I enjoyed the videos. I like his approach.
I'm not so sure I can get around to answering all of your comments at this point, but I did read them all and you make some good points.
I have a hard time conceiving of a defense of property rights that is appropriate and proportionate. Most of what I've experienced has been agents of the state applying overwhelming force with the backing of a justice system that criminalizes any attempts at fighting back. I've been a part of eviction defense actions, for example, where we sat and/or chained ourselves to a home that was being illegally foreclosed on by the bank... U.S. Marshals showed up with military style weapons. Nobody resisted violently, but that didn't prevent people from being sent to the hospital. One friend of mine was lying in the street unconscious for several minutes before an ambulance showed up. All to protect the property of the bank, who owned it on paper and wouldn't allow the woman who lived in the house the chance to prevent it...
To me, this is blaming Voluntaryists for the State and clouding your reasoning with personal experiences. At the same time, as a business owner with some level of success, I also use my personal experiences to put a lot of trust in the market, private property, and rational economic actors.
Your criticism and concern is a similar to those ancappies have of ancommies, claiming their society without property rights will always lead to conflict and the rise of a State power to appropriate and redistribute wealth in what turns into centralized planning. I personally think both AnCom and AnCap views have merit, but AnCap seems more rational, IMO, with how human beings work to meet their own, wildly diverse ambitions through prices created by a market system in what would otherwise be overly chaotic or too strictly controlled via central planning. How can we know which works best? To me, we can do our best to measure human well-being and go from there. I see AnCaps as being inclusive. They are fine with people doing the AnCom thing. I don't see AnComs as allowing AnCaps the same freedom.
It would be easier to let AnCaps off the hook for the actions of the state if there were examples of capitalist societies that were not underwritten by state violence.... But you are correct that the forms of the arguments against the opposing sides of this debate often take a similar form.
It would be easier to let AnComs off the hook for the actions of the state if there were examples of communist societies that were not underwritten by state violence...
As you said, it goes both ways. I'm currently on the team with the lowest democide body count (IMO).
Funny thing is, there are quite a few interesting examples of anarchist communities of various forms (see wikipedia), but Statists argue they don't count because they aren't on a large enough scale. I think the Internet and decentralization has changed the game, however, because for the first time ever, networks can be more efficient than hierarchies. That's an amazing thing! What's even more interesting to note is how the origin of the Internet combines so many different world views. Statists argue government involvement created it. AnComs might site the importance of open-source and free software which runs it all. AnCaps could then point out how the commercialization of the Internet is what actually caused it to grow and solve the last mile problem into people's homes.
Moral of the story: we should probably all be a little less dogmatic as we increase our wisdom and experience. :)
@lukestokes most of the anarchist communities that you mention were closer to what leftist anarchists are advocating than capitalistic systems... Especially considering that AnCaps are a relatively new breed, largely emerging from the privileged classes (who are best positioned to benefit from the existing disparity in wealth/property).