I dislike racial discrimination. In fact, I despise it. However, as a believer in the Non-Aggression Principle, I cannot find a way to enforce any restrictions against it without violating the bigot's rights by forcing him to do business with someone he does not want to.
In fairness to myrkul, this does sound a bit similar to Freenet's justification - if you like freedom-of-expression use freenet, but don't complain about expressions you don't like. It is not inconsistent, but then I wonder how myrkul would behave when his locality decides that people with red hair may not own property. And before you say that's preposterous, just substitute "locality" for "local defense contractor" and substitute "red hair" for "sunni" or "black".
It would be better to re-word it as "Local defense contractor will not defend clients with red hair" The obvious response, to an entrepreneur, is to open up RedDefense, a defense company that
caters to the red-heads who are refused service by the first company. The rest is as I explained in the post you quoted.
Slavery is economically unfeasible.
Slavery has been economically feasible for millenia, and will still be economically feasible for millenia to come, or at least until rubber dolls become more appealing to men than the real thing.
This is a fine point, and unfortunately, I do not have an economic argument that refutes it. But, of course, I was, originally, referring to slavery as practiced in the American south prior to the civil war, not sex-slavery. I would, however, point out that sex-slavery is aggression against the women so used, and so would not be viewed as legitimate in a NAP-following society. Defense of the women against their captors would be legitimate, and probably frequent.
How, exactly, will not having seat belt laws harm those people who want seat belt laws?
Manufacturing companies will stop installing them in order to cut corners. Your argument that people's own self-interest will compel them to insist that the manufacturers continue to install seatbelts may be correct, but that argument fails if you consider crumple zones that protect pedestrians in an impact.
Crumple zones, if they indeed protect pedestrians, reduce the liability of the driver in the event that they strike a pedestrian. A car with such a safety feature would have lower insurance rates, and thus, be more popular.
“I heartily accept the motto, — ‘That government is best which governs least.’”
Henry David Thoreau
I haven't read this, but it seems as though Thoreau referred to a government which enacts a minimum set of laws; not to a geographically minimal government.
You're right, he wasn't. But it can be taken either way, and results in the same effect: a government with no laws, with only you deciding what is good and what is not for you. The advantage of viewing it in this way, however, is that you view yourself as a government unto yourself, and choose laws that result in peaceful dealings with other governments.
The "we" is whoever is doing the deciding.
So, if no court of arbitration is specified and the two parties cannot agree to one, then who does the deciding?
Who is "we" when not explicitly defined? Just so you can't avoid answering again, please begin your answer with: "When the court of arbitration is not explicitly defined, and the two parties cannot agree to one, the person(s) doing the deciding shall be: ". In the event you are unable to define this, then how do you suggest the conflict be resolved?
There is no simple answer to this. I'll do my best, though:
When the court of arbitration is not explicitly defined, and the two parties cannot agree to one, the person(s) doing the deciding shall be: those that the people the two parties have chosen decide upon.
In other words, like my footy example above, each side picks a representative. The representatives, then, come to an agreement as to who will ultimately decide.
No. You have property rights because you have ownership of your body. Pure and simple. Because you own your body, you own any products thereof. That includes the result of your labor. Which, naturally, includes your land, provided that you gained it through means not violating others' property rights. I could go on, but I think you can follow my reasoning from here.
