Why not Anarchism?

[freiheit]

More mumbo jumbo from the Libertarian Grad School of Mumbo Jumbo!

Take it back to the 19th century, where it came from and where it belongs.

That's not an actual argument.

[Dead Flag]

More mumbo jumbo from the Libertarian Grad School of Mumbo Jumbo!

Take it back to the 19th century, where it came from and where it belongs.

That's not an actual argument.

Nor was your assertion.

[freiheit]

More mumbo jumbo from the Libertarian Grad School of Mumbo Jumbo!

Take it back to the 19th century, where it came from and where it belongs.

That's not an actual argument.

Nor was your assertion.

Actually, it was. My argument was that Fact-Man's name-calling and taunting was not an argument. Fact-Man wasn't arguing anything. He was just name-calling and taunting, which is what state-worshipers and other votaries are usually reduced to when confronted with logic.

[NineBerry]

Dead Flag is right. In an anarchistic society, there would be nothing to stop slavery and other crimes.

Only "yellow" capitalist libertarian anarchism. Bakunin's anarchism looks totally different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism

[Dead Flag]

More mumbo jumbo from the Libertarian Grad School of Mumbo Jumbo!

Take it back to the 19th century, where it came from and where it belongs.

That's not an actual argument.

Nor was your assertion.

Actually, it was. My argument was that Fact-Man's name-calling and taunting was not an argument. Fact-Man wasn't arguing anything. He was just name-calling and taunting, which is what state-worshipers and other votaries are usually reduced to when confronted with logic.

No, I meant that the assertion he was responding to was an assertion. And didn't you just resort to name-calling and taunting yourself?

[freiheit]

More mumbo jumbo from the Libertarian Grad School of Mumbo Jumbo!

Take it back to the 19th century, where it came from and where it belongs.

That's not an actual argument.

Nor was your assertion.

Actually, it was. My argument was that Fact-Man's name-calling and taunting was not an argument. Fact-Man wasn't arguing anything. He was just name-calling and taunting, which is what state-worshipers and other votaries are usually reduced to when confronted with logic.

No, I meant that the assertion he was responding to was an assertion. And didn't you just resort to name-calling and taunting yourself?

This?

"In a free society, you would more likely have a multifarious array of lean, competent, efficient, well-armed defense firms with the people fully on their side to contend with, whereas in a statist society, you would have a wasteful, lumbering, incompetent territorial monopolist that habitually pissed its subjects off (and its subjects might even welcome a change in regime!)."

No, that would be an argument based on reasons which I elucidated in my previous posts.

I'm not sure what I said that constituted "taunting."

As for "state-worshipers" and "votaries," I'm fairly sure that those are actual, proper, descriptive words. Calling someone's school of thought a "School of Mumbo Jumbo" doesn't really make any point at all.

In any case, this is completely off-topic.

[Matt H.]

Dead Flag is right. In an anarchistic society, there would be nothing to stop slavery and other crimes.

What's funny is that the very definition of government is slavery and crime.

Not democratic government.

At least in an anarchistic society, individuals may contract with defense firms to insure themselves and their property.

Pay for protection?

Tell that to the average working-class family living on an estate.

[freiheit]

Dead Flag is right. In an anarchistic society, there would be nothing to stop slavery and other crimes.

What's funny is that the very definition of government is slavery and crime.

Not democratic government.

Democratic government is merely the enslavement of the minority by the majority.

At least in an anarchistic society, individuals may contract with defense firms to insure themselves and their property.

Pay for protection?

Tell that to the average working-class family living on an estate.

Are you implying that individuals would be too poor in a free society to afford property protection services?

[Matt H.]

Yes. Nobody would be making any money if there wasn't an economy.

[freiheit]

Yes. Nobody would be making any money if there wasn't an economy.

What is your definition of "an economy," please?