You wrote: "I don't think you even bothered to consider what I wanted to say."

I did consider what you had to say, and I addressed it directly. For example, you wrote "you have to propose some policies alongside your supposedly free market, such as property laws".

I gave my working definition of property. You also said that those laws would have to be enforced by the state/military. Not necessarily. People use private arbitration all the time, and loss of a reputation capital is a very steep penalty indeed in the business world. Prison cells are a poor substitute for restitution.

Also, if your state/military enforcement mechanism depends on the violation of property rights for staffing and financing (i.e. conscription and taxation), then isn't it ironic, don't you think?

You then suggested that property laws imply "There goes you free market down the drain." But I defined the free market as a group of people engaging with each other on the basis of mutual consent. Any trade which occurs with mutual consent is by definition one which respects property (see my clause 3).

You're right that I was bonding with the other discussion participant who said "Most categories break down if you stretch them far enough." I agreed with him that you had stretched the categories too far.

I understand what you mean by "Nobody is really free, just our average prison cell is bigger." In this world, there will always be someone trying to initiate coercion against you, no matter where you go. All you can hope to do is find a "prison cell" which is comfortable enough. If you want more economic freedom and lower taxes, perhaps you can move to Hong Kong or Singapore. If you don't want to risk harsh penalties for possession of certain plant materials, perhaps you should avoid Singapore and opt for Portugal or Spain instead. Even those choices have their own drawbacks. More trade-offs. I get it.

I also directly addressed this: "My point was that "let the free market sort it out" is not a strategy. It does not contain any actionable information, as you still have to define the actual rules of your "free" market."

I did define the rules of the free market: namely, that no individual initiates coercion against another. That is actionable. First, I take it upon myself to respect that principle. Second, I aim to deal only with other individuals who also respect that principle. That is all I can possibly do. That is action.

Also consider this statement of yours: "why am I not free to dump my waste on his land? Would a free market (allowing me to dump my waste on his land) somehow sort out that I wouldn't dump my waste on his land?"

The answer is yes, the free market would indeed sort out that you shouldn't dump your waste on his land. To do so is to violate his property rights. Your dumping of waste is an act of aggression.

Even dumping waste on your own property can be an act of aggression. For example, if you dump toxic chemicals on your land and they leach into the water table, you have actually dumped waste onto someone else's property haven't you? After all, the chemicals are now in the water that someone else owns by virtue of it being on their land.

On second thought, I think you made a very good point by emphasizing the rules of property. Property rights are the single most important concept in a free market, and defining them is critical. I did state my definition of property. I think it's the right definition, otherwise I wouldn't have stated it. :)

(By the way, I upvoted you for challenging me on this. Yesterday I did a rather surly downvote and I wanted to make up for it.)