Do you own yourself?
Can you, or a specialist rather, remove some blood for transfusion purposes?
If the body acts involuntarily to produce sperm and eggs, which you can capture for others, then are the proceeds of these actions objectively owned by you or someone else?
If you are a free agent in a world of scarce resources, then what has capitalized centuries of markets, taking the species from the jungle to the modern world of tablets and space exploration?
Capital is what has created civilization.
When just right, free action creates and simultaneously protects commerce.
Traditionally, and more ethically, people have used more peaceful means of conflict resolution than the central, democratic state.
The democratic state has been very useful in protecting the interests of itself than the people who give implicit consent to it. Amazingly, many people feel that they still control this apparatus by voting once every four years.
Imagine a hypothetical:
It’s the early 20th century and a certain class of businessmen interested in buying legislators, promoting and financing the journalism of fear and fallacies, working to make their competition illegal, are, basically, using their entrepreneurial talent dishonestly, intent on manipulating the state apparatus.
The state, always that bumbling hierarchy of career bureaucrats and sociopaths.
The market advances, but, eventually, the statist parasite becomes a social norm. Even a valued one, it entirely engulfs the market, attempting to regulate all human action and behaviour under the guise of democracy.
So a new conflict arises, a peaceful “unregulated” market of producers and consumers. People trading, sans the state, using technology, competing currencies, foreign capital, and legal tax loopholes to protect their wealth.
As the state’s economic policies make people poorer, a lot of people find workarounds, and when it becomes easier to adopt this alternative market lifestyle, many people do so.
In this hypothetical, a cashless society only speeds up the process, it creates a demand for physical money and so different paper takes the place of the failing digital fiat currencies.
Gold and silver eventually resume their rightful place as a free market money, with the rise of cannabis as a poor-man’s money. Either way, savings are built.
In this hypothetical, what the corporate-state would present as a conflict would actually be a resolution for a free society.
Conflict resolution by the democratic state has always meant taking away people’s rights, not protecting them.
For, if every perceived or real conflict is a problem solved by legislation, and laws restrict free human activity for the supposed benefit of all, then what is a democratic government to do but pass more and more rules that restrain human freedom?
Is it really any surprise that large businesses can “capture” the process to ensure state power is never directed against them? But in fact, use its power to lead people into prosperity or poverty and war?
Market services already demonstrate instances where states are not required for conflict resolution.
The democratic state perceives and resolves its varying definitions of conflict as some sort of obstacle objectively defined.
But there is no objective standard. Without a polycentric legal system, that is, without the cheques and balances of the free market, whoever is exclusively providing law can disrupt order.
Peaceful cooperation is a prerequisite in any society that has managed to develop its markets and maintain a civilization.
State power is its opposite, with the legitimate power to steal, murder and enslave, its functions, if necessary at all, should be negligible for people who are otherwise peaceful.
How else could you call yourself free?