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%29That 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.