(One final note. Toward the end of the debate Larken mentioned, in rebuttal to Chase's "invite-only" argument, that a world where you had to ask permission to go anywhere would be disastrous, and a Fascist nightmare. While I understand the basic intent of this statement, I have to note that actually, in a society where everything is privatized, technically one always will need contractual permission (whatever form that may take) to move across privately owned property and roads, and to use privately owned services. Larken also mentioned the hypothetical danger of encirclement, which I find strange, given the obvious negative market consequences for such actions and the presence of contractual safeguards against such things happening prior to purchasing land. There is no such thing as a "right to free movement" independent of property rights, as Rachels correctly notes.)

Thank God someone on the other side of this issue from me understands this. I take Chase's general premise about net taxpayers and victims of aggression (though I disagree with his conclusions as to what to do), and you are the first person who I've read or spoken to that disagrees with his premise but acknowledges that private property societies would necessarily be more restrictive to movement.