only one rule: do not initiate aggression. anarcho capitalist model is moral because its principle is the non-aggression principle, which means that the only crime is initiating aggression. that is the best possible attitude. not having coercion at all is not a real world option. there always will be some people who fall for the temptation, and commit aggression. we will need aggression to stop these people. Apr 28 2012: O.k. Krisztian. Good. The card is on the table. Lets not 'muddy the waters' by stating the obvious: ' being thrown into jail is exactly designed to be unpleasant. it is a punishment.'It is perfectly clear to both what prison is used for, and that it is violent. Otherwise you would not be claiming it is immoral when the state performs this act. The flaw in your idea is, if it is an immoral act, then it is immoral whoever performs it and you cannot create 'justification' just by naming it so. My question regarding this was 'So...(why) is law under your anarcho/capitalism model more moral than rule by democratic govt?'. You have replied (sort of) 'it is a defense mechanism against people that are not willing to follow the only one rule' . So because you relable your (theoretical) acts of violence as 'defense mechanisms' they shift from being immoral acts to moral acts? With a simple lable we can create justification? Are you willing to stand for this notion? Apr 28 2012: when did i say that the