(IFF) you believe in fundamental, inalienable human rights (THEN) you must...

What you're saying is not true. If I steal your thing, it does not become not your thing because you did not enforce the possession of that thing. Something can be wrong, even if it happens. There are consequences for actions as seen in natural law. Some call it karma. You do good and good happens to you, generally speaking. Rights do not come from people and are not enforced or protected by people.

I'm suggesting that if you believe in fundamental, inalienable human rights (THEN) you must also believe in some reliable and durable enforcement mechanism that protects those rights.

What you're saying is not true. If I steal your thing, it does not become not your thing because you did not enforce the possession of that thing. Something can be wrong, even if it happens.

"inherent" "objective" "morality" is a pervasive myth (brainwashing) that turns our natural instincts (core family dynamic) against our fellow man and twists them in favor of those who hold the levers of power.

It's a con-game that saves them enormous amounts of time and money enforcing their will.

When our owners violate "inherent" "objective" "morality" and we are outraged, but powerless, and our screams of protest are silenced by a boot on our neck (the boot of a fellow peasant) we comfort ourselves with this idiotic myth, "THEY WILL SUFFER IN HELL", and our owners laugh all the way to the bank.

Click to watch 3 minutes,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-PSCqhkWhg

Not necessarily. One could argue in a pragmatic sense the utility of rights without a durable enforcement mechanism, but sustenance of those rights are primarily based and contingent on the examination of the human condition, not the capacity to prevent or end the violation of said rights.

You're conflating "rights" with "effective control" as demonstrated in the response of your counterpart from your blog:

What you're saying is not true. If I steal your thing, it does not become not your thing because you did not enforce the possession of that thing. Something can be wrong, even if it happens.

(IFF) ownership is NOT determined by legal status (THEN) all ownership claims are disputes that can ONLY be solved by consensus, coercion, or brute force.

First, the State isn't the same as one's "community."

In the absence of a state, ownership claims can be disputed and resolved through cooperation--that is, individuals who don't intend to risk escalation or even reprisals.

When people find themselves in an unaffiliated autonomous collective, they form spontaneous groups of "community" enforcers (to enact the "will" of the "community").

These (unchallenged) vigilante groups are proto-governments.

Please let me know what you think of this sterling example,

Click to watch 5 minutes,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rMXmAFjUdo

COOPERATION =/= RISK AVOIDANCE

RISK AVOIDANCE = COERCION

COERCION is COERCION whether it is EXPLICIT or IMPLICIT.

How does your example inform on people's alleged proclivity to form vigilante proto-governments as a result of being part of an unaffiliated collective? Were the baldknobbers the standard or a caricature?

COOPERATION =/= RISK AVOIDANCE

RISK AVOIDANCE = COERCION

COERCION is COERCION whether it is EXPLICIT or IMPLICIT.

Elaborate.

The Baldknobbers are a classic, even prototypical example.

A "good" organization of concerned citizens will inevitably run amok (like a homeowner association).

It's the same story as "The Godfather 2".

Imagine a society where everyone thinks of themselves as BATMAN (self-reliant, punishing "evil").

Now imagine if 200 of the (ostensibly well-intentioned) BATMEN formed an organization.

True cooperation "should be" based on mutual benefit (usually at a third party's expense).

However, both parties are rarely "equals" and if one side (or both) fears consequences (withholding of resources or violence) then they are being coerced.

The threat doesn't need to be stated plainly.  Passive intimidation is the most effective form of persuasion.

It's the same story as "The Godfather 2".

Which collective is that? The Corleone family? The Senate? Hyman Roth's investment club?

True cooperation "should be" based on mutual benefit (usually at a third party's expense).

Why must a mutual benefit come at a third party's expense?

In the flashback that reveals the origins of "The Corleone Family" rise to power, regular citizens voice their quibbles to "The Godfather", these are quibbles that the individuals find personally significant, but "the police" and or other official authority figures will not take seriously.

By appealing to and assisting those who feel powerless, loyalty and thus power is accumulated by the savvy.

Sometimes it's an "outside" threat, like bands of roving outlaws or raiders.  But once the "outside" threat is vanquished, the organization that vanquished them is loathe to disband.  And like all organizations (organisms) it becomes self-protecting and self-interested (proto-government).

Membership carries special privileges.

I was careful to say "usually" and not "always" because true symbiosis is extremely rare in the sphere of human cooperation.

Please share what you believe might qualify as a counter-factual example.

Hence the mere absence of government does not suffice. I would never argue nor have I ever argued that.

The anarchy of which I speak requires a moral revolution.

And how are proto-governments more inclined then governments to become "self"-protecting and "self"-interested?

Why is true symbiosis extremely rare in the sphere of human cooperation? What informs this claim?

The absence (or indifference, or incompetence) of government leaves a power-vacuum

which will be filled by the savvy.

Humans are basically selfish babies.

Any system that REQUIRES humans to act as intelligent, self-reliant, adults is doomed.

And like ALL organizations (organisms) it becomes self-protecting and self-interested (proto-government).

One type is not "more inclined" than another.

Although a HOLACRACY takes better care of its own members than a traditional FEUDAL HIERARCHY.

Because humans are basically selfish babies.

If I raise chickens and my neighbor raises pigs, we might agree to trade some number of eggs for some number of strips of bacon.

This is a nearly symbiotic (purely voluntary) relationship (as long as bacon and eggs are not considered necessities).

However, if a third neighbor also raises chickens and undercuts my bacon price, I have to pay more eggs to get my bacon.

The cooperation between neighbor 2 and neighbor 3 comes at "my expense".

...conceive and rationalize a moral standard which is fundamentally premised on self-interest. The only moral standard that's consistent with respect to the aforementioned directive is individualism. And by extending the premise of self-interest, we can conceive and rationalize autonomy, sovereignty, and voluntarism.

And how, exactly is your collective of autonomous individual voluntary sovereigns going to protect themselves from a well organized FEUDAL HIERARCHY (without organizing their own FEUDAL HIERARCHY)?

Presuming this feudal hierarchy is aggressive, then we take up arms and defend our lands. But answer me this: what place would feudal hierarchies have in the advent of the moral revolution which informs the anarchy for which I argue?

You will need to immunize your population from coercion.

And I'm not sure how you can possibly do that without creating some sort of "religion".

Can you imagine an entire "society" of (individually sovereign) people willing to actually stake their lives for "give me liberty or give me death"?

The self-interested babies will be the first to collaborate with their invaders, and the rest will die.

Constitutional Holacracy has logic built into the framework itself.

It's designed from the ground-up to mitigate mob rule as well as preventing power accumulation by a single member.

What good is the framework if those who participate are self-interested babies?

The framework mitigates the potential harm by simultaneously limiting and also protecting the influence of individual members.