[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No pureblood AC structure has existed ever. End of story.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? You say this like it means something.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is that as far as I understand your theories, if you throw a bunch of people together, as long as there's a functioning legal tender (which there generally is, even if it's just gold or something) anarchocapitalism should be the inevitable result. I can hire people to be a security service for me and so forth. The free market in security provision should be operating. The fact that this has time and again collapsed into enclaves where a central organisation has a monopoly on force proves that AC is unstable. I don't understand what you think is the missing secret ingredient. All you've said on this point is this:

[ QUOTE ]
Anarcho-capitalist theory is brand-new on historical timescales. All that needs to be done to make it viable is to spread the word to the masses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, because everyone will hear this theory and go "Oh wow, my eyes are opened, I will be a good anarchocapitalist citizen from this day forward"? This smacks of communist-style utopianism. If the system is stable, then it should be stable regardless of whether people like it or not. If it is going to collapse anytime a group of people decide they don't like anarchocapitalism, then it will be a short lived system.

Edit: To clarify a little, a system should be stable if a majority of people support it; even democracy, for instance, is unstable if a majority of people don't support it. (See also: Iraq). My contention is that AC is not stable even if a large majority support it, as long as the minority are wealthy.