Pelican
Is that your idea of giving an example of a market that's not regulated by government?

Once again we see that the socialists just crumble into dishonesty once their fallacies are pointed out.

Sienna muddies the waters as is the way of those who ascribe to neocon economics.
She equates a workman using his own tool and making a chair, with a businessman who profits from getting others to use his tool and then keeping a share for himself. Hardly the same thing.
"The proprietor producing neither by his own labour nor by his implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either a parasite or a thief."
I dont object to people making a fair return on their own labours but what you are advocating is the excessive returns on other peoples labours by capitalists.

Sienna is not advocating Anarchy.
I am!
Anarchy means NO RULERS not no government.
From the greek An meaning no. Archy meaning ruler.
As in Monarchy. Mon=one. One ruler. The king.
Anarchy=No rulers of any kind.

Anarchists are foremost against heirachy. One person dominating over another. We believe it to be harmful, degrading and counterproductive for people to live their lives in submission to others. Whether it be the state or god or bosses or landlords or any other master. People are at their best when they are free and not forced to sell themselves into slavery on a daily basis to survive.

Property and the monopolisation of wealth, which is just another form of property, are what causes most of us to have to submit to the indignity of wage slavery and exploitation by those in positions of authority over us. No one works for a boss unless they have to. No one bows down to the state unless they have to.

Capitalism has set up an enormous edifice around itself that is based on numerous assumptions designed to keep the status quo and reinforce the current way of doing things. That their theories have no basis in reality nor do they reflect reality in any way bothers them not one wit but then reality never gets in the way of the greedy and their endless pursuit of their god money. Such is the way with all dogma.

<<Liberty and property are two sides of the same coin. You can’t have one without the other.>>

The majority of what we call "property" is all about depriving us of our liberty. Patent, copyright, trespass, licensing, crown lands, etc etc are all primarily about excluding people so they have no choice but to submit to those who would enslave them. To say that this is libertarian just beggars belief.
To say a few paragraphs later
<<Ownership means the right to EXCLUSIVE possession and CONTROL.>>
just proves your inconsistency and the falseness of your premise that private property equals liberty.
In your own words private property equals exclusion and control.

<<By appropriating unowned nature to oneself, one rightly establishes ownership.>>
In what way? Natural resources belong to everyone equally, including future generations. There can be no possible justification for someone claiming exclusive ownership of something created by nature.

<<By eating an apple rightfully acquired, I incorporate it into my body and become its exclusive owner.>>
Apples and BHP are hardly the same thing are they? Once again you conflate a humble apple used for personal sustenance with a giant multinational digging up minerals and treat them as if they are the same. I think most rational people can see that there is a big difference.

I dont deny self ownership. I deny private ownership of the means of life and ownership of that which is used to exploit others or profit from the labours of others.

Jardine K. Jardine said
"Why shouldn't capitalist acts between consenting adults be legalised too?"

In a free society who in their right mind would consent willingly to a capitalist "contract"? A contract that exposes a person to possible exploitation, a subsuming of their autonomy and judgment over anything they do at work and a humiliating and shameful abrogating of their free will and personality to their boss? Only the desperate, the starving and the optionless. Just like today.

Jardine K
Are your derisory comments an example of reasoned debate.

Clearly the free trade arrangements are unregulated. A banana farmer in Australia has no control over the betrayal of his own government to allow cheap imports in which he cannot compete on cheap labour. If you think the current free trade arrangements are a level playing field you are dreamin'. There is no regulation and it greatly threatens not only the future of agriculture in this country but biosecurity.

Have you not read Mikk's well argued comments. Complete freedom under your uber-capitalist utopia only leads to greater exploitation of those who do not own the property or capital assets.

Tell me why a completely unregulated market will work better for human societies than one with a balance of regulation and freedoms.

would not think Mikk’s argument is reasonable at all Pelican; Again, You are talking about State Monopoly Capitol led Oligarchic Collectivist, and not Private enterprise; Worldly different, and applying abject evasion of that fact is ridicules and absurd.

It is Altruistic subjectivity devoid of anything relevant to economics or to do with social network. And archetypical of non arguments based on Marxian concepts of The; " Dialectical Materialism". Pure and simply Phantasmic Wobbly goo , or is that Guist? The Genesis of Absurdities

(Listen to it here) http://mises.org/media/5147
Actually Listen to the whole E book ,some may learn something new for a change ,and perhaps more congenial to facts and truth than what they are use to hearing. That will become Obvious.

Mikk

You still have not established that property rights are “exploitative”.

You can’t agree with self-ownership at the same time as you assert that all natural resources are owned in common, and deny a right of exclusion. This is because self-ownership must mean the right to the exclusive appropriation of natural resources: the physical standing space, the air we breathe, food and drink. Otherwise it would be meaningless. If oneself did not have a right to make these natural resources one’s own and thereby exclude others from using them, then what could self-ownership possibly mean? Others would have an equal or greater right to one’s physical body and the physical space one occupies.

Similarly, if self-ownership extended only to a right to get a benefit equal to one’s costs of an action, but no further, then self-ownership would be meangingless. One could not eat or drink because to do so would confer a benefit greater than the costs of one’s actions.

If self-ownership confers a right to a benefit only if one uses it oneself, for example from making a chair, but not to a benefit from an exchange, then no-one should be allowed to obtain a benefit from exchanging the fruits of one’s labour with someone else. Human society would therefore be fundamentally exploitative, and social co-operation immoral. Others would be justified in using force to appropriate any surplus of one’s labour over and above the costs. This is impossible to reconcile with an opposition to dominance or slavery.

Thus one cannot consistently admit of self-ownership but deny:
1. right to appropriate unowned natural resources
2. right to exclude
3. property rights in the fruits of one’s labour, and
4. property rights in net benefit of voluntary exchanges, a.k.a. profit.

Intellectual property rights, Crown lands, and corporations are indeed state-granted privileges. But that is not an argument against free trade; it’s an argument against state-granted privileges.