&gt; but systems that eschew relativity and focus on universal principles (as defined by the philosophy) are more likely to value freedom over prior restraint.<p>Every system of ethics contains a relative ordering of values (the alternative is having a single value or none) to decide how to act when values conflict. &quot;Freedom&quot; is not such a well-defined (single) value -- i.e. it contains internal contradictions -- and therefore requires finer-grained prioritization at the very least, because all it implies is a <i>lack</i> of restraint, which is impossible in a system with more than one principal (two individuals can&#x27;t both be completely unrestrained as it yields a logical contradiction: one is either allowed to restrain the other or not, either choice contradicts lack of restraint).<p>In short, anarcho-capitalism most certainly doesn&#x27;t value speech over freedom from intimidation <i>absolutely</i>. It might have different  relative priorities of different forms of speech vs. different forms or measures of intimidation. But this is just a difference in measure. An example that requires resolving the contradiction with prioritization is as follows: am I allowed to say, &quot;if you deny evolution, I will stab you&quot;? Prohibiting this speech is a restriction of speech, and allowing this speech is also a restriction of speech (and bear in mind that every kind of law requires intimidation for enforcement -- otherwise laws are not laws, but voluntary behavior -- so we have two options here, both involving intimidation, and both involving speech). This applies even in anarchic systems that don&#x27;t have laws at all, up until the point that you get an anarchic system that has no values (other than individual values).<p>The latter, BTW, is my personal preference, but short of that I prefer a socialist liberal democracy. Any system that places the limit at physical violence (basically all American-style libertarian thought) seems to me to be both arbitrary and not truly anarchic (i.e. far from free). And if we can&#x27;t have true anarchy, we might as well prioritize freedoms in a more principled way. Drawing a <i>single</i> line at physical violence to me seems not only arbitrary but ignorant of how social systems work (both human and animal), where freedoms are often restrained but only rarely through physical violence (and commonly through intimidation). This can be easily observed empirically.