[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
What is to stop a large group of people in an AC society taking control of an area and defining the property as communal? It seems that by definition, as soon as something goes wrong in AC society, it is no longer an AC society.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing is wrong with them doing that. This is like me living at my parents house. We all share the food. We all attempt to equally contribute. If something belongs to one, that thing belongs to all. This is our private dominion though and we're all private actors willingly participating. We need to not be forced to accept or share with others nor imprison a family member who chooses to defect.

[ QUOTE ]
You're describing the current United States and the countries of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. So far as the countries of the world respect each others property rigths they are applying an anarcho-captilistic framework on a country by country basis. Each country is a state though with regards to the relationship they have with the people who live therin.

[ QUOTE ]
As for AS, I agree that it seems a rather strange notion, since it's defined by people accepting the land claims of the group and disavowing personal land claims. But it's not that much stranger than AC, that stipulates that people must respect the property claims of others. Again, if you dismantle the government, free agents making choices (some of them incompatible with either philosophy) will determine what happens or doesn't, which makes AC and AS really just A.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think your misinterpreting what i mean by anarcho-captilism as the macro framework. You keep make reference to micro situations. Think about the household example i gave above or the voluntary association of a kibbutz. These are socialist on micro scale but anarcho-capitalist on a macro scale.