6f5ad25062be004d...

By now I think you might be trolling and having some fat laughs. You keep bashing anarchocapitalism, which is just a name given for convenience to deductive ethics, and pushing agorism which I am not sure you know what it actually is. Unless your view is collectivist in nature, and thus incompatible with agorism, anarchocapitalism is the only framework where the ethics of private property is actually respected, and to which agorism adheres. But maybe you are against private property, I don't know anymore.

I guess in the end all you say is cool as long as you don't expect to use violence to make others do things... which is what anarchocapitalism actually is all about.

So the conclusion of your notes as of late against anarchocapitalism, is "go live away from other people, be your own producer for everything or set up your micro agorist society"? You would go back to the middleages? I honestly can't even. What do you define as "aggression" or "initiation of the use of force"? Do you agree that the above are always wrong? In this "economic coercion" concept of yours, you would rather have the people currently being economically coerced, move away from society and maintain themselves in everything? How, since they are in the first place "economically coerced" to take a job as employees to sustain themselves? Which "non-megacorp" company would you contract so that you can access the internet and use bitcoin? Which, to obtain hardware? Affordable clothing? Anything else?

I'd love for someone to explain to me what bitcoin hashrate renting is all about. Even if 99% recoup was guaranteed, what's the point if you lose 1% of the money you pay? Is ti virtue signaling? If one was sure to always reach breakeven, it would be useful to at least increase decentralization, but like this it absolutely makes no sense to me.