Two Things:
1. It sounds like to me that there is no room for human compassion in crypto-anarchy. (Seems like we will all end up sitting in our "compounds" armed to the teeth and if anybody comes along we either blow'em to bits or pay them anonymous digital cash to go away).
There is plenty of room for human compassion. Forcing me (with threats of violence) to pay for something I don't believe in, or disagree with is not compassion. It's theft.
2. I think that it's funny that ultra-conservatives who are for letting "competition" improve health care are setting themselves up for more abortions.
Being "ultra-conservative" for certain values of that word, I think abortion laws ought to be changed. I don't think they should stop at birth, I think they ought to be allowed up until the tissue mass is willing and able to be self-sufficient. This would of course make it open season on many politicians.
How does crypto-anarchy/libertarian/anarchy propose to deal with the "tragedy of the commons" where by doing what is best for each persons own
The "tragedy of the commons" is only possible where there is something held in common by all people. If everything is owned by an individual or company, then it isn't a "commons", and they have the power to deny access to those who would abuse it, and the responsibility (to themselves, their share holders whatever) to take care of it. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural