&gt;No. My stance is that innocent-people pay for the crimes of others in your hypothetical.<p>You say &quot;No&quot; but then you repeated what I stated in different terms. Yes, it&#x27;s unfortunate that there are bad people in the world who do not respect the property of others. We take measures to mitigate those risks like putting locks on our doors. That does not denote a market failure. Measures taken to mitigate crimes against us surely cannot be considered paying for something you do not use.<p>When I purchase something from the store, I&#x27;m not just buying that item itself. I&#x27;m paying for all the costs necessary to get that item to me--which includes costs for operating a business. Me paying that costs does not equate paying for something I did not use--I did use it. I used that business in order to be delivered goods. They paid costs to ensure I would get the goods. No, market failure.<p>&gt;IE: you get lung cancer when a Coal Power Plant burns Coal. Market failure, specifically an externality. You pay for lung cancer that was caused by other people.<p>As I&#x27;ve stated previously this is not a market failure because this example depends on the idea of the commons. This exemplifies the failure of the idea of the commons, but not the market.<p>&gt;If you don&#x27;t care about efficient markets, then you probably shouldn&#x27;t call yourself an &quot;ancap&quot;.<p>If you&#x27;re truly interested in having a discussion about morality and theory, why not cut out all the pretentious, snide comments? In this entire discussion I have only been respectful.