[ QUOTE ]
The irony of this is amazing. You are the one who claims there is one simple solution for complex problems: monopoly and violence. I am the one who realizes that the best possible way to search a vast solution space is to allow many competitors to investigate that space and allow consumers to choose the best solutions. Market solutions are often anything but "simple". Do you have any idea how complicated it is to make a
pencil? No human being on earth could do it. It requires the coordination of literally millions of people, none of whom do their part because they want a pencil. The complete production process for this simplest of modern day devices would be literally impossible to even document fully, much less centrally plan. For a *pencil*.
The beauty of the market is precisely that it produces incredibly complex coordinated solutions without central planning because of the logic of a few simple things; self interest via mutual accomodation, the division of labor and exchange. It is the logic that produces the solutions that is elementary, not the solutions.
[ QUOTE ]
and that my rhetoric radar flies through the roof when a theory for how society should be apparently has no flaws.
[/ QUOTE ]
This again. Who said it doesn't have flaws? A free market anarchic society is made up of *human beings*, who are flawed. There will be murder, rape, theft, hunger, natural disasters, pain and suffering, all the normal things associated with being human. The question is, what is the best process to try to solve these types of problems in the best possible way? I claim nothing more than that a process based on competition and selection will be better at finding solutions than a process based on monopoly and the coercive institutionalization of monopoly solutions. That's it. Nothing more.
[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Borodog