Attack libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosophy - see if you can do it

[Taser Confetti]

If your position is merely "I personally don't care and I'm willing to use force", then there is nothing to discuss.

You’ve essentially excluded every valid argument against your ideology. You’re not arguing in good faith.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I have no issue with the ethics.

If that is the case, then you are not attacking the OP.
Everything after the ethics is implementation, sociology, and institutional design. Finish your reply if you like, but unless you identify a false premise, contradiction, or superior property-assignment rule, it is outside the scope of this thread.

---

You’ve essentially excluded every valid argument against your ideology. You’re not arguing in good faith.

No. I just excluded non-arguments.
"I am willing to use force because I dislike xyz" is just an announcement that you don't care about justification. If you have a valid argument, make one.

---

In a world of inumerates math is wrong.

That is not an argument. At best, it's a confession of civilizational decay.
If a principle is true, then people failing to understand it, obey it, or like it does not make it false. It just means the people are wrong. Reality does not bend because ignorant people vote, cope, chant, or agree with each other.
It's the same thing with ethics. If the property-assignment rule I posited in the OP is grounded in the structure of action, conflict, and rivalrous goods, then "people don't work that way" does not refute it. It just means that people routinely act irrationally or aggressively. Which is exactly why conflict-resolution principles are needed in the first place.
I recommend to stop confusing "this is false" with "most people supposedly are too stupid or corrupt to follow it". The two claims are not the same.

Let me emphasize it again:
Literally the only way "this is false" and "people will not follow this" become the same claim is if reality bends to human whim (if consciousness has primacy over reality). But that is not the case. And if it were true, then the problematic consequences of that would not be limited to ethics, it would destroy reasoning everywhere. Math, physics, engineering, medicine, they all would become popularity contests.
Reality is not Warhammer 40K and statists are not orkz. Believing harder does not make the bridge stand, the engine run, the wound heal, or aggression become justified.

 

[The Last Stand]

I used to be a libertarian but then I took an arrow to the knee.

Could you enlighten us on how and when the concept of libertarianism appealed to you?

I used to be in the punk scene, and I have watched many people turn from nice, gentle dudes to arrogant groupie-fucking morons in the space of months, simply because they got a little popularity.

I wish I could find the Daria clip regarding what is considered "cool," but basically punk (to me) is just corporate angst specifically curated by boardroom executives fueled by teenage rebellion as an attempt to standardize the act of "being against the system" despite being overseen by the system they love to hate.

 

[Frostnipped Todger]

I wish I could find the Daria clip regarding what is considered "cool," but basically punk (to me) is just corporate angst specifically curated by boardroom executives fueled by teenage rebellion as an attempt to standardize the act of "being against the system" despite being overseen by the system they love to hate.

The mainstream punk scene is definitely like that. I was part of the DIY anarchist hardcore scene, which is far more political and eat less "cool". It has taken a massive nosedive over the last decade of so, but I've been checked out for almost 20 years. I guess using "punk scene" as a descriptor is probably not helpful.
We were all very critical of the type of "punk" you describe, it's generally a bunch of edgy teens who grow up to be normies.