I don't think you understood what I meant by common law. Common law is the unwritten rule of how people resolve their differences when their natural rights are in conflict. This absolutely will exist, everywhere, and it absolutely will vary, and there is no contract, explicit or implicit.
No, it won't. You can sign a legal contract in anarchism that allows you to murder other people who voluntarily also sign that contract. You can't stop such idiots without AGGRESSION. There is NO uniform standard of law, because anarchism is non-utopian. Utopia implies uniformity. If you have areas with laws subject to geography, you have minarchism. You can have Sharia Law in anarchism, but only among willing participants. Yep...you can cut someone's hand off for theft, if they agree to that ahead of time. Most sane people will choose contracts like described in the videos I asked you to watch...panarchism, if you will. But it is perfectly alowed to harm others in anarchism if they give their permission. We aren't banning boxing, just assault. We aren't banning S&M sex, just rape. If you wish to be assaulted or raped, you can be...as long as those doing so are also voluntary participants in these sociopathic activities. If you rape, assault, or murder people NOT voluntarily engaged in your contract, then you will pay penalties in renumeration AND likely retribution. What renumeration and retribution you pay is determined via the mechanisms in video number 4.
All law is contractual...even now. It's just a forced contract now. In panarchism (an anarchist legal order), social contracts will be voluntary have NO relation to geography within a free territory. If the whole world is a free territory, law has ZERO relation to geography. Law is only contractual. You can pay for defense services in law (insurance, police, etc.), or you can join a non-profit contract, or a mutual exchange contract (if poor) when seeking arbitration of disputes.
Arbitration is a service. To suggest there is no contract is to suggest you can force others to arbitrate your disputes...that's decidely non-anarchist. No one can be forced to serve on juries like in the state, and no one can be forced to arbitrate as a judge. The entire system is contractual in anarchism. Please watch the videos I linked you too.
Once you agree to interact with others in your community, you are bound by the common law of the community.
No you are not, that is minarchism. If you sign a contract that says "drugs are illegal to me and those in the contract, and exposure to drugs is a "crime" in our contract", then you will pay for that insurance. Your neighbor might be a pothead. You may be exposed to weed smoke, let's say. He isn't apart of your contract. He isn't going to held to any "law" in your contract. What happens is, your contract is a service wherein (let's assume for simplicity it's a pay-for contract, not non-profit; but you can extrapolate or watch the videos) you pay a premium for legal insurance. If you don't want to be exposed to drugs but live next to a pothead not in your contract, your legal service can't recoup funds from your exposure to drugs from your neighbor. So, your premiums for that legal service will be higher than if you didn't live next to a pothead. It's just legal insurance.
If you did live next to another contract-mate in your same legal service, then your premium would decrease. But there is nothing making you live near other contract mates in anarchy. NOTHING.
So, back to the example...how would your legal service handle this dispute resolution? You would be paid a pre-set claim amount on your legal insurance once it's established by the company that you've indeed been exposed unfairly to weed smoke. Your premiums would then go up, I'd expect. This makes it advantageous for you to either drop the anti-drug aspect of your contract, OR to move away from the exposure problem (your neighbor). NOTICE, at no time is your nonviolent neighbor ever governed for his drug use. It's got nothing to do with him whatsoever. He didn't sign your contract of silly drug rules. His contract says he can smoke weed all day long on his property, and if you happen to smell the smoke that's your problem with your contract company...not his.
A third neighbor has a contract that says only harm is a crime. He is assaulted by the weed head neighbor one day. Since harm and fraud is never allowed in anarchism (coercion), you can only be harmed or defrauded (no matter what contract company you use) if it's self defense OR you signed a contract with another person(s) that allows you to be legally assaulted, BUT that only applies for you and those contract-mates. Since the pothead didn't sign any such contract with the assaulted neighbor (and neither did he), the pothead had governed the innocent neighbor without permission (coercion). In anarchy any governing of anyone else who is an adult sovereign w/o their permission or out of anything but self defense is prohibited (notice I didn't say it's totally prohibited if it's voluntary).
So how is this resolved? Watch the videos. It specifically covers two people with different contracts, where one is assaulted, and the other is the assaulting party.
The point is simple: law is strictly contractual It's got nothing to do with social norms. Anarchism is specifically against social norms as a form of tyranny. Individuals are sovereign, not communities. I hope you'll verse yourself in anarchist legal order and stop asserting a form of minarchism is "anarchy"...it clearly isn't.
A nation who's culture is non-aggression? I'm ok with that.
Again, look up nationalism..it's an imcompatible ideology with the philosophy of anarchism. It's no more compatible with anarchism than statism. Nationalism always preceeds or emerges in conjunction with statism. A FREE TERRITORY with no nationalist identity is okay...not a "nation" with a coercive culture. Not everyone wants non-aggression, and shouldn't be coerced into it. If they want to murder each other, all willing participants only, then it's legitimate in panarchism (anarchist legal order). You're trying to enforce uniformity, ie Utopia. Anarchism is the only known non-utopian philosophy...so this isn't compatible (although I agree on the NAP; I also reject aggression personally). But in order to be anarchy, you have to allow wlilling participants to harm each other of their own free will via aggression. You can't get two people to agree on everything, let alone a "nation" of millions. It's a utopian nonsense dream. I'ts minarchism. It will require aggression to enforce this "nation" of non-aggression, hence making it a state (and self contradictory).
This is the same problem left anarchist collectivists suffer from; calling it "anarchy" while asserting "property is theft". No uniform organizational method (like deomcracy or non-democracy for examples) or uniform economic system can exist in a non-aggressive society...hence, panarchist synthesis. With panarchism (law) and panarchist synthesis (organization methods and economic schools) you achieve anarchism...a non-aggressive world where everyone can have any system they like as long as all others are voluntarily participating. It has NOTHING to do with geography or social norms, essentially.
Incorrect. What you just said will lead to tyranny, because it creates an unbreakable reliance on the commune, and it breaks the principle that only people can own land.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. What you're asserting is minarchism, not anarchism. You want to be able to reneg on agreements...that's not allowed. You can't gift me a car contractually and then reneg on the deal later. Land property is no different. Your exceptions are decidely coercive. Imagine being a member of that collective and planting crops on that land, then you deciding to throw up a fence and saying "get off my land". It's tyranny...on your part. End of story.
Your whole scenrio you decsctibe after that makes false assumptions. If you join an anti-market commune you voluntarily give up property rights...they are afterall anti-property. You are trying to enforce property rights on people who don't believe in them. That's a state. If you want to change your mind, and start to believe in property again, that's fine...but you can't reneg on your contractual legal agreement with them after-the-fact. You go on to talk about stock holders...there is NO PRIVATE PROPERTY to the contract you signed. Don't sign it if you want to retain property rights...because otherwise you have to AGGRESS against those anti-property anarchists and their contract in order to break the deal. If you want to get out of the contract you'd better have a clause in that contract allowing it, or you damn well better move and abandon your possession (not property) land.
Otherwise, you inevitably have a state.
You're not describing anarchy...you're describing a decentralized and local state...and as such, you are enforcing YOUR idea of liberty on others. You can't do that and be an anarchist. Please, watch the videos and read about panarchist synthesis and panarchism generally.
The second contract, while voluntary, I don't think anyone would agree to it.
You might not aggre to it, I might not agree to it...but someone would. Any variation in contract will be agreed to by someone. You can't make such assumptions...or you destroy liberty and non-uniformity (anarchism). You have to assume that ANY voluntary contract is legitimate...whether you or I find them stupid or masochistic, or not. Anarchism outlaws involuntary sadism, not voluntary masochism.
No sir, that is not what I said. Only people can own property. You can't sell it to a community.
Who made this statist rule? Then churches can't exist, either can companies, or unions, or rotary clubs. Obviously this is a minarchist state you're describing, not anarchy. Obviously this is not the case in anarchy. You CAN sell or give away (voluntary transfer) your property to anyone or any entity you like...that's liberty, that's anarchism, that's property rights. What you're describing is YOUR version of rules...not voluntary society (anarchy).
I'm sorry, but you don't get to make such arbitrary rules....at least not while being an anarchist in favor of anarchy.
Reconsider what you're saying...you're describing minarchy. Some state would be needed to enforce this rule you describe among people who do not VOLUNTARILY subject themselves to this rule. That's obviously anti-anarchy.
Which implies that everyone in that commune owns property
Then it isn't a commune, logically. Communists don't believe in property rights, they believe in possesssion. Have you not read any anarcho communists? You're just making up rules and calling it "anarchy". It's small government statism...sorry, but it is. Anarchy is a society organized VOLUNTARILY...how are you going to organize a commune voluntarily when they aren't free as communists to exercise their belief that "property is theft" among only willing participants with like minds?
Answer: you can't.
You're describing a market minarchy...it's as clear as day. You're creating a state...not me.
I'll in detail define a state (minarchist or otherwise) according to Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner's criteria:
The State draws it's authority from the following areas:
1. The monopoly on social contracts (within a certain area only one standard of law is accepted)
2. The monopoly on violence (the liscence for force to enforce the statist standard of law within the area)
3. The monopoly on capital (having only one accepted currency with no competition allowed)
4. The monopoly on collective defense (using the statist law to compel or conscript someone to fight in a war(s))
5. The monopoly on intelligence (secrecy for the sake of the State, not for the sake of defense directly)
State - a form of collective government where one or more of the above State authorities are in place; compulsory government
Statism - the belief collective government in one or more of the above State authorities is a preferable manner to organize society
You are clearly defining a state. I'm clearly not. I'm sorry, those are just the objective facts.
The good news? You can start advocating anarchism at any time. You can watch those videos, read about panarchism, panarchist synthesis, and Tucker's and Spooner's writings (among dozens of other anarchists) who inspired market anarchism among the likes of Rothbard and the anarcho capitalists (like Roderick Long who is in the hour and half video I linked you too; the first video).
Anarchy is clearly a society organized purely voluntarily...which means a lack of uniformity, and a society that allows any associations among voluntary participants including organizational methods (or lack thereof; like democracy or anti-democractic relationships)
and any economic systems (like communism, socialism, free market, Parecon, etc.)
SIMULTANEOUSLY.