[Triumph36]

These arguments go on and on on here - every day a new sucker tries his hand at manuevering his way through the many strawmen and poorly crafted analogies, only to be twisted around.

Yet it is based on just a few principles.

1. Corporations are always more efficient than government.

Sounds true, doesn't it? Fine, I can go along with that - so long as 'more efficient' isn't necessarily 'better'.

2. Private property rights are absolute.

Really? Has anyone you know taken something that's not theirs? For private property rights to be absolute in an anarcho-capitalist state (oxymoron, I know), all members of that state (or region or whatever) must respect that fact. I see this as very unlikely.

3. All government is coercive, forced upon those that do not want it.

Really? Then why isn't everyone an anarcho-capitalist? The central irony of anarcho capitalism is that it purports to force freedom on to the very people who do not want it! Do most people trust corporations, or have an understanding of economics that allows them to 'see the light'? I say no - and price gouging laws and things of this ilk are a representation of why they cannot succeed. When price gouging laws are democratically mandated, it's a sign that people do not trust corporations - certainly not enough to remove the overarching power structure.

Anarcho-capitalists are the polar opposite of Marxists - Marxists who claimed that humanity would alter so fundamentally that the concept of private property would be laughed at like the old myths, now anarcho-capitalists claim that private property will be so sacred and inviolate that corporate justice could make a binding decision. Man both respects and disrespects the concept of private property - man is both savage and rational - man needs both the corporation and the government.