Well you would need to first get an understanding of just what I am talking about, and then we can see how close particular events in reality have been.

The closest thing today is commercial international law.

OK, lets cut to the chase, not all countries have a vested interest in getting along, they want to dominate other regions, that's human nature.
Communists have no interest in Capitalism, except when it furthers their cause of total domination over those they conquered and currently rule or are pursuing.

Which brings us full circle, you claim we simply need to quit participating and our system would collapse and from it's ashes would magically appear a Capitalist system of trade, no govt and freedom for all.

Again, let me reiterate, human nature has yet to be placed in context, you ignore the fact that half the country likes socialism, these people have no interest in seeing Capitalism prevail.
So tell me again, how will this fantasy world of yours succeed?

This is the reason I live in a factual world, not a theoretical one, theory is fine for the dreamer, but even the best laid plans can never account for human stupidity.

Let me be blunt, your dream is beyond fiction and to think it even has a chance of replacing our current form of Govt is nothing short of the dreams of a naive kid.
Get off your cloud and join the rest of us in fighting the monster at hand, once slain, we can talk about your ideas...

Yes.

That is the magic of the spontaneous order.

It is also the product of self interest.

Remember, Adam Smith and the invisible hand?

That explanation covers more than just markets. It explains society, law, money and language, no less.

Human nature is always front and center in these debates.

Without praxeology we are lost in trying to understand human action.

Half the country can like whatever it wants. But when you have to produce to eat, you become a capitalist.

Just like it did in the past.

Rewind to beginning of society and you will see my argument.
There is no factual world apart from the theoretical.

You can't separate them that clearly.

Well, you can, but you would be wrong to do so.

Let me be blunt.

I believe you.

I believe you see my arguments in that light.

I also believe you don't really have a clue about what we are talking about.

I absolutely do, it's the same argument socialists make, both have an ideal vision of society that simply isn't sustainable.

Lets take war for example, lets assume the private sector is in charge of security, but as with human nature, you have those that have grown tired of corruption and want to overthrow your society.

Without laws with teeth, how are they punished? Remember, you said there is no Govt only commercial agreements.

But lets take a closer look at security, is it one corporation in charge, or is it all business in charge of security?
This means you'll need a full time Military, one with rules and regs of engagement, pay scale, command structure.
Damn, sounds like Govt, but lets continue, what happens when a rather large corporation decides it wants it's own security force, and builds a bigger stronger force than that of society?

There won't be a thing you can do about it, because you didn't have laws with teeth.
Now there is a shift in power, contracts are in peril of being nullified, the new corporate power is in control.

But of course, that would never happen in a total Democracy, right?

Like I said. You have literally no clue at all about what I am talking about.

No, it's obviously you that is clueless.
How to do deal with violent outlaws?

Self defense is the always just and after the act is done, a private arbitration process, followed by the possibility of social ostracism, is the enforcement mechanism.
[/quote]
That's all well and good, but what if they weren't able to protect themselves and the perp got away with murder, do you think simple arbitration and ostracism is really any kind of deterrent?

Though, I am not going to spend too much time describing this because it has been done to death.
Your knowledge can only grow from here by doing some independent study.

No, in your mind you're convinced you've made a case, but clearly you have not or we wouldn't be discussing it.
Total democracy? Who brought the state into this discussion??!

Before we can discuss anarchy and the state, we have to understand human nature. And I can tell from our discussions that human nature is something many assume they understand, because they are human. But when we actually start discussing the issue, it is clear that the subject is one not widely understood.

Read Sun Tzu and get back to me on that.

The fact is, centralized political authority is incompatible with human nature.

Wrong, hierarchy is human nature, in fact it spans across the animal kingdom.

We are equal as individuals, but there will always be those wanting to rule over others they see as weak, that is human nature, even I, someone that believes in fairness, will shred someone I perceive as weak and unwilling to pull their fair share and participate, and that goes for voting as well, don't participate, don't expect respect.

Hmm, Heard alot of good ideas and also alot that I cannot agree with.  I can also see where some on here are trying to be arbitrators or at the very least neutral lite, like taxed and Turks, who really have kept my interest because just when I think i've had enough one of them will punt another quip across and I lose it one more time( ).

With all of that aside, my theory is that "without counsel, the masses will fall".  That counsel has to be fair but that's where the line is drawn in the sand and i'll give you one fine example and shutup.  But first an explanation of my point.

  From our beginnings in America, we had strong religious views and these views were contrary with other religious views but these were the rule when the country was founded.  Even those views weren't perfect though.  Wonder why each religion thought it's views were perfect and ought to overshadow the others?  I guess when you get right down to the bottom line, everybody has an opinion and we could talk for days and get nothing accomplished.  Should there be fairness or should we just go with feelings or maybe even just our own understanding of situations based on sometimes ineffectual witness of situations and or people?  Getting to my point.

  Can anyone see why we had to get away from being governed by or controlled by religious types?  I don't have a problem with my religion because it aligns itself with what is accepted as the truth that is found in the Bible.  Being a product of my rearing, I adhere to it's teachings.  In other words, I have been conditioned to follow after a certain set of rules that does include respecting the rule of law.  Here comes that "line in the sand thingy again".  My understanding of situations that I face depends upon how much time I have devoted to studying these situations and contemplating different possibilities but always with much meditation to the precepts of fairness that I have learned in and by life experiences.  Think maybe that's how we wound up with the founding fathers in the first place.  Whew!  Are they rolling in their graves right now or what?  It certainly has evolved into something different now, hasn't it?

  Think back to the Salem witch trials in the 1600's.  Religious types were the authority back then and innocent people were burned at the stake because of customary law, even though the victims were at the mercy of the collective opinions of folks that conjured up gossip and lies-heck, even imaginary devils that these victims were in league with just because they may have actually enjoyed the feminine past-time of dancing in the moonlight with other girls, just at play.  That is what I thought of when TL mentioned "ostracizing".  Hey, they all agreed except the ones that got cooked.  I can see where some if not all of the people in this "cult"had their drawers in a wad when they agreed to any such doings if they didn't apply the rules of their "utopia" to themselves before they agreed to them.   Someone had to intervene that had a little common sense, but look how long that took.

The system can be righted and we do need an intervention.  Sorry folks, Obunglar isn't the one to right our wrongs and "Mr. Deeds" types aren't around anymore.  But we can't separate ourselves from the tribe(s).  What we can do is be vocal about our beliefs and exercise our right to them (that means-vote).  We aren't going to move any mountains by just our vote alone, but we can collectively strive to make our opinion(s) known.  That's where the term counts that implies a win by "strategy in numbers".     I'm not really sure of TL's ideaology but sure enough to know that it's one not commonly held by members of this forum and also one not apt to garner any followers amongst us either.

I've been tempted to "not vote" because I don't trust today's voting process and I do think that dems have done enough homework to be able to turn the process to their favor by using means they've already tested and succeeded at in other areas of their interests.  The republican party will have to re-educate themselves in areas that will help them gain an edge over contenders for the WH.  Until then, I will remain a conservative and vote against liberalism, marxism, dumbdemisms, socialisms, Islamisms, rinoisms. and communisms.   :