[alexeisadeski3]

In order for Walmart to do business within a jurisdiction and/or with a certain party, it would have to agree a priori to certain requirements: to use certain courts or arbitrators, and for the rulings reached by said parties to be enforceable by certain armed groups.

Thus the private army which fights to free him would be agreed to beforehand.

And presumably Walmart would lose access to some of their markets as a result, and be fined, and/or and/or etc.

[mpyne]

> In order for Walmart to do business within a jurisdiction and/or with a certain party, it would have to agree a priori to certain requirements

Agree with who exactly about those requirements?

The term "jurisdiction" itself implies some governing entity from which to exercise jurisdiction.

I'll assume you mean "the local commune", and when Wal-Mart ignores the rulings of the local commune and opens a shop anyways, what is the commune going to do about it?

Eject them by force you say from the local commune's militia? Wal-Mart will have a bigger army, because they can pay for it.

Eject them by force with a coalition of regional militias perhaps? That might work, but a regional coalition of actors with the right to use force isn't an anarchist commune, it's a government.

[alexeisadeski3]

We can think of problematic occurrences in every social system.

For example:

If you've got this one 'government' controlling everything, what happens if it just up and decides to start enslaving tens of thousands of people and sending them to die in horrific trench warfare? Who's going to stop this 'government' from doing that?

What if this 'government' starts outlawing certain plants and/or alcohol, and punishing people harshly for using them? Who's going to stop the 'government' from doing that?

What if this 'government' enacts racially discriminatory laws?

What if...

[mpyne]

> We can think of problematic occurrences in every social system.

Don't turn the question around.

And don't forget that the one proposing to change the status quo is the one with the responsibility to prove that their proposed change is better, not simply "just as bad".

[patrickambron]

That sounds exactly like a government to me

[alexeisadeski3]

Can't recall a government ever asking my opinion which court I use.

Nor the ability to opt out entirely.