>>84400
>This starts to look very alike the "not real socialism/communism" argument
Not really, what he wrote was rather simple;
>when an act of aggression is initiated, that means it wasn't real libertarianism
Meaning that Libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, etc all ultimately revolve around voluntary, peaceful action regarding individuals along with their property. When force is initiated, ie: someone getting robbed, that this is not the free market at work but rather an obfuscation in voluntary and peaceful exchange, similar to the state. The state is not a part of the free market because it does not act in a voluntary manner, rather, it relies on force to achieve it's means of funding, monopolistic service provision, etc.
On to the next part and this is the part where you fail to grip what he's saying;
> In a true free market, market forces will ensure acts of aggression are minimized as much as possible.
Means very simply that in the free market, aggression (I specify aggression and not violence because violence is ultimately a very broad term that can incorporate activities such as boxing, mma, self-defense, etc) is curtailed due to market forces valuing individuals, enterprises and businesses who plan for long term benefit and provide valuable services over those who are less intelligent, more violent, and less likely to plan for long term benefits. People or even entire communities that are known to commit or advocate for aggressive acts such as stealing from the general public, mass murder, etc are ostracized and/or dealt with violently if push comes to shove.
That's not to say that aggressive acts or violations of the NAP such as murder or theft will somehow all magically disappear in a Libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist society, after all, no society regardless of the system has ever been able to achieve this and it's unlikely that any society ever will. What this implies, however, is that due to the way that the market works and it's favoring of peaceful and efficient actors, that aggression will be kept to a minimum as it is De-incentivized and simply not profitable in any real sense.
TL;DR: Aggression is not a part of the market, and due to how the market works, aggression is not incentivized, rather it is De-incentivized.
> comfy song unrelated