&gt; Every system of ethics contains a relative ordering of values...<p>&gt; ...anarcho-capitalism most certainly doesn&#x27;t value speech over freedom from intimidation absolutely.<p>It has been several years since I last gave this a lot of thought, so correct me if I&#x27;m wrong, but I only remember one universal principle in anarcho-capitalism: aggression is immoral.  From that single precept every other value is derived - property rights, self ownership, etc.  As I said, it has been a while, but I do remember being impressed by the logical consistency.  So do you have a contradiction that you can point to?<p>&gt; ...am I allowed to say, &quot;if you deny evolution, I will stab you&quot;?<p>Yes.  I don&#x27;t understand how you view that as a restriction on free speech, maybe the point of confusion is around your use of the word &quot;allowed&quot; - because there is no central authority to grant permission in a state of anarchy.<p>&gt; 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>An anarchic system that has laws is not an anarchic system... maybe this is another hint at the point of confusion.  Anarcho-capitalism is not really a form of governance, it is a philosophy that informs thinking related to interaction between individuals.  It leads to a highly distributed system of justice, where each individual relies upon their own system of ethics to mete out justice - you decide if you want to do business with murders or those who consort with murders.<p>I am very interested to hear about any logical inconsistencies you&#x27;ve found, because absent that your first two paragraphs are totally wrong.