Albert P. Franco, II wrote:

I've been lurking on this thread for a while, and I am amazed by the level of utopist muck that is being spewed here by you.

I love you, too.

Without some government the Bad Guys will be the only ones with anything. It is only with the threat of losing their power that leaders do good. If they had no power which could be lost or taken they will always do what's best for them in the short term, which is usually to shit on the peons. Dictators (like Pinochet and Gates) do their dirty deeds because they feel no need to placate the masses.

If they wield no real power, and proceed to do whatever is best for them in the short term, they will be screwing themselves over in the long term (or short term, if doing what they want results in someone shooting them in self defense). And precisely what dirty deeds has Mr. Gates ever done? Excluding those actions in which the judicious use of state regulation was involved.

This anarcho-capitalist spew is so much crap that the bullshit indicators are blaring at top volume. If the people can't control a constitutional government, known for having peacefully free elections for over two hundred years, then how the hell do think you can convince somebody that the people are going to be able to control warlords and monopolies. It's called, "You don't like it? Bang, Bang, you're dead!"

Yah, and then somebody else points a gun at Mr. would-be warlord and goes Bang, Bang, he's dead (it's unsafe having warlords about --sorta like scorpions). That is, if Mr. would-be manages to shoot me without being shot himself.

Try to lift yourself out of the bullshit of your theory and give us at least one REAL example (current or historic) of a large scale, long lasting anarcho-capitalist society. Hippie communes are too small, and make sure it's capitalistic. If you can't think of one in the next year or so then come back and tell us.

It hasn't happened yet. But then, neither had the USA, before 1776. The above is not a reasonable argument. You can, of course, as me how it *could* happen. And unfortunately, you're partially correct, it couldn't happen under current conditions. The amount of personal firepower that is easily accessible by everyone is not sufficient to back up the soverignity of each individual. It's all linked to whether weapons technology is such that individuals can operate weapons which are just as effective as those wielded by highly trained and specialized groups. The pendulum of weapons tech. swings back and forth over time. During the American Revolution, the pendulum was on the side of individuals, as can be shown by the fact that the revolutionaries were carrying better weapons than those carried by professional soldiers, and could use them to equal or larger effect. Today, of course, the pendulum is on the other side. Tanks, fighter planes, aircraft carriers, etc are where it's at. Read "Weapons Systems and Political Stability" by Carroll Quigley, for an interesting analysis on the subject. Of course, the pendulum keeps on swinging, and there are some indications that it's moving back. For example, anti-aircraft missiles have gotten so small that they can be carried by one man. In any modern war, planes had better be damned careful of what they fly over, lest they get a missile up their rears. So, all we need right now is to produce either a convienient impenetrable shield, or perhaps high-energy weapons. When one man can take out a tank with an inexpensive handweapon, we'll be all set. :) Michael Hohensee