PoalackJokes88

@WandererUber @Waldbrand Huh, I hit the wrong key and deleted my response and somehow got the text to go backwards. It's bewitched!

Anyways:
>In the Chicom sense (not that you are a Fox Republican, but you get what I mean) it would be as easy as "No thank you, we don't allow Chinese people into our community."
No, I was just using it as an easy explicit example. The (((Protocols))) are more relevant to us but also more dated. In some ways the Chicoms are our allies.
The problem is that a large disorganized population can be split. A boycott is like a strike, it's detrimental to those doing it in the short term so undermining it can be profitable. A government can draft the population into doing what it wants, so it can cover for temporary shortfalls (like if they're flooding the market or paying off locals) and it can enforce compliance with a boycott. Note that they don't have to violate property rights to start, simply subsidize the opposition until they can take power, then they can violate property rights after it's too late to stop them.

@WandererUber @Waldbrand Yeah, I'm a former AnCap.

Basically you need a way to expel groups that are acting together to the detriment of your group. Organized warfare is easier on a state level (see the Roman conquest of the Celts, for example), but even if we grant that AnCap societies could enrich themselves to the level of being superior militaries than States, you would still need some way of getting rid of organized "crime" in a way that doesn't invalidate the premise of being AnCap.

Basically if they can tailor their aggression to just below the threshold of being "aggression", they can still attack without a response.