Comment: I am simply pointing-out a

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You certainly don't sound (see in situ)

I am simply pointing-out a

I am simply pointing-out a potential problem with market-anarchism:

Majority views are going to have the most power in the system and if they don't agree with NAP, they can actually use the market to effectively and efficiently quash those who they don't agree with (unlike government which attempts to do so in an ineffective and inefficient manner while having to maintain some form of legitimacy by claiming adherence to a Constitution or laws even if it isn't adhering). In anarchy, the agents contracted with for the enforcing of "rights" will enforce those "rights" which the majority claims and not some NAP or individual rights or Bill of Rights or otherwise. All things become subjective under the market and thus with market-anarchy.

Hence, why a social contract is still necessary... a social contract which requires ALL businesses to operate on the non-aggression principle.