As I have remarked before, your worldview implies we are all guilty of dreadful crimes, requiring dire punishment, implies that the good, benevolent, and just state needs to execute a large proportion of its population, needs to execute everyone like me, and most people I know.
You wrong me. 
Recall our discussion of China, where you argued that the Chinese were guilty of acts of warlike aggression by selling us good stuff and low prices.
I argue that they are behaving like mercantilists. There are people who say that mercantilism hurts only the mercantilists themselves. I disagree, I say that the chinese hurt us too. I'm unclear what response is appropriate. What's your stand on mercantilism?
This led to our discussion of the Jews. I said that Hitler's accusations were against the Jews were mighty weak tea. You argued that if the Jews were guilty of the stuff that Hitler said they were, they needed killing.
No, I argue from a position of moral relativism, that the NS views and actions are not qualitatively different from those of many other nations including the USA. We have held moral views which are similar, but we did not take them as far. And part of the reason we did not take them as far was that we were never as desperate. It's partly the desperation that takes the normal disgusting moral views into full scale atrocities.
And I am quite sure I have done lots more and worse of that sort of stuff than either typical Jews or typical Chinese.
I'm easygoing. Live and let live until I'm too threatened. From what you say you come across as creepy, but I do not consider that my problem.
You think that capitalism, or at least unauthorized and unapproved capitalism, is a war crime and crime against humanity, and since everyone practices capitalism, and in a socialist state everyone practices capitalism on the sly …
I don't know where you come up with these things. I think that capitalist theory as usually stated is kind of inadequate. There are various short circuits available that would let some people manipulate the system to get rich without actually providing anything of value to anyone else, or sometimes by actively harming people. There are various traps that let people think they are doing well, while they in fact are storing up catastrophe that will hit suddenly. When people claim that the theory is flawless I naturally want to point out some of the flaws.
As one example, there is fractional-reserve banking. Many people agree with me that fractional-reserve banking causes problems. Some of them believe that if there was no government, the public would be smart enough not to cater to fractional-reserve bankers and so the problem would disappear. I say that government is not the only thing that gets people to follow their short-run interest and ignore the long run, and that getting rid of the government would not be enough to make people that smart. I'd be glad to be wrong about that....
That there are flaws in the theory that is commonly believed does not at all mean that capitalism in practice is a crime against humanity. In practice it sometimes has very good results. Sometimes things that get called capitalism have rather bad results, and people who want to improve the world can argue about whether the bad stuff is really capitalism or not, and whether the bad stuff under whatever name can be reduced. If they want to improve the world usually they want governments to do it, because the obvious alternative is to get a whole lot of people to act smarter. And they are reasonably sure that won't happen. Of course, getting governments to act smarter and more altruisticly is not real likely either....
When the public is pretty much agreed about what's fair, then that's mostly what arbitrators will judge. How could it be otherwise?
When the public is split the arbitrators will be split too,
OK, give us a plausible split. Mall owners are not going to ban people with tattoos, and butchers are not going to put up a sign saying "If our meat poisons you, that is your problem, we are not liable."
Software vendors very often do put up signs saying that their liability is limited to the cost of the software. If you have all your tax information on their accounting software, and a flaw in their software leaves you bankrupt, they will give you your $500 back.
Butchers might quite plausibly put up signs saying their liability is limited to $500 per customer, or whatever. That might seem like a generous liability to their customers. When they do that they are in fact saying "If our meat poisons you, we will give you no more than $500". But their customers assume that the meat will not in fact poison them, as do the butchers themselves. The butchers intend to stay in business, which they cannot do if it becomes known that they poison customers. Almost everybody assumes ahead of time that such things will not happen, and it's only after they do happen that the litigation starts.
People would doubtless be split on whether prostitution should be legal, recreational drugs should be legal, but in such cases there is no complainant willing to pull his gun and risk getting shot to make what he says the law should be stick, so regardless of what arbitrators might say, such laws will not stick, whereas there is a complainant willing to hang a mugger from the lampost and stick a burglar's head on a pike on his front fence, so in such matters what arbitrators say will stick. The arbitrator's power to coerce only comes from the actual possibility of violence, and in anarchic state, there is no group of men who can safely, easily, and cheaply get away with violence.
You claim that in muslim societies there are people who are willing to kill over prostitution etc. I say that was true even before muslims had much of a government. This looks to me like a counterexample to your claim.
In the USA, there are people who are willing to kill abortionists, but there is no one ready to kill to save abortion. Individual MDs could of course hire bodyguards who are ready to kill to protect their employers -- people who are ready to kill for money. By your reasoning, abortion could wind up functionally illegal even when the population is split, because of the distribution of violent murderers between the sides.
Others have argued that when there is a consensus, customs can be enforced even without killers doing the enforcing. Somebody gets a bad reputation and lots of people refuse to do business with him -- it gets just too inconvenient to violate expectations. If none of the mall owners will let you onto their property and only one oxygen-seller will sell you oxygen, and that at 5 times the going price, nobody has committed aggression against you -- they have a right to choose their customers. Life is easier when you don't get everybody mad at you. But when there is not a consensus that breaks down.
Your idea that it depends on the most violent ones ... that's interesting. It makes a certain sense that the ones who are most willing to kill and die for their morals, should be the ones who get to decide for everybody. It's certainly true in practice part of the time.
So for example, imagine that the public disagrees about patent protection, as the libertarian community currently does.
A property right in anarchy is only going to stick if it is something you reasonably could and would smack someone around for violating. If someone burgles me while I am present in my house, one of us will surely die. If you shoplift from Walmart, Walmart security will grab you in the parking lot, and if you try to leave, they will grab you harder.
No one would do this over a patent, no one would think it right to do this over a patent.
OK. I picked that example because it's something that I know there's disagreement over. I can imagine that no patent owner would kill over theft of his intellectual property. He'd have to actually believe that his patent was valid and that it was actually his property that was being stolen.
Nobody would do
that. They'd know they were wrong, because of course
nobody really
believes in patents.

If I pick something that libertarians and AnCaps agree about, then they will say it's a dandruff issue and that nobody with any sense could ever disagree with them so there cannot be any problem. Can you think of another issue that AnCaps are not 100% united over? I can't think of anything that AnCaps disagree about enough to kill each other about, so I guess there will always be consensus in every future AnCap society about what the laws ought to be.
Jerry will not shut down communications. A "trespassers will be shot sign" usually has a doorbell right beside it. Again your argument is "Suppose people act really stupid, and we have no good and wise state to make them act sensible."
No, I'm not talking about a state. I'm talking about how the arbitration is supposed to work.
Most people will not act stupid, and Darwin should take care of those that do act stupid.
I run into this argument a lot here. I ask, "How should arbitration handle this situation?". And I hear the answer, "Your example assumes that somebody has done something stupid. But in AnCap nobody will do anything stupid to get arbitrated over."
Doesn't a whole lot of government law actually deal with people who have done something stupid? Is AnCap going to make everybody stop acting stupid? So much that we don't need to arbitrate it?
Maybe, when somebody does something stupid, you should just kill him? And then it turns out he has a stupid pregnant wife and 6 stupid children, and the arbitrator has to decide how much you have to support them for the next 20 years or so? Is that a smart move on your part?