“you stand for NOTHI”G BUT the principle that what you call the “peasantry” – the subject productive class - can be forcibly overridden and looted at will,”
No Jardine, I don’t” stand for” this. I was trying to point out that this was the end point of your free market approach and lack of regulation.

“Pathetic because you IGNORED that force and fraud are illegal in market transactions; that government is a force-based monopoly of force”
“Illegal” Jardine? You are the one that doesn’t believe in governments or market intervention. I have been advocating protection remember?

As for the questions I was supposed to be answering, they seem to keep changing all the time.

Ad hom
If you seriously think this is ad hom you need to spend more time on the really tough sites.

““Illegal” Jardine? “

Yes. Robbery – aggressive force or threats to take someone’s property without their consent – is illegal in market transactions. So is gaining a financial advantage by deception. Do you deny it?

Therefore a general anti-social chaos characterised by the stronger forcibly taking from or cheating the weaker is not the end point of a free market approach; and you have not shown any reason why it is or would be. All the examples you give are examples of the violation of property rights, not the defence of them.

There is no issue that robbery and fraud should be illegal. But there is, because you’re saying that using aggression or threats to take someone’s property without their consent should be legal *so long as the government does it*; and the same with fraud.

“… the questions … keep changing all the time.”

They are all the same question from different angles – how do you define the legitimate from the illegitimate use of power to forcibly override property rights and individual freedom? This is the same thing as asking, what is the rational criterion by which you decide which property rights are to be defended against aggressive invasion by anyone including government; and the same as asking, what of full communism do you find an excessive exercise of government power; and the same as asking, how do you distinguish between the market price and the fair price [that is to be enforced]; and the same as asking what is the perfect or ideal state from which alleged market “distortions” [to be proscribed by force – the law] are allegedly a deviation?

“You are the one that doesn’t believe in governments or market intervention.”

Misrepresentation; mind-reading. I have never argued against government interventions to protect and defend freedom of person and property, neither of which entail any right to attack, threaten or defraud people. I have only argued against such invasions by anyone including government.

“I have been advocating protection remember?”

So have the mafia. The question is how do we distinguish legitimate from illegitimate force and threats?

The economic question with protection, as with any other economic good, is whether the amount and quality being produced or supplied is too much, too little, or just enough.

When the market provides it, consumers of a service, by their actions in buying and selling, directly select the amount and quality of the service that is provided. Suppliers who do not provide what the consumers want make losses and eventually go broke. The market impartially transfers their assets into the hands of those who serve the consumers better. Suppliers who provide what the consumers want make profits, which attracts additional capital into that mode of production, thereby reducing profits.

The same does not apply to protection supplied by government. Owing to the fact that the payment is non-voluntary, the connection between what the consumers want, and what is provided, is severed at the root. (That’s why it’s so much easier to find police in revenue-raising activities such as issuing speeding tickets and extorting prostitutes or drug producers, than finding who burgled your house or getting your stolen property back).

Worse, as a coercive monopolist, the State can and does provoke conflicts which it then intervenes in to settle in its own favour. I have already shown how your theory of anti-trust laws involves circular reasoning and is therefore fallacious. The truth is, the anti-trust laws amount only to threats and stealing of property by the coercive bully class – whom no-one voluntarily pays for and who make their living by aggression and threats - attacking the peasantry – the class of people who make their living by peaceable productive activity. If this were not so, you would be able to distinguish the rational criterion that distinguishes the alleged wrongful activity from necessary and beneficial productive activity, which, as we have seen, you can’t do.

It’s you who are proposing that the most powerful and aggressive people in society should be a law unto themselves, and that the peasants should just have to bear their load, and have no rights but whatever scraps the biggest bullies deign to leave them.

That’s why I can't plough my paddocks and you can’t answer any of my questions!