When people's choices conflict you still need some way to decide who gets the freedom.
I don't argue with that. I feel that forswearing taxation and conscription is dangerous in the world as we live in it, and you have seen my arguments that limits on recovery for crimes and torts also constitute "initiation of force", so that AnCap hasn't really excluded what it is its goal to exclude.
The replies to those arguments have, in some ways, left me a bit perplexed as to what AnCap actually means. If using force to respond to an initiation of force sufficiently after the fact as not to be direct self-defence is prohibited as apparent initiation of force, but what one is supposed to use instead is not connected with the arbitration system, which I still don't understand either...
I think different people have different concepts of it. Here's mine:
You can do anything you want, but you can face consequences. The big consequences are supposed to come when you violate ZAP. In practice, they come for whatever people choose. So if people choose to impose consequences mostly when you violate ZAP, that's how it will be.
Any time somebody doesn't like you, he can refuse to do business with you. The more people that don't like you, the more inconvenience that will be. You might, if you want, try to get them to do business with you at gunpoint. The you are violating ZAP and there will be consequences for you, probably the same sort of consequences you just threatened for them refusing to serve you as the ZAP allows.
If you want to get along in this particular hypothetical society, you will probably try to resolve disputes with arbitration. An arbitrator can tell the world that the issue is settled and you are an OK guy. Or the arbitrator can tell the world that you failed to cooperate and a bunch of stuff is your fault, and people are then less likely to cooperate with you.
But if you feel like someone has called for a frivolous lawsuit, you can choose to just ignore them. Maybe people will realize that you are right and the other guy is wrong, and will ignore it.
Or the two of you can agree on an arbitrator, and then the arbitrator might decide ahead of time that it's a frivolous suit and just throw it out, probably charging money to the plaintiff and not to you.
So, you have an incentive to agree to arbitration because if all goes well it will clear your name, but you don't have to. You can do whatever you want and take the consequences, just like IRL except the consequences may be different.
Maybe somebody tries to commit violence on you, and he gets away with neither one killed. Ideally you should take it to arbitration and give him a chance to resolve the issue peacefully. What's to lose, if you can get it resolved peacefully? If you go after him he might kill you. He might feel like he has some issue with you since he went after you in the first place. You're better off it it actually gets settled. But say instead you do go looking for him and you find him and kill him. His family can try to arrange arbitration with you. They are better off if it gets settled to their satisfaction. Or instead one of them can hunt you down and kill you, and then your family can try to arrange arbitration with him. Arbitration is a possible way out, but nobody has to take it. If his whole family manages to hunt you down and catch you alive, and they tie you to a chair, announce your crimes on tanglenet, and shoot you, probably nobody will stop them. Or maybe somebody will stop them, and that somebody who chose to get involved then might get the chance to go through arbitration to get it settled....
See, it isn't that people don't violate ZAP. It's that when they violate ZAP and then agree to arbitration, the arbitrator will take it into account along with everything else. And if they don't agree to arbitration then when somebody violates ZAP on them, if there's arbitration about that one the arbitrator will take it into account. And public opinion will think whatever public opinion thinks about it all.
But, even so, I like the idea of more freedom. To complain that this freedom would be just for the rich, or those quick on the draw with good aim, I would regard as ill-tempered, however; if the heroic example of frontiersmen can set limits to the rapaciousness of the governments under which tamer spirits live, that will have been a noble service, even if the AnCap adventure is not for everyone.
I figure there are lots of ways it could go. Some of them I'd like, some of them I wouldn't. Some very different systems can get the same description, without even needing a whole lot of hypocrisy.
If I get the chance to help develop a community that looks good to me, I will.
If it stops looking good then I'll leave, provided they let me. One of the things I like about AnCap proposals is that they always say they'll let people leave, except for debtors. One thing I don't like so much is there's always some exception....