would end up looking like have suggested that it would take the form of multiple competing insurance agencies employing competing protective services.
A similar system has been described by David Friedman in "The Machinery of Freedom", Michael Huemer in the second half of "The Problem of Political Authority" and by Robert Murphy in "Chaos Theory" likely others as well but these are the most comprehensive descriptions of how such a system might work that I'm aware of.
Also I'm not one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I am very much in favor of any reduction in government power even if we are left with a minarchist state even if such a state engages in immoral acts such as taxation IF it can keep itself limited to the protection of rights otherwise.
I define rights as those actions an individual can do without imposing on others.
I am of the belief that firearms are a necessary technology for effective and sustainable anarchy as they have the effect of truly equalizing the power of individuals and increasing the potential cost of aggressive violence.
No government that is assigned rights that individuals do not have can be said to represent the people because you cannot delegate a right you yourself do not have.
If the government assumes rights that the people who institute it do not have it cannot be said to represent its people.
I don't think any government represents its people because they all assume rights that individuals do not have. I think the US at the time of its founding is probably the closest to such a government in recorded history.
I have. Throughout the Obama years and most of Trump's presidency as well.
I don't seek to control the behavior of others except inso far as to prevent them from attempting to control mine. The only means these people have of forcing me to conform to their norms or language is the government.
The only things I have to fear from immigrants is that their numbers will be set against me in Democratic process, and that the same State will steal my wealth to redistribute it to them.
Democracy provides an unfortunate, but rational defense for xenophobia.
Communism and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible
― Martin Luther King Jr.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
― Martin Luther King Jr.
Inalienable rights do not change.
Life, Liberty and Property
The government at the time the pledge was created did not represent its people either.
[The Constitution] has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.
― Lysander Spooner
What if I told you government has no rights that individuals do not?
There is no reason to assume that a compulsory monopoly of violence, once acquired…by any State rulers, will remain ‘limited’ to protection of person and property. Certainly, historically no government has long remained ‘limited’ in this way.
― Murray N. Rothbard
It rarely occurs to those who recite the Pledge of Allegiance, while feeling deep pride, that what they are actually doing is swearing allegiance to a system of subjugation and authoritarian control. In short, they are promising to do as they are told, and behave as loyal subjects to their masters. Aside from the patently inaccurate phrase at the end about “liberty and justice for ail,” the entire Pledge is about subservience to the “government” which claims to represent the collective, as if that in itself is some great and noble goal,
― Larken Rose
The Amish and the Quakers are some of the only groups that regularly resist the bullshit our government pulls.
Just a text file actually. with quotes and useful links.
A modern commonplace book.
The police letting Antifa beat you does not eliminate rulers, it simply means you are ruled by both.
Anarchy is not chaos, it is a lack of rulers.
The Federal government has got to go.
They are preventing victims from defending themselves.
They are HELPING them do this.
Censorship is not the answer.