Okay... so here's what I don't get...

Pretty good legal analysis. My guess, though, is that you are not a lawyer... yet. Are you a law student, a well-read layman or a fallen-away lawyer? My sense of it is that you are not a practicing lawyer.

While specific performance enforcement may be rare as a remedy in current terrestrial contract disputes, that is not an argument against them.  I contend that they are, generally, the best solution, since they avoid attempting to place an objective value on the performance which is in fact has a subjective value to the plaintiff.  In fact, one might wonder why these alternatives weren't raised by the defendant during the negotiation (perhaps they were, but were rejected by plaintiff).

My belief is that specific performance should be required rarely, if at all. All value is subjective. The plaintiff and the defendant's subjective values are the least useful, since both think they are right. I would prefer to leave the judgment up to disinterested triers of fact.

In any case, we are both groping in the dark. As case law and cultural indicators evolve, who knows what direction the specific-performance-vs-damages debate may go?

Pretty good legal analysis. My guess, though, is that you are not a lawyer... yet. Are you a law student, a well-read layman or a fallen-away lawyer? My sense of it is that you are not a practicing lawyer.

I'm a Software Engineer by trade, and a Philosopher by avocation; I have no formal legal training.  I have considered pursuing it, but looking at all the nonsense that in US Jurisprudence, I quickly realized that it would frustrate me far too much. I would also object at having to swear allegiance to a government court.

I have been mistaken for a lawyer before, and in any situation where it is important, I prepend a disclaimer.  I didn't do so here since we aren't talking about any concrete legal system.

My belief is that specific performance should be required rarely, if at all. All value is subjective. The plaintiff and the defendant's subjective values are the least useful, since both think they are right. I would prefer to leave the judgment up to disinterested triers of fact.

In this case, I doubt strongly that the defendant was acting in good faith; there's no evidence of any change in circumstances, other than her immediate need/want being met, that would justify her apparently subsequent decision to renege.  Given this, I don't find her desire to avoid fulfilling her contract at all persuasive.

As a result, I don't really know that defendant believes she is "right".  Of course I also don't know that the plaintiff really believes he is "right" either, but unlike the woman, he has not shown any discrepancy between his statements and his actions.

In any case, we are both groping in the dark. As case law and cultural indicators evolve, who knows what direction the specific-performance-vs-damages debate may go?

Are either of these necessarily of value?  Case law is far overrated in my view (I can see the underlying reasoning behind prior cases to be of some merit in many cases, but there is nothing magical about that reasoning or the conclusions drawn from it), and cultural indicators are simply a simplification of some aggregation of individual views.  Both have about as much significance as saying "but we've always done it that way before!"

I'm of the opinion that one's (uncoerced) word is binding.  The fact that a lot of folks don't think that such a deal should be made including "sex" is irrelevant -- if she felt that way she should have rejected the deal up front.

but basic contract seems valid on its face, and a specific performance resolution ideal.

Enforcing specific performance means that the offender is treated as a slave to the extent required to compel that performance.  Perhaps you consider that someone who reneges on a contract has forfeited all rights, but I'd be very cautious before drawing that conclusion.  How far will you go to compel the performance?  Torture?  Torture to death?  If you won't go that far, but will go so far as to, say, take some of the offender's stuff, then why not decide that taking the stuff is the remedy in the first place?

What about freedom of contract?  In a free society, a person could agree to become a slave (perhaps as a penalty for failing to fulfill other conditions), but would a court (whatever that would be) enforce (whatever that means) such a contract?  Maybe not.  Rothbard argued that all valid contracts were exchanges of property titles, and if a person's self-ownership is inalienable then contracting to become a slave would not be a valid contract.  Of course, someone's reputation would suffer after breaking such an agreement (like breaking any other agreement).

but basic contract seems valid on its face, and a specific performance resolution ideal.

Enforcing specific performance means that the offender is treated as a slave to the extent required to compel that performance.  Perhaps you consider that someone who reneges on a contract has forfeited all rights, but I'd be very cautious before drawing that conclusion.  How far will you go to compel the performance?  Torture?  Torture to death?  If you won't go that far, but will go so far as to, say, take some of the offender's stuff, then why not decide that taking the stuff is the remedy in the first place?

What about freedom of contract?  In a free society, a person could agree to become a slave (perhaps as a penalty for failing to fulfill other conditions), but would a court (whatever that would be) enforce (whatever that means) such a contract?  Maybe not.  Rothbard argued that all valid contracts were exchanges of property titles, and if a person's self-ownership is inalienable then contracting to become a slave would not be a valid contract.  Of course, someone's reputation would suffer after breaking such an agreement (like breaking any other agreement).

Perhaps it appears similar to treating someone as a slave, but so does work for hire.  The difference is that the latter includes an agreed upon transfer of something of value to the one performing the service.

As for freedom of contract, if someone freely entered into a contract under which he or she became a slave, I contend that they have that right, and such a contract may indeed be enforced.  In general, I would consider that a rather foolish contract, but then again, it's not I who am agreeing to it, and to oppose it would be to impose my values on others.  Personally I cannot readily conceive of entering into a contract with someone who offered the consideration of becoming my slave.  I would also oppose a contract I was not a party to in which the consideration was the binding into slavery of a free third party, such as any children the slave might now have or have in the future.

If one does not have the right to sell him or herself into slavery, then that person is not truly free -- sovereignty over their person is not wholly theirs with such a restriction. 

BTW, I'm not Rothbard   

In this case, I doubt strongly that the defendant was acting in good faith; there's no evidence of any change in circumstances, other than her immediate need/want being met, that would justify her apparently subsequent decision to renege.  Given this, I don't find her desire to avoid fulfilling her contract at all persuasive.

As a result, I don't really know that defendant believes she is "right".  Of course I also don't know that the plaintiff really believes he is "right" either, but unlike the woman, he has not shown any discrepancy between his statements and his actions.

I agree with you, but that does not lead inevitably to specific performance. In fact, specific performance is impossible in this case. The guy was asking for consensual sex (probably, the GFE). If she resists, he is getting rape instead of consensual sex. Not the same thing at all, therefore not specific performance.

Let me take a second here, to possibly offend you and software engineers everywhere. Engineers of all types, like mathematical symmetry. It is the way their heads are wired. Many, also have a very stunted level of understanding of human relationships and empathy. Think, Sheldon, on "The Big Bang Theory."

Specific performance has an obvious symmetry, while damages do not. However, most people's empathy and abhorrence of rape, makes, so called, "specific performance,"  a social non-starter in this case.

Now if we were dealing with some nomads in the desert, rape might be a viable option, but not here and now, and probably not in an anarchist milieu. Just my 2¢ worth, YMMV.

Are either of these necessarily of value?  Case law is far overrated in my view (I can see the underlying reasoning behind prior cases to be of some merit in many cases, but there is nothing magical about that reasoning or the conclusions drawn from it)...

It does thing exceedingly well. It adds a reasonably high degree of predictability to "law" or whatever you want to call it. When application is patently unfair in a given case, a judge can always "distinguish" from the case law. Now, we have new precedent that refines the old precedent. A software engineer might see that a recursive process, yielding successively closer approximations of the correct legal thinking.   

... and cultural indicators are simply a simplification of some aggregation of individual views.  Both have about as much significance as saying "but we've always done it that way before!"

And you don't see that as a good thing? Just because someone says, "but we've always done it that way before!" doesn't mean we cannot change it, if necessary. It does tell us, "Hey, you'd better think long and hard before you go off on a new legal tangent. There were good reasons that 'rule' exists."

I'm of the opinion that one's (uncoerced) word is binding.  The fact that a lot of folks don't think that such a deal should be made including "sex" is irrelevant -- if she felt that way she should have rejected the deal up front.

Again, no argument there, but she did make the deal. We are only arguing about appropriate consequences. The guy did bargain for rape, he should not get it. He was looking for the GFE and he cannot get that either. Damages are his only option as far as I can see. If I were sitting in the judge's seat, the guy would not be allow to rape the woman. And again, YMMV.

One last thought for the day. There is a Latin expression in law that I like, "Damnum absque injuria." Roughly, it means, "Some injuries have no legal remedy." This just might be one of those cases.

I agree with you, but that does not lead inevitably to specific performance. In fact, specific performance is impossible in this case. The guy was asking for consensual sex (probably, the GFE). If she resists, he is getting rape instead of consensual sex. Not the same thing at all, therefore not specific performance.

I'll agree that the default is GFE, but certainly it could be that the guy wanted PSE instead.  This would be a "meeting of the minds problem" if that's not what she thought she was agreeing to.  He might have also been thinking of "rough sex" -- which can be consensual, although such cases might not necessarily be obvious to an outside observer.

If it was rough sex that was bargained for the lack of clear consent on her part might be acceptable, and if it wasn't there certainly isn't an obvious reason that she could not engage in what appears to be consensual sex (it shouldn't surprise you that many guys can't tell if a woman is really into it  -- women have been even known to fake orgasms).

One option might be to let the guy name a secondary option in lieu of the sex, e.g., a Kg of gold within 180 terrestrial  days, and let her decide which to supply.  Since she's not acting in good faith, the value of the meal (which might, under other circumstances, be available for a few mg. of gold) is irrelevant -- she must compensate for the value of what she agreed to provide.

Let me take a second here, to possibly offend you and software engineers everywhere. Engineers of all types, like mathematical symmetry. It is the way their heads are wired. Many, also have a very stunted level of understanding of human relationships and empathy. Think, Sheldon, on "The Big Bang Theory."

Specific performance has an obvious symmetry, while damages do not. However, most people's empathy and abhorrence of rape, makes, so called, "specific performance,"  a social non-starter in this case.

I gladly admit to placing an extremely high value on symmetry; when evaluating such situations, I automatically invoke the Principle of Symmetry and Point of View Invariance as guides to a solution.

However, I do object to the question of empathy; in this case the empathy should lie with the man, not the woman.  By getting the food without the apparent intent to fulfill her end of the bargain, she is attempting theft through fraud.   She may subsequently claim some cultural objection to the sex, but she forfeited that position by agreeing in the first place.  There is also a significant probability, based on the evidence, that she offered it herself.

While I can (and often do) act empathetically toward those who have failed to complete contracts with me, I have no such right to do so for someone else.  That would make me an accomplice to theft.  This is the road to modern Liberalism.

Are either of these necessarily of value?  Case law is far overrated in my view (I can see the underlying reasoning behind prior cases to be of some merit in many cases, but there is nothing magical about that reasoning or the conclusions drawn from it)...

It does thing exceedingly well. It adds a reasonably high degree of predictability to "law" or whatever you want to call it. When application is patently unfair in a given case, a judge can always "distinguish" from the case law. Now, we have new precedent that refines the old precedent. A software engineer might see that a recursive process, yielding successively closer approximations of the correct legal thinking. 

I contend it is exceeding poor.  There is an implicit assumption that an initial precedent was approximately correct, when it might not have any such legitimacy.  Now, the reasoning behind that precedent may be of value, and should be the real basis for its use; however without the underlying reasoning being available, and that reasoning being open to criticism at any subsequent point, such precedents become a wellspring of error.  Software Engineers would see this as a legal analog to "software rot".

... and cultural indicators are simply a simplification of some aggregation of individual views.  Both have about as much significance as saying "but we've always done it that way before!"

And you don't see that as a good thing? Just because someone says, "but we've always done it that way before!" doesn't mean we cannot change it, if necessary. It does tell us, "Hey, you'd better think long and hard before you go off on a new legal tangent. There were good reasons that 'rule' exists."

There may or may not be a good reason.  If there  was a "good" reason when first proposed, the reasons for that "goodness" may no longer apply, or its import may have diminished.   Only by periodically going back to first principles and challenging each assumption made in the reasoning from day one to today can its reliability be assured.

Lawyers, who are often rather lazy (as are many Software Engineers, I will grant), tend over time to drop or forget the reasoning, and hence eliminate any real value the precedents may have.   Better to forgo the precedents altogether and rely solely upon the reasoning itself.

I'm of the opinion that one's (uncoerced) word is binding.  The fact that a lot of folks don't think that such a deal should be made including "sex" is irrelevant -- if she felt that way she should have rejected the deal up front.

Again, no argument there, but she did make the deal. We are only arguing about appropriate consequences. The guy did bargain for rape, he should not get it. He was looking for the GFE and he cannot get that either. Damages are his only option as far as I can see. If I were sitting in the judge's seat, the guy would not be allow to rape the woman. And again, YMMV.

I think you mean "didn't bargain for rape" above.  That may be true; however, if he will accept the sex under some measure of coercion as payment, that's all that really matters at this point.  The woman is free to find and propose alternatives, but at this point she has no real bargaining position.  I could add that should she resist, she is guilty of committing a tort against the man.  Frankly, I think that calling it "rape" is an attempt to engage an emotional response rather than a rational one -- not that she would be adverse to doing so, given her prior history.  I'm a bit disappointed in you, Sandy, by raising this, given that you have already indicated that "sex is not the issue here."

One last thought for the day. There is a Latin expression in law that I like, "Damnum absque injuria." Roughly, it means, "Some injuries have no legal remedy." This just might be one of those cases.

I don't think it is.  If she were unable to perform the service, or in another case someone's death were caused, there may not be a legal remedy.  I'm not convinced that is the case here.

Well, one method to make the gal pay, which might be attractive to any statists among us, would be rape or imprisonment. But there are other methods.

While amusing from time to time, shots at the very idea of statism and those who support it as monsters does get a tad old when it amounts to classism. Not all statists, or even an approximate majority of those actively pursuing statism, lack morals or common sense [much less and]. If you want people that out-of-touch with reality, find some neo-cons or nazis who actually make fallacious arguments. Also, while we're on the subject of other methods, there are quite a few supported by a state system that have nothing to do draconian tactics, such as civil litigation [i.e. arbitration] and general ideas of debt that have nothing to do with the system itself. This is not to mention what most people actually living in such a system would do: throw up their hands for a lost cause, ask for a lesser [and reasonable] repayment such as 'help me with chores', and move on either way.

First off, can we leave morality out of this? I'm a secularist and hate arbitrary rules and values imposed by theologists. They are always arbbitrary and make no sense, sort of like most theologies.

The only thing repugnant in your scenerio is the woman promising something that she knew she wasn't going to deliver. Excuse me but, that happens all the time and it is a main weakness of an anarchaic state; conflict resolution.

Two conflicts of interest here...first, if you think arbitrary rules and values, particularly morality, are solely the spawn of theology here's your reality check. I know plenty of atheist secularists, and while they are happy to argue specific morals they know that their own self-developed morality plays into any action they take or argument they make. One literally has to be a socio-path to belive morality irrevelant to such discussion, because empathy and sympathy are basic human emotions/reactions.

Second, conflict resolution looks like a weakness until you take into account practical Darwinism. A population has to be at a critically low population threshold for rule-by-biggest-stick individual tyranny. Once the system expands in population you will reach a point where anyone trying such tactics would be gunned down on prinicple by those taking matters into their own hands...and they would be applauded. Messy? Perhaps. But the idea that conflict resolution is weak in a large anarchy requires very specific conditions, and ignores the power of ostracision, being blacklisted for contracts, and simple threat of personal injury. This is not to say that such problems will be non-existant, but are likely to be less prevelant and damaging in an AnCap because there is no way simple for the bully to have 'the law on his side,' a source of power for many bullies in any kind of state. He'd have to be a particularly devious son-of-a-bitch with quite the epic plot going.



As to the original post, there's little I can add that hasn't been said: fallacious debate strategy in an artifical lifeboat situation simply doesn't change the reality. In particular, I don't think someone attempting rape under any circumstances would get sympathy in Ceres. The people around would almost definitely support a different form of conflict resolution as the amazingly simple 'work-for-food' principle and tell the man he was being a dumbass about the initial contract. Then again, they might surprise me...they'd think the contract was perfectly reasonable and the woman acted in bad faith, thereby requiring the equivalent of 'plus damages' repayment though work. I'm very doubtful most people living in Ceres would seriously attempt to enfore the contract literally.

Perhaps it appears similar to treating someone as a slave, but so does work for hire.

Only if the penalty for not doing the work is specific performance.  There are reasons why specific performance is not generally enforced.

Perhaps an example will help.

Joe hears Fred singing "Rama Lama Ding Dong", considers his version unique, and pays him 25 grams of gold to walk through town the next day wearing a clown suit while singing that song.  The next morning, Fred says that Bog told him that his soul would be damned to hell forever if he wears a clown suit, and the longer he wears it the worse the level of hell.  Fred offers Joe 500 grams of gold to release him from the contract, but Joe declines.  A court rules that Fred must do as he promised, but Fred refuses.  The bailiffs take Fred away, and after 40 minutes of torture Fred agrees.  However, after a few minutes in the clown suit singing "Rama Lama Ding Dong", Fred tries to run away.  The bailiffs take Fred away again, and after 3 more hours of torture Fred dies.  The judge sums it up by saying that the case was unpleasant but that justice was done.

Would your ideal legal system work like that?

I can see some attractive features, but somehow it doesn't seem quite right.

However, I do object to the question of empathy; in this case the empathy should lie with the man, not the woman....

Quod Erat Demonstrandum. You are confusing empathy with sympathy. Clearly, you can feel empathy with both of the parties in this scenario. 

I contend [common law] is exceeding poor.  There is an implicit assumption that an initial precedent was approximately correct, when it might not have any such legitimacy.  Now, the reasoning behind that precedent may be of value, and should be the real basis for its use; however without the underlying reasoning being available...

Huh? Where did you come up with that idea? You need to read more about the common law and how it actually works. How do you think a judge can distinguish a current case from a previous case finding? All of the underlying reasoning is available and is always consulted in common law courts.

, and that reasoning being open to criticism at any subsequent point, such precedents become a wellspring of error.  Software Engineers would see this as a legal analog to "software rot".

You are kidding, right? In my experience, techies do a piss poor job of documenting anything. In contrast, all the common law is, is extensive and detailed documentation. Every nuance of every decision going back over decades and even centuries is available for review and analysis. The rule against perpetuities and its interpretations and modifications go back half a millennium. Even today, concepts in future interests including "the fertile octogenarian" and "the unborn widow" (I am not making this up) play a part in modern law. Talk about extensive documentation...!

You know it's really unfair to criticize, if you don't offering a superior alternative. And your superior alternative to the common law is....?

There may or may not be a good reason.  If there  was a "good" reason when first proposed, the reasons for that "goodness" may no longer apply, or its import may have diminished.   Only by periodically going back to first principles and challenging each assumption made in the reasoning from day one to today can its reliability be assured.

Bingo! You have just described how the common law works.

Lawyers, who are often rather lazy (as are many Software Engineers, I will grant), tend over time to drop or forget the reasoning, and hence eliminate any real value the precedents may have.   Better to forgo the precedents altogether and rely solely upon the reasoning itself.

My friend, you still have the cart before the horse. It is not the lawyers who consult and apply the common law. It is the trier of law, the judge. Lazy lawyers have nothing to do with it.

....  Frankly, I think that calling it "rape" is an attempt to engage an emotional response rather than a rational one -- not that she would be adverse to doing so, given her prior history.  I'm a bit disappointed in you, Sandy, by raising this, given that you have already indicated that "sex is not the issue here."

Well, the reason I didn't call it apple pandowdy is because rape is the most clear and correct word, i.e., "any  act  of  sexual  intercourse  that  is  forced  upon  a  person." Sex is still not the issue. The issue is force and that force is the worst sort in that it violates the sanctity and ownership of one's own body.

Look, the man made a bad deal. He got screwed, but not in a good way. Sometimes these things happen. It does not create an automatic right to enact violence against someone.

I don't think it is [a case of damnum absque injuria].  If she were unable to perform the service, or in another case someone's death were caused, there may not be a legal remedy.  I'm not convinced that is the case here.

Okay, I'm comfortable with you not being convinced.   

First off, can we leave morality out of this? I'm a secularist and hate arbitrary rules and values imposed by theologists. They are always arbbitrary and make no sense, sort of like most theologies.

The only thing repugnant in your scenerio is the woman promising something that she knew she wasn't going to deliver. Excuse me but, that happens all the time and it is a main weakness of an anarchaic state; conflict resolution.

Morals are about what is "right" and "wrong". Promising something one won't deliver is an example of immoral conduct.

However, the value that sex is somehow "sacred" is not arbitrary. The level of psychological damage that women subjected to rape experience is well-attested, as is the profound emotional significance of the primary sexual relationship in most people's lives.

The scenario sucks.  A real lack of imagination.

A female is;  A. Dying from hunger.  B. Offered food for sex.  C. The female eats the food.  D.  Refuses to have sex.  E. The male attempts rape.

Seems like a desperate attempt to prove Anarchy will not work.  Please remember Anarchy does not mean no rules.  Just a set of rules generally limited to natural law.  See my earlier posts on the subject.

Okay.....  Since it was wasn't stated, an otherwise healthy female is experiencing starvation. She has a meal.  A starvation victim experiencing a meal would be unable to digest the food.  Becoming violently ill, vomiting the just eaten food.  A starvation victim requires a liquid based diet as they regain their ability to digest regular food.  In this situation, the male attempts rape?  A starvation victim has the strength to fight off her attacker?  The female has a weapon and strength in-which to resist her attacker?  If so, why is she a starvation victim?   The male initiated an act which could result in the death penalty.  Sentencing, subject to immediate application, either by the intended victim or passerby.  If he was dumb enough, the male could seek adjudication.  Given the stated circumstances,  not a chance in a very hot place of collecting.  Additionally, once the facts of the situation became public knowledge.....  Do I really have to lay out the rest of it?

Back to the original post: would a Norman-type feel at home in an anarchist society? Doubtful. As an administrator in a statist system, he does not have to physically subdue his victims; he can rely upon statist police to disarm them, deliver them, and punish them for resisting.

None of these would happen in an anarchist society. The girls would often be armed; if they shot Norman in defense against rape, they would probably receive applause, not a prison sentence. No self-respecting anarchists would disarm the girls, kidnap them, and deliver them to Norman, for several reasons.

1) as anarchists, they would find such practices repugnant.

Would every individual in an "anarchist society" necessarily be an anarchist? Would such a society screen out non-anarchists? Would it perform tests to ensure that each "citizen" held anarchist beliefs? What would these tests be like? Who would administer them?

2) their life expectancy would be short.

Presumably, by "they" you mean "Norman-types", i.e., rapists. You state baldly that "their life expectancy would be short" but supply no reason why this is so except that apparently your "anarchist society" would be full of "right-thinking" (that is to say, uniformly thinking) individuals who would exert force against such a person; or that the potential victims would "likely be armed" and somehow the putative rapist would be unable to cut the unarmed or unwilling to shoot out of the herd or be otherwise unable to manipulate them; and that a "Norman type" would necessarily be unable to pay some unsuspecting sucker to deliver females of some defined demographic to him on some plausible-sounding pretext, which pretext could be enhanced in persuasiveness by the sound of jangling gold coin.

3) their medical bills would be high.

Eh, see above.

As an unrelated note, my father was a deliberate racist.
He was born and raised in Washington, DC in the late 1940s, and left in the early 1960s to travel around the country. He was accustomed to living among a variety of people of various colors and creeds, and was constantly amazed at the flimsy pretexts which people could find to justify their hatred of one another. When I was in my early teens, he announced to all and sundry that he was a racist after all: his hated race was the Normans.
"If only they'd stayed out of England, those rotten bastards!" He'd exclaim. "Taking our land and jobs, raping our women..."

Exceedingly cute name.

Would every individual in an "anarchist society" necessarily be an anarchist? Would such a society screen out non-anarchists? Would it perform tests to ensure that each "citizen" held anarchist beliefs? What would these tests be like? Who would administer them?

Don't be silly. All of us currently live in statist societies. That doesn't make us statist. However, governments do try to kill off (metaphorically and often literally) people who do not kowtow to the State. Think of an anarchist society as one in which "live and let live" is an everyday reality. If you are a statist and you go to the anarchistic Belt, no one will bother you for your beliefs. However, if you initiate force, you will be stopped... and ended if necessary.

The rest of your post is either incomprehensible (to me, anyway) or is based on your flawed view of anarchy. Slow down, give it some thought and then posit a single specific case you think proves something. Support you case; i.e., is it realistic or some improbable based on an improbable underpinned by an unrealistic assumption? Then listen and think about how people respond.

As far as I can tell there are no dummies posting to this forum. Even the ones with whom I disagree are clearly intelligent (though misguided and confused). In most peoples' lifetimes, they rarely, if ever, get the opportunity to question the statist rhetoric that was pounded into them from an early age. Most people are afraid of change and anything that challenges their world-view. With EFT and this forum, you have a real opportunity to re-examine your life-long assumptions.

A final note. Those of us who deny the legitimacy of the State, did not spring forth, fully formed, from the forehead of Lysander Spooner. My guess is that everyone who now challenges the legitimacy of the State, at one time or another, held statist beliefs. I know I did. We came by our beliefs the hard way, we thought about them. It took a while, but now our eyes are open.

Exceedingly cute name.
 

Thank you. It is among my favorites.

Would every individual in an "anarchist society" necessarily be an anarchist? Would such a society screen out non-anarchists? Would it perform tests to ensure that each "citizen" held anarchist beliefs? What would these tests be like? Who would administer them?

Don't be silly.

Exactly how am I being silly? Failing that, just how does calling me silly not descend to the level of ad-hominem argument?

All of us currently live in statist societies. That doesn't make us statist.

This is true as far as it goes. I submit to you that we all live in States, which are not necessarily societies.
How do you define "society"? Is it the same as a "community"? I am a member of several self-described "communities" which are not part of any State. (They may, however, possess a "state" as defined by set theory, game theory, or other mathematical structure. I will ignore those for the purpose of the present discussion.)
These communities include, for example:
The "Ubuntu Linux" community (I spend quite a bit of time on this one)
The  Open Street Map community
My neighborhood ( I have lived here a long time, and have a vested interest in making sure folks living here are not too poor)
My home ( I have several roommates- we share all expenses, and most are unaccounted among us- otherwise known as a "family" cf. 'The Moon is A Harsh Mistress'
My local wireless mesh network- I maintain a repeater node at some small expense to myself, so that others around may benefit from the network as a whole. This network may or may not tie into the "internet" at any given time. Its purpose is to provide secure digital communication within the area- anything else is an unexpected bonus.

However, governments do try to kill off (metaphorically and often literally) people who do not kowtow to the State. Think of an anarchist society as one in which "live and let live" is an everyday reality. If you are a statist and you go to the anarchistic Belt, no one will bother you for your beliefs. However, if you initiate force, you will be stopped... and ended if necessary.

By whom?
Again, the particular "Norman" I postulated might operate more akin to a pimp than to an Eric Prince (for example, and not meant to imply anything about that particular fracker) or a Catholic priest (again, for example, and not meant to accuse any particular charlatan.)
The initiation of force need not be public. The force itself need not be obvious. In the absence of ubiquitous surveillance, (a commonly cited 'statist' vice) such force can be initiated with impunity as long as the perpetrator is at least as intellingent as you or I.

The rest of your post is either incomprehensible (to me, anyway) or is based on your flawed view of anarchy.

Please expand upon the flaws in my view of anarchy which you have detected. I am only an egg.

 Slow down, give it some thought and then posit a single specific case you think proves something. Support you case; i.e., is it realistic or some improbable based on an improbable underpinned by an unrealistic assumption? Then listen and think about how people respond.

My comments so far have pertained to the thread.
If any unrealistic assumptions have been made, I suggest that they were made by those who crafted the story upon which the thread comments.
If I have made any unrealistic assumptions, or indeed any assumptions at all, please cite them and I will examine and change them as necessary.

As far as I can tell there are no dummies posting to this forum. Even the ones with whom I disagree are clearly intelligent (though misguided and confused). In most peoples' lifetimes, they rarely, if ever, get the opportunity to question the statist rhetoric that was pounded into them from an early age. Most people are afraid of change and anything that challenges their world-view. With EFT and this forum, you have a real opportunity to re-examine your life-long assumptions.

I have been at this for quite a while, and in my experience there are 'dummies' (valid for many meanings of that word) posting in nearly every forum.
Respectfully, it is not for you or for I to determine who is "misguided or confused" in this arena, at least until there exists a rigorous science of political philosophy such as Heinlein prognosticated (beginning with For Us, The Living, and continued in This Far Horizon, Fifth Column, and other works I am too much in a hurry to cite, as well as political articles going back to 1932).

A final note. Those of us who deny the legitimacy of the State, did not spring forth, fully formed, from the forehead of Lysander Spooner. My guess is that everyone who now challenges the legitimacy of the State, at one time or another, held statist beliefs. I know I did. We came by our beliefs the hard way, we thought about them. It took a while, but now our eyes are open.

I have, for many years, considered myself a 'non-statist'- in part of my larger philosophy of skepticism. I don't believe in states, I don't believe in anarchism- and I don't disbelieve in either.
I watch and wait. When I can, I test.

Would every individual in an "anarchist society" necessarily be an anarchist? Would such a society screen out non-anarchists? Would it perform tests to ensure that each "citizen" held anarchist beliefs? What would these tests be like? Who would administer them?

Don't be silly.

Exactly how am I being silly? Failing that, just how does calling me silly not descend to the level of ad-hominem argument?

If you just want to play word games (see my comments below), I never called you silly. (Though you may very well be.) Clearly it was an admonition and just as clearly, it was a reference to the peculiar notion that an anarchist society would somehow vet newcomers. You keep clinging to the statist group assumptions. Have you learned nothing from reading EFT?   

What the fuck is the point of the following disquisition on the terms, state, community, etc.?
Sounds like word games to me. However, let me help you out. The usually accepted definition of a state is an organization that claims a monopoly of the use of force in a specified territory.  That was the claim that we all live in states (as defined above). You agreed to my simple observation, but somehow, you got focused on societies, communities, etc. WTF?

This is true as far as it goes. I submit to you that we all live in States, which are not necessarily societies.
How do you define "society"? Is it the same as a "community"? I am a member of several self-described "communities" which are not part of any State. (They may, however, possess a "state" as defined by set theory, game theory, or other mathematical structure. I will ignore those for the purpose of the present discussion.)
These communities include, for example:
The "Ubuntu Linux" community (I spend quite a bit of time on this one)
The  Open Street Map community
My neighborhood ( I have lived here a long time, and have a vested interest in making sure folks living here are not too poor)
My home ( I have several roommates- we share all expenses, and most are unaccounted among us- otherwise known as a "family" cf. 'The Moon is A Harsh Mistress'
My local wireless mesh network- I maintain a repeater node at some small expense to myself, so that others around may benefit from the network as a whole. This network may or may not tie into the "internet" at any given time. Its purpose is to provide secure digital communication within the area- anything else is an unexpected bonus.

However, governments do try to kill off (metaphorically and often literally) people who do not kowtow to the State. Think of an anarchist society as one in which "live and let live" is an everyday reality. If you are a statist and you go to the anarchistic Belt, no one will bother you for your beliefs. However, if you initiate force, you will be stopped... and ended if necessary.

By whom?

I think I will leave that and the rest of your "submissions" as an exercise for the student.

I have, for many years, considered myself a 'non-statist'- in part of my larger philosophy of skepticism. I don't believe in states, I don't believe in anarchism- and I don't disbelieve in either.

Okey-dokey. I guess you have one of those dictionaries from Bizarro World. Good luck.