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

So here's the thing... I understand how the nature of this recent arc is intended to show the kinds of abuses that are possible under a statist system. Got that point. What I don't understand is -- why couldn't a similar situation occur within the kind of anarchist system of Ceres?

For example*: a woman is dying from hunger. A man offers her food in exchange for sex. She agrees, in effect agreeing to a contract exchange - food for sex. She eats the food, but then refuses to have sex with the man. The man then attempts to rape her.

The question is, under the Ceres system, has the man done anything wrong? In a purely contractual sense, the man could argue that he was merely trying to take what he'd been promised -- which doesn't change that something horrible and morally repugnant just took place. So why wouldn't a Norman feel just as much at home on Ceres as he would on Terra?

* I apologize if I offend anyone with this example. I'm posing a counter-example to the comic's storyline at the time of this writing, which is in essence about an attempted rape.

I understand how the nature of this recent arc is intended to show the kinds of abuses that are possible under a statist system. Got that point.

Maybe I'm slow, but I didn't get that.  I thought that Robyn's backstory is being told to show her character (compare her actions with Carla's in panel 450), which will be important later.  Or maybe it's being told just because it's a fun story.

why couldn't a similar situation occur within the kind of anarchist system of Ceres?

It could.  Anarchy is not utopia.  As far as I know, most supporters of a market anarchist society think that it would have far less crime than, say, a modern social democracy (even ignoring crimes committed by agents of the state) for several reasons, but not that it would be crime-free.

For example*: a woman is dying from hunger. A man offers her food in exchange for sex. She agrees, in effect agreeing to a contract exchange - food for sex. She eats the food, but then refuses to have sex with the man. The man then attempts to rape her.

The question is, under the Ceres system, has the man done anything wrong? In a purely contractual sense, the man could argue that he was merely trying to take what he'd been promised --

This illustrates several points that might interest someone interested in the details of legal systems.  Are the usual "rules" modified in emergency situations?  I don't know the arguments for or against.

Would a court enforce (for some values of "court" and "enforce") a contract requiring a person to do something odious?  (An extreme example: would a court enforce a contract where someone sold himself into slavery?)  I've heard people argue that it would, provided that the person entered into the contract voluntarily.  I've heard people argue that such contracts are invalid, perhaps using the idea (held by Rothbard) that all valid contracts are actually transfers of property titles and the idea that a person's property title to himself is inalienable.  I've heard people argue that such contracts are valid but that no court would enforce them.

But Ceres doesn't have a formal legal system, so your question really comes down to what would the people of Ceres do in such a situation?  The obvious answer is that we don't know--people don't always do what we expect.  And I find it difficult to imagine such a situation on Ceres, which is a dangerous place where people who don't willingly help others are unlikely to live very long.

However, it isn't so hard to image a similar situation without the "dying from hunger" bit--the woman (a Celestial Body?) changes her mind (for a "good" reason) after getting and eating the food, and the man uses force to enforce the "contract".  I don't know what the people of Ceres would do.  (Normally, I'd guess that most people would do nothing except gossip, but if someone or something that they cared about was involved, who knows?)  Maybe Sandy could tell us.

So why wouldn't a Norman feel just as much at home on Ceres as he would on Terra?

Norman enjoys exercising arbitrary power over people.  With little opportunity for that on Ceres, I doubt that he would feel at home there.

For example*: a woman is dying from hunger. A man offers her food in exchange for sex. She agrees, in effect agreeing to a contract exchange - food for sex. She eats the food, but then refuses to have sex with the man. The man then attempts to rape her.

The question is, under the Ceres system, has the man done anything wrong? In a purely contractual sense, the man could argue that he was merely trying to take what he'd been promised -- which doesn't change that something horrible and morally repugnant just took place. So why wouldn't a Norman feel just as much at home on Ceres as he would on Terra?

The concept of the state is deeply imbued in all of us. For that reason, most of us try to recast anarchy into some sort of "system." It isn't. So first of all, there is no "Ceres system" to be under. So the real question is, what would individuals do in this situation?

The woman has breached her contract. So what are some of the man's possible remedies?

First of all, he can choose to do nothing. We have all had contracts and other promises broken. Usually we just chalk it up to experience.

He can talk shit about her and "write her name on the Luna City dome wall" (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress allusion). We do that sort of thing all the time when merchants cheat us. We tell our friends, picket, whatever.

He can initiate an arbitration dispute with her. She might not agree to arbitration, but that can have severe consequences in a society built on personal responsibility. Shunning might be the least of her worries. The analogy, here and now, is Community Boards:

   http://www.communityboards.org/

small claims court or a full-blown law suit.

He can try, what in law is euphemistically called, "self-help":

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-help_%28law%29

That is, he can just break into her house and "steal" enough money and property to repay the money he gave her. This is the initiation of force as would be rape, however. So she could then do all of the above to him.

He and she may do anything they want. The question is one of consequences. My guess is that in an anarchist setting, most people would draw the line at rape and others would draw it at self-help. If she shot him dead during the rape attempt, I doubt many people would be inclined to do much about it, though they might shun her for precipitating the unnecessary death by not honoring her contract. In which case, they might award his relatives a big settlement in arbitration. (Think. Fred Goldman and O.J. Simpson.)

Bottom line, I have my guesses as to what would happen, but in real life, we can be surprised. I do know this. If I were the man, I would think long and hard before resorting to self-help or worse. And isn't that how we calculate things in a statist world today? Most of us have enough impulse control to do a cost-benefit analysis when seeking redress of a wrong. The law is only seen as a cost, not an absolute or moral prohibition.

Murder is illegal and you could be sent to prison or even executed. But if you tracked down the monsters who tortured and killed your children, what would you do? I know what I would do.

I think I previously mentioned that a very pompous, self-important "anarcho-capitalist" gave me hell for having Emily Rose execute the bastards who burned her family to death. He wanted to sue Admiral Harris in a Xeer-based arbitration. Please.

A real anarchy will be messy. Mistakes will be made, but it is still morally superior to what we have now. Trying to dictate rules for an anarchist society is a fools errand.

Anarchy is not utopia.  As far as I know, most supporters of a market anarchist society think that it would have far less crime than, say, a modern social democracy (even ignoring crimes committed by agents of the state) for several reasons, but not that it would be crime-free.

An anarchic system will have less crime simply because so few acts will be perceived as crimes.  Today in the United States well over 90%* of prison populations are incarcerated for acts that were not criminal in 1900.  On Ceres nobody cares if you brew methamphetamine**, there are no drivers' licenses to drive without, if you were defrauded you merely trusted the wrong person, there are no building permits, and "it was a fair fight" is a functional defense of homicide.  Owners will never know that the model of shuttle they are using is lethal to many of its operators because of a fault in the life support system because there are no police organizations compiling the data, no government organizations collating the data,  and no government to compel manufacturer to make the data public. 

*the sources I encounter all say over 90%.  I do wonder if the number has increased by a few percent over the few decades people have been paying attention.  I am not willing to spend the time to do the research myself.

** ....unless, of course, the cooker is releasing the toxic byproducts into a shared environmental system.

Anarchy is not utopia.  As far as I know, most supporters of a market anarchist society think that it would have far less crime than, say, a modern social democracy (even ignoring crimes committed by agents of the state) for several reasons, but not that it would be crime-free.

An anarchic system will have less crime simply because so few acts will be perceived as crimes.  Today in the United States well over 90%* of prison populations are incarcerated for acts that were not criminal in 1900.  On Ceres nobody cares if you brew methamphetamine**, there are no drivers' licenses to drive without, if you were defrauded you merely trusted the wrong person, there are no building permits, and "it was a fair fight" is a functional defense of homicide.  Owners will never know that the model of shuttle they are using is lethal to many of its operators because of a fault in the life support system because there are no police organizations compiling the data, no government organizations collating the data,  and no government to compel manufacturer to make the data public. 

*the sources I encounter all say over 90%.  I do wonder if the number has increased by a few percent over the few decades people have been paying attention.  I am not willing to spend the time to do the research myself.

** ....unless, of course, the cooker is releasing the toxic byproducts into a shared environmental system.

Meth labs are also toxic bomb factories. I'm quite certain nearby neighbors would be VERY concerned. The entire community would also be concerned if said lab was near the outer hull. Families of meth addicts would likely be most displeased, considering how meth changes addict's behavior, personality and severely adversely affects both physical and mental well being. In a truly anarchist society, there would be no "crime" because there would be no "law." Such a condition can not last for very long though. Even Ceres which has no government per se, still has laws and regulations chosen by the society as a whole. People who knowingly put unsafe products on the market are punished, just like the "high stickers" Reggie mentioned to Guy near the beginning of the comic.

Anarchy is not utopia.  As far as I know, most supporters of a market anarchist society think that it would have far less crime than, say, a modern social democracy (even ignoring crimes committed by agents of the state) for several reasons, but not that it would be crime-free.

An anarchic system will have less crime simply because so few acts will be perceived as crimes.

I was unclear.  What you said is certainly true, either if selling morphine without a license is considered to be a crime (your usage) or if locking people in cages for selling morphine without a license is considered to be a crime (my usage).  I thought that my "(even ignoring crimes committed by agents of the state)" would make my usage clear.  I realize that many people consider "criminal" to be a synonym for "illegal" but didn't take that into account.  Sorry.

Anyway, for several reasons, I would expect that there would be far fewer acts (such as murder) that are malum in se (will Latin make it clearer?) in an anarchy than in a modern social democracy, but that there would still be some.  I could be wrong, of course.

Meth labs are also toxic bomb factories. I'm quite certain nearby neighbors would be VERY concerned. The entire community would also be concerned if said lab was near the outer hull. Families of meth addicts would likely be most displeased, considering how meth changes addict's behavior, personality and severely adversely affects both physical and mental well being. In a truly anarchist society, there would be no "crime" because there would be no "law." Such a condition can not last for very long though. Even Ceres which has no government per se, still has laws and regulations chosen by the society as a whole. People who knowingly put unsafe products on the market are punished, just like the "high stickers" Reggie mentioned to Guy near the beginning of the comic.

Actually, manufacturing methamphetamine using the standard industrial process is considerably less toxic and explosive than the methods that those making it "illegally" have to resort to since they can't get the proper raw materials.

this topic started in the wrong foot, the question is not wether this particular situation could happen in anarchy, but the situation is to examine the case in which the state violates individual rights and there is not legal remedy for it.

there is not contract between Robyn and the bastard, he want to frack her and he don't give a damn if she feel like she don't want to.

the story of this arc is about self defence and the right to one's person security of the person. In an anarchy you will be responsible for your safety at every time and we are not saying it will be easy ... but this is not a question of wether this can't happen in anarchy, but wether it is a good idea to give the state monopoly over justice and force ... bot of which nearly made Robyn a plastic fraking doll for that old pervert

On Ceres, anarchy has no choice but to exist in a vacuum. However, if we ignore the pun, in addition to government, two things that cause societies to depart from a libertarian ideal are religion and culture.

I would tend to expect that a libertarian society built by people from our culture would still retain taboos which would treat sex as something exempted from the ordinary principles of contractual relationships.

However, thinking about this leads me to realize that an anarcho-capitalist society may be lacking one thing that has usually been considered very important to human freedom: the rule of law. If the consequences of one's actions are determined by the vaguely defined feelings of one's peers, that means the mob is being granted the privilege of initiating force.

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.
2) their life expectancy would be short.
3) their medical bills would be high.

TRUE anarchy, has historically unraveled into a tyranny where the Biggest gun, club, etc. makes the "laws."

Ceres works because it was founded as a TRUE democracy. The populace as a whole voted on the ground rules, approved them and then went their merry way. ("If you don't like it, you can leave" is one of those rules.)

Should the population of Ceres get much larger, or should the situations get considerably more complicated (ie, should Guy's "finance company" have to go collect on a rather large number of bad debts), the Ceres system of life COULD collapse under its own weight. For right now, there is no "high sticking" but should enough people decide that the rules "no longer apply" and decide to "high stick" anyway... well as the author said, things will get messy.

Illegal or no, "cooking" meth is inherently dangerous for "the lab workers," the immediate neighborhood, and any enforcement arm that goes to clean up the mess. It's dangerous due to the PROCESS not the "raw materials."

I would tend to expect that a libertarian society built by people from our culture would still retain taboos which would treat sex as something exempted from the ordinary principles of contractual relationships.

Cultures don't "treat sex as something, blah, blah, blah." Only people make judgments and act. You really have to work on that group-think mentality. "Culture" is an arbitrary, statistical construct. "Cultures" do not do anything. People do.

So in the instant case, people might have different opinions about sex, but that is irrelevant. Sex is not the issue here. It is the concept of  specific performance as previously mentioned. Check it out. Specific performance is rarely required in any dispute resolution system. What usually happens is the requirement of some monetary or similar compensation. 

However, thinking about this leads me to realize that an anarcho-capitalist society may be lacking one thing that has usually been considered very important to human freedom: the rule of law. If the consequences of one's actions are determined by the vaguely defined feelings of one's peers, that means the mob is being granted the privilege of initiating force.

Though it is not black and white, there is nothing vague about murder, rape, theft, in any society. What you might be calling "vague" is nothing more than edge cases, which exist under any system or theory of justice. In our current state legal system, self-defense is a recognized exception to rules against killing people. However, police often make an on-scene decision as to whether or not a killing was self-defense. Sometimes it is not clear cut and the killer may be held until forensic evidence helps a prosecutor decide if the evidence brings self-defense into sufficient doubt to charge the killer with murder. Even then, the question is still one for the jury. So, in this case, the principle of self-defense is not vague in the least. What is in question is if it truly applies in the specific situation.

So back to anarchy. the same thing applies. Two men are in a bar. Able insults Baker. Baker pulls a gun and shoots Able dead. This is clearly murder, not self-defense. As I said above, the only time there is an issue is in edge cases. Even then the only real question is "what really happened here?" If the facts (forensic evidence, testimony of witnesses, content of video recordings, etc.) point to murder then Baker has a problem. If they suggest self-defense, he walks. This is no different than anything that exists in the real world today.

TRUE anarchy...TRUE democracy

Writing words in all-caps doesn't make them clearer.  I have no idea what you think distinguishes a true anarchy from an untrue anarchy and what distinguishes a true democracy from an untrue democracy.

Ceres ... The populace as a whole voted on the ground rules, approved them and then went their merry way.

I don't think this has appeared in EFT.  (If it did, I apologize, and request that you tell me where.)

I'd hate to think that the early settlers on Ceres would be that foolish.  But it's possible that they learned by experience and eventually came to their senses.  Do you think that this is a dark secret in Reggie's past, something so awful that he represses the memory?

Illegal or no, "cooking" meth is inherently dangerous for "the lab workers," the immediate neighborhood, and any enforcement arm that goes to clean up the mess. It's dangerous due to the PROCESS not the "raw materials."

Different raw materials would mean different processes to turn them into the finished product.  There may be several significantly different reasonable processes even using the same raw materials.  When a substance is illegal, one crucial aspect of the entire process is how difficult it is to conceal.  This may dictate using a much more dangerous process than would be used if the substance is legal.

If the process used to manufacture a legal substance is dangerous--for example, I doubt that it is possible to manufacture large amounts of nitroglycerin without danger--then the operation would be carried out where that danger would not affect other people.  The only reason for methamphetamine to be manufactured in a residential area would be because it is illegal and trying to be hidden.

The concept of the state is deeply imbued in all of us. For that reason, most of us try to recast anarchy into some sort of "system." It isn't. So first of all, there is no "Ceres system" to be under.

I disagree somewhat with this.  The term "system" can be descriptive, not only proscriptive.  Referring, for example, to the "solar system" does not imply design.

This ties fairly closely to Von Mises' Praexology.

If the process used to manufacture a legal substance is dangerous--for example, I doubt that it is possible to manufacture large amounts of nitroglycerin without danger--then the operation would be carried out where that danger would not affect other people.  The only reason for methamphetamine to be manufactured in a residential area would be because it is illegal and trying to be hidden.

First, I can pretty readily envision a means of manufacturing arbitrary amounts of nitroglycerin with little or no risk to operators, by using stream production with a very large number of very tiny streams and proven detonation blocking technology in the outfeeds (loop the feed tube past itself, and if a detonation starts in the process reactor, it will cut its own path before it can reach the collector), coupled with tiny collectors and concentration of the product into useful quantities after it's left the production facility.

Second, the other reason to "cook" meth in residential neighborhood (in the absence of laws against production, sale, production and consumption of the substance) is if the demand is low enough to be easily supplied by cottage industry (a likely case in a healthy society).  In the absence of above legal restrictions, however, there's no reason the cottage producer couldn't have suitable protections for himself, his employees, his neighbors, and the local environment -- any more than, say, a Daguerreotype photographer need poison himself and his neighbors just because his chosen medium uses mercury vapor (a cold trap does a fine job of recovering mercury that would otherwise wind up in people's lungs).