tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post1716534637785252522..comments2023-10-22T06:54:40.529-04:00Comments on Identity Check: Pillage Perfect.Anokhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-69700156883337330672008-10-11T14:25:00.000-04:002008-10-11T14:25:00.000-04:00I believe criminals would prefer to be dealt by th...<I>I believe criminals would prefer to be dealt by the police than by an angry mob!</I><BR/><BR/>I think the wrongly accused (whether accused by malice or mistake) would rather deal with police and courts rather than angry mobs.<BR/><BR/>* * *<BR/><BR/>The last few weeks, however, have shown us clearly what happens when the state exercises minimal regulation of the market.Ian Thalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15348768867561450314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-58903251690472317292008-10-11T13:47:00.000-04:002008-10-11T13:47:00.000-04:00Anok said: "I have serious doubts that if you rem...Anok said: "I have serious doubts that if you removed these laws from official law status, that hoards of otherwise normal people will begin raping and pillaging. Dealing with people who do commit these crimes is a topic for another post, however."<BR/><BR/>I believe criminals would prefer to be dealt by the police than by an angry mob!<BR/><BR/>Great post - and I admit, I'm not very well versed in these things, but you've sparked an interest. I'll be cyber-stalking you via blogger. Take care.Erickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07505213759188691570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-84572151906203566932008-07-30T15:28:00.000-04:002008-07-30T15:28:00.000-04:00Everybody posting such intelligent sounding words....Everybody posting such intelligent sounding words. I wonder if it's really this complicated.This Brazen Teacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02924652859389870978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-87086527368826060622008-07-29T21:14:00.000-04:002008-07-29T21:14:00.000-04:00I'd like some of what "anonymous" had...only about...I'd like some of what "anonymous" had...only about half the dose.<BR/><BR/>I can't remember where I first heard it, but a good concept of what we now live under is socialized corporatist fascism. Maybe it was Chomsky. It's private profit at public expense, along with public bailout of corporate risk. <BR/><BR/>It's a sick convoluted state of human life and well-being sacrificed to corporate "personhood".<BR/><BR/>The revocation of this personhood of corporate entities is the beginning of our struggle.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-36692048638915039962008-07-26T15:57:00.000-04:002008-07-26T15:57:00.000-04:00So are you a Ron Paul Fan? :)Tony Catheyhttp://ww...So are you a Ron Paul Fan? :)<BR/><BR/>Tony Cathey<BR/>http://www.imablogger.netAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-31436759638618642272008-07-26T00:16:00.000-04:002008-07-26T00:16:00.000-04:00Ultimately, what "anarcho-capitalists" (who includ...Ultimately, what "anarcho-capitalists" (who include most people on the right side of the political spectrum who call themselves "libertarians") want is not anarchy but fuedalism, which, unfortunately is what we're moving closer and closer to with the increasing gap between rich and poor, gated communities, and private security companies that increasingly resember private armies. Then, generally, when right wingers talk about freedom, they mean feudalism: a system in which a tiny elite has the freedom to do anything it wants, including freedom to enslave the many. In other words, as you point out, it's a lot closer to fascism than anarchy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-59904030164768037532008-07-25T00:57:00.000-04:002008-07-25T00:57:00.000-04:00abolish the holy roman pedophile church http://kat...abolish the holy roman pedophile church <BR/><BR/>http://katolskaeuhydrahelvetet.blogspot.com/<BR/><BR/>Please spread <BR/><BR/>Avskaffas <BR/>Democracy, science, etc. during the 100 years = and not abolished the non-developed, true, liberating and non-disinterested projects (to kk). <BR/>Self (paedophilia, fine buildings, thick smack stomachs and wine as pisseriet in ancient monasteries = fin righteousness). Gamle Luther gave the course a boot and became "I protest" (Protestant). <BR/><BR/>2000 years of skithistoria <BR/>Original, superior, women prostitutes, genera Bora / Medicis influence of horse-trading, haggling and murder and lie and ränksmiderier on this helvetstron (cf. old Byzantine hell where bla women had influence = may well have been a female pope once) <BR/><BR/>It may itself seek info <BR/><BR/>Legend, prophecy (based on human empirical work and obvious prediction and conclusion = vicious helvetskyrka). <BR/>There is no (tips on lotto and will continue with the conclusion of tex Satan takes over the horse because all I have experienced). <BR/><BR/>Did themselves on the beach as it says in johannes revelation <BR/>A genklonexperiment in the catacombs orchestrated by nazistpåven Råttan Benedict ( "I'm going to make a new world") <BR/>What world is this? <BR/><BR/>http://culbreath.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/anthony-esolen-on-the-new-barbarianism/ <BR/><BR/>A question is who are the barbarians? <BR/><BR/>In the Middle Ages (like hanging after all this kärleksreligion äggtjuv and fisketjuv in England and France, among others). <BR/>Dom söp down the judgement in bla Provence (and sold the harvest expensive and lived loppan themselves). <BR/>Exiles in Revenes. <BR/><BR/>A righteous revenge for all paedophilia, prostitution gross (bla Russian monasteries = no sexual needs could not be performed there) and bla Catholic smaller states (Genoa tex galärflotta as a punishment and the legalization of brothels) <BR/>It was hanging up the judgement in the trees and took just rov<BR/><BR/>http://vinakro.blogspot.com/<BR/><BR/><BR/>I don´t think US wins - it´s Sweden, Italy, Franch, England and China <BR/><BR/>Us may win in short but not in long <BR/><BR/>With the new ufo ships who will patrol our borders<BR/><BR/>And the swedish grundlow and it´s attitudes on religion, information freedom etc <BR/><BR/>http://strikeforcevetansvarreligionen.blogspot.com/<BR/>Then, it is the Jewish question - many Jews in the labour movement (selling in intellectual solutions that kommunistpacket today "mass empty words without substance"). <BR/>The same mentality today = perhaps that nature is moving towards eradication. The control of some media - and similar organizations. <BR/>The Devil's people (easy on eliminating). <BR/><BR/>Count 1 million times <BR/>What gave nybyggaranda etc <BR/><BR/>Spider, which can kill judgement <BR/><BR/>It was a jew girl who now is named Rebecca Lord <BR/>She was not horny, but well on the crafty manipulation of others (Rebecca mata hari). <BR/>She was fitted and dejected, but one day she committed suicide. <BR/>Then came a klumpedunsröv from israeli higher uni, Haifa, and would learn empiricism but then struck schizopartikeln to, and it scratched at the robber and he pulled out a hemorojd <BR/>it was shown to contain a worm that later destroyed a large part of the human world <BR/><BR/>it was late in the history books <BR/>astroillium israelis <BR/><BR/>particle = <BR/>nervous system has, of course, new data on databasförmåga (activates when the schizophrenia of us) <BR/>Tex send nano-robots and religious cultural context and play on (socialpsykologi) and then endanger humanity <BR/>threat to humanityAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-36860213141487577762008-07-21T15:25:00.000-04:002008-07-21T15:25:00.000-04:00Ian, thank you you summed it up well.And even I ag...Ian, thank you you summed it up well.<BR/><BR/>And even I agree with your last question - there is an evolutionary progress to Anarchism - workable solutions for various arguments do indeed exist - but not for all arguments or tenants.<BR/><BR/>RSH, HEY man! Good to see you about. Fantastic quote - yes yes yes!Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-77996969868242219132008-07-21T15:23:00.000-04:002008-07-21T15:23:00.000-04:00On my post above. I just realized that it was prob...<I>On my post above. I just realized that it was probably David D. Friedman that was being mentioned and not Milton Friedman. My bad.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks VH, I think the person they meant to say was David Friedman as well!Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-16223476516443198082008-07-21T15:21:00.000-04:002008-07-21T15:21:00.000-04:00Then why have corporations at all?Anok, I don't un...<I>Then why have corporations at all?<BR/><BR/>Anok, I don't understand how one can have anarchy while at the same time abolishing capitalism.<BR/><BR/>Anarchy, to me, means no laws, PERIOD -- including no laws against capitalism or corporations.</I><BR/><BR/>Anarchists oppose corporations and capitalism along side of State establishments for the very reasons I posted above - the two cannot be separated. Ian answered it well enough!<BR/><BR/>Oh, and thanks!Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-33377400020723679652008-07-21T15:20:00.000-04:002008-07-21T15:20:00.000-04:00Why you would spend time writing such a long post ...<I>Why you would spend time writing such a long post about anarcho-capitalism without taking the time to at least understand it properly is a mystery, but I encourage you to actually read what it's about not guess.</I><BR/><BR/>No guesses here, I've been reading extensively. Between the originator's words and anarcho-capitalist's words, what I say stands even more truthful, although I also understand that supporters of AC hate hearing that.<BR/><BR/><I>Anarcho-capitalism emphasises right, not law.</I><BR/><BR/>Then why do the supporters and originators of Anarcho-capitalism want police (<B>law</B> enforcement), <B>law</B>yers, and courts?<BR/><BR/>Because they want laws. Start reading what supporters and bloggers are saying abo9ut what they see fit as anarcho-capitalist systems. They want A Rule of Law, and some have even said as much. Although Rothbard originally starts off about Natural Law he goes on to describe how the courts of law, law enforcement, and arbitration would work in privatized industries. <BR/><BR/>Hence, Rule of Law.Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-90542129238591296382008-07-21T04:00:00.000-04:002008-07-21T04:00:00.000-04:00Anok, rsh here, I see your blogging still, lol. An...Anok, rsh here, I see your blogging still, lol. Another great post, another great read. Although, I'm sorry to hear you've read about anarcho-capitalism, lol. Anyway, I hope you're doing well, comrade. <BR/><BR/>Here's a little something from Albert Meltzer...<BR/><BR/>What Constitutes an Authoritarian Society?<BR/><BR/>Exploitation -- Manipulation -- Suppression. The organs of repression consist of many arms of the State: <BR/><BR/>The Apparatus of Government: The legislature, the judicature, the monarchy, the Civil Service, the Armed Forces, the Police etc. <BR/><BR/>The Apparatus of Persuasion: The educational system, the media, including TV, radio and the press, the Church, and even forms of apparent dissent that in reality condition us to accept the present system -- the parliamentary Opposition is the most obvious, but many other alternatives to the accepted system too, e.g., revolution presented as merely one in lifestyle or musical preference, academic teaching of Marxist-Leninism etc. <BR/><BR/>The Apparatus of Exploitation: The monetary system; financial control; the Banks; the Stock Exchange; individual, collective, and State employers; land ownership. Under capitalism there is no escaping this. <BR/><BR/>Most political reformers have some part of the unfree system they wish to abolish Republicans would abolish the monarchy, Secularists would abolish or disestablish the Church, Socialists would (or used to) wish to abolish the apparatus of exploitation; pacifists would abolish the Army. Anarchism is unique in wishing to abolish all. The only true definition of an Anarchist is one who wishes to believes it desirable to abolish all; who believe it possible to abolish all, the sooner the better; and who works to bring such abolition about.proletarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08158873365752146210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-34577730213402786492008-07-19T11:27:00.000-04:002008-07-19T11:27:00.000-04:00Garg the Unzola: That's now how it works in practi...Garg the Unzola:<BR/><BR/><I> That's now how it works in practice, and that's not the idea.</I><BR/><BR/>The problem is that if you agree that that's how <I>laissez-faire</I> capitalism works in practice, then your constant stumping for it on BlogCatalog and your own blog, makes even less sense.<BR/><BR/><I>we would find a private court we both agree upon,</I><BR/><BR/>There are such things as agreed-upon mediators can resolve a dispute, but doesn't the idea of an "agreed upon private court" require that at least one party trust the other's good will (which is not always the case when there is a dispute.)<BR/><BR/>a.b.:<BR/><BR/><I>Anarcho-capitalism emphasises right, not law. Individuals have certain natural rights which must not be infringed. Corporations do not exist as subject of right, they are just a way to describe the action of a bunch of people.</I><BR/><BR/>a.) How do you protect "natural rights" from being infringed under anarcho-capitalism?<BR/><BR/>b.) No one has invented a magic wand that sweeps corporations out of existence. They are a force with which society must contend.<BR/><BR/>c.) Corporations (or the groups of individuals that make up a corporation) have a self-interest in ensuring that they are not held accountable or responsible for harmful actions. What is the countervailing force to keep them in check?<BR/><BR/>d.) Historically speaking, "rights" are enshrined by law. Rights don't exist in "a state of nature" anymore than laws or corporations-- unless one buys into some sort of Hobbesian fable.<BR/><BR/>Jane:<BR/><BR/><I>Anarchy, to me, means no laws, PERIOD -- including no laws against capitalism or corporations.</I><BR/><BR/>Anarchist thought has evolved over the years. In the 19th century, after the abolition of slavery, it seemed to many that the only form of oppression worth noting was state-based tyranny (i.e. laws, police, courts, armies). Anarchist thought has since evolved to seeing the role that economic arrangements play in oppression (absorbing elements of Marxist thought, while rejecting the authoritarianism of Leninist communism) as well as grasping the importance of feminist critique.<BR/><BR/>The point is that anarchism now articulates itself as being for human dignity untouched by oppression and unnecessary hierarchy-- and so capital is just as much a problem as the state in the anarchist's eyes-- after all, corporations without state regulation become a new state.<BR/><BR/>The real question becomes, "does anarchism offer workable solutions to go along with its critique?" I'm not convinced that the answer is "yes."Ian Thalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15348768867561450314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-90356305582979223952008-07-18T17:15:00.000-04:002008-07-18T17:15:00.000-04:00On my post above. I just realized that it was prob...On my post above. I just realized that it was probably David D. Friedman that was being mentioned and not Milton Friedman. My bad.VHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02070864512034930080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-57979007270536971662008-07-18T14:18:00.000-04:002008-07-18T14:18:00.000-04:00Hey Anok,You said: "I'm not sure what the Friedman...Hey Anok,<BR/>You said: "I'm not sure what the Friedman reference is about either. My post is Friedman type? Someone's response here is? I thought he was for a free market, a Libertarian, and almost an anarcho-capitalist but with the opinion that the government still had it's purpose and proper uses with regards to economics. From what I understand is that the likes of Rothbard didn't think he was a free market advocate at all." <BR/><BR/>Your right about Murray Rothbard, he was a true Anarcho-capitalist; Friedman was not as radical. Friedman even believed that the state had a role, albeit very limited, in collecting taxes and redistributing it. For example, Friedman's idea of school vouchers does not mean to privatize or abolish all public schools but to have a state collect taxes for public schools and then redistribute said funds to families to spend on schools of their choice. <BR/>Very interesting post.VHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02070864512034930080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-87309185030024286942008-07-18T12:06:00.000-04:002008-07-18T12:06:00.000-04:00Then why have corporations at all?Anok, I don't un...Then why have corporations at all?<BR/><BR/>Anok, I don't understand how one can have anarchy while at the same time abolishing capitalism.<BR/><BR/>Anarchy, to me, means no laws, PERIOD -- including no laws against capitalism or corporations.<BR/><BR/>I added you to my blogroll, BTW.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-52030542778439009222008-07-17T18:38:00.000-04:002008-07-17T18:38:00.000-04:00Why you would spend time writing such a long post ...Why you would spend time writing such a long post about anarcho-capitalism without taking the time to at least understand it properly is a mystery, but I encourage you to actually read what it's about not guess. I stopped reading after you claimed anarcho-capitalism supported "the rule of law for individuals but not corporations". This is dumb, there is no such idea in anarcho-capitalism. <BR/><BR/>Anarcho-capitalism emphasises right, not law. Individuals have certain natural rights which must not be infringed. Corporations do not exist as subject of right, they are just a way to describe the action of a bunch of people. If "a corporation" does something bad, the chain of individuals involved in this action are responsible for it, as individuals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-13009556039497734512008-07-16T20:51:00.000-04:002008-07-16T20:51:00.000-04:00Hey Bobo - good to see you again. You know, I thin...Hey Bobo - good to see you again. You know, I think we have more in common then most people would imagine, politically speaking.<BR/><BR/>Out of all the comments I have received about this post, here, privately, on other forums and in other debates about this I have found that most of the people who oppose it (namely, just about anyone who isn't into it, officially) has stated they oppose it for the same or similar reasons, and they come from all across the board.<BR/><BR/>Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates, A politicals, Anarchists, Communists (obviously LOL) etc. Even people - like my own brother who loves to make money in the system - has voiced his disapproval of such a system.<BR/><BR/>It's interesting to me - the opposition to it goes across all boundaries, it seems. That's saying something.Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-64858786231511849052008-07-16T20:41:00.000-04:002008-07-16T20:41:00.000-04:00I did a little research on this before I read your...I did a little research on this before I read your post. A little scary even for this staunch evil conservative clown. I've linked back to this from my blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-45485052710586270382008-07-16T17:38:00.000-04:002008-07-16T17:38:00.000-04:00Hey Ren, thanks for stopping in! I'm a little conf...Hey Ren, thanks for stopping in! I'm a little confused about your reply...what is this about voting in this election? I tell people that if they can't support either candidate vote, "NONE OF THE ABOVE", but to vote on voting day. I'm not sure what that has to do with Anarcho-capitalism? <BR/><BR/>I popped over to the Porcupine blog, looks interesting, I'll have to read it in depth a bit more.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what the Friedman reference is about either. My post is Friedman type? Someone's response here is? I thought he was for a free market, a Libertarian, and almost an anarcho-capitalist but with the opinion that the government still had it's purpose and proper uses with regards to economics. From what I understand is that the likes of Rothbard didn't think he was a free market advocate at all, and other's felt his policies were too far out (or too short sighted), criticisms by Kruger, for example.<BR/><BR/>I dunno, Maybe I'm too tired to read your reply right!<BR/><BR/>Although I agree so long as there is a class system, there is a State.Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-47617104603692686372008-07-16T16:28:00.000-04:002008-07-16T16:28:00.000-04:00There is no getting around, as long as classes exi...There is no getting around, as long as classes exist, a state exists.<BR/><BR/>Anarchism is hindered by ridiculous obstructions. Laws, taxes, prisons, regulations have a place. You can't gain as a movement unless you have 2 things.<BR/><BR/>1) Strong principles (which you have).<BR/>2) Tactical flexibility (You need work on).<BR/><BR/>In this election period, telling people voting is evil, keeps you on the sidelines.<BR/><BR/>See Larry at the blog "Porcupine Blog." He is a socialist anarchist. This post flirts with Milt Friedman type reaction.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-28481564962994113402008-07-16T14:47:00.000-04:002008-07-16T14:47:00.000-04:00Ian, Thanks, I agree.Mike, it looks as if other re...Ian, Thanks, I agree.<BR/><BR/>Mike, it looks as if other readers certainly get what I am saying. Once again, you've failed to notice the obvious. I'm going to officially nick name you Capitan McMissestheobvious.<BR/><BR/>Garg: To address a few points you've made,<BR/><BR/><I>Sure, monopolies would form, but nothing would prevent you from starting your own alternative for poorer people, meaning laissez faire capitalism would result in more jobs and more affordable prices.</I><BR/><BR/>There is nothing stopping people from starting their own companies now, in fact the monopoly laws were put into place to protect smaller upstart businesses from being crushed out of the market. I've heard other An-caps express that "everyone could be their own boss, everyone could be self employed" but capitalism doesn't work that way. You can only have so many cooks in the kitchen, lest the ability to produce anything would cease.<BR/><BR/>Particularly if the market of concern is already dominated by large wealthy corporations, or monopolies.<BR/><BR/><I>Currently, we have a centrally controlled system, which is the requirement for fascism to take hold. This means you only have to worry about one monopoly, which seems like a good thing on paper, but that neglects to make room for competition.</I><BR/><BR/>Our central monopoly however, at least has some say by the people it affects, and not just corporations. It has at least some checks and balances, where representatives can be removed from office, taken to court, and even sued by any person - not just those who can afford it.<BR/><BR/>It would not create more jobs, well, yes it would. But it would create more jobs only if slave wages would be allowed. Otherwise, it's profits as usual. <BR/><BR/>I see deregulation of corporate entities coupled with abolishment of the only thing balancing corporate power as the ultimate chance for one - it only takes one - megalomaniac to take over completely. With US democratic checks and balances this is much harder to do (it' snot impossible, but would require a military coup, instead of a large bank account and a conglomerate of companies). <BR/><BR/>Too much of a risk to allow it to ever come to fruition.<BR/><BR/><I>The idea is that if you and I had a dispute, we would find a private court we both agree upon, and sign a contract to stipulate that we are bound by its outcome. Maybe it's a good idea, maybe not.</I><BR/><BR/>Why use court litigation at all? For what purpose? Why pay private industries in competition for dollars when you can litigate yourselves? It brings into question the legitimacy of authority being given to private "lawyers" who are upholding "laws" brought about by another private firm - all to make a profit.<BR/><BR/><I>Complex problems need less centralised authority, which is exactly how the open source movement works </I> <BR/><BR/>Open source movement? Is this another name for Anarcho-capitalism, or is this a different free market ideology altogether?<BR/><BR/>My real problem with the whole of it is that government regulations have not stopped business from flourishing, and yet some people want more, more, more even to the detriment of others. If we are going to have capitalism, we MUST have something regulating it, outside of the capitalist system. Ergo, a State.<BR/><BR/>That is assuming you can afford to at that point. AT least with the US government in these situations, you can get legal representation if you can't afford private ones.Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-38785944904387429952008-07-16T10:05:00.000-04:002008-07-16T10:05:00.000-04:00Great post! I don't agree that a laissez faire cap...Great post! I don't agree that a laissez faire capitalist system would result in a centrally controlled system. That's now how it works in practice, and that's not the idea.<BR/><BR/>Sure, monopolies would form, but nothing would prevent you from starting your own alternative for poorer people, meaning laissez faire capitalism would result in more jobs and more affordable prices. <BR/><BR/>Currently, we have a centrally controlled system, which is the requirement for fascism to take hold. This means you only have to worry about one monopoly, which seems like a good thing on paper, but that neglects to make room for competition. Oh, and the freedom factor which would allow you to start your own competition for the monopolies.<BR/><BR/>A centrally controlled system means only the gaps the government see fit to fill are filled. The idea of a laissez faire system is to allow individuals to fill any gaps they see fit, and let the free market decide which ideas stick and which don't. <BR/><BR/>A few ideas of Anarcho-Capitalism I haven't really thought through are the idea of completely privatised police and judiciary systems. The idea is that if you and I had a dispute, we would find a private court we both agree upon, and sign a contract to stipulate that we are bound by its outcome. Maybe it's a good idea, maybe not. <BR/><BR/>Ultimately, simple problems need centralised, dictatorial solutions like what you have in a factory (this nut needs to go on that bolt). Complex problems need less centralised authority, which is exactly how the open source movement works (read up on it, they're a bunch of anarchists too..).Garg Unzolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17584292157716117449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-51440988894472541812008-07-16T08:39:00.000-04:002008-07-16T08:39:00.000-04:00Anok, still trying to make your point I see, only ...Anok, still trying to make your point I see, only you know what it ia though (-; And no you still don't get it, nor do you have a clue what Anarcho-Capitalism is about. True Anarchy (in the form you use it) will always fail as it always has. True Capitalism (in the form I use it) is the only real freedom...I will let you get back to your Utopia now, lol.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-26092262702511881252008-07-16T08:32:00.000-04:002008-07-16T08:32:00.000-04:00Probably your best post yet.What amazes me is how ...Probably your best post yet.<BR/><BR/>What amazes me is how those who advocate for <I>laissez-faire</I> capitalism, never seem to grasp the basic points you make about what capitalists actually do when they aren't being regulated.Ian Thalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15348768867561450314noreply@blogger.com