[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

To put it simply: is it not fair to say anarcho-capitalism is not capitalism without government; it’s government by capitalists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you are more or less correct, in my opinion. And being governed by capitalists, with profit incentives, would be a far sight better than what we have today. There are pros and cons to having no government, just as there are pros and cons to having big government. You have to weigh the totality of it all, not just isolated quesions like "OMG WHO WILL PROTECT THE KITTENS"?

Most of the things the government does badly wouldn't happen because there's no profit in it. (think about the public education system we have now for example).

The sets of rules you'd have to live by would be far more local and you'd have many options even within the same locality. And of course, these sets of rules you choose to be governed by are your CHOICE. Don't underestimate the importance of this.

A lot of people dismiss that as irrelevent. I've noticed that the most ardent detractors to AC/libertarianism betray a deep contempt for personal liberty and choice.

The paternalists and the moralists see eye to eye. Authoritarian rule over your every choice is not objectionable to either of them in the end. (And don't underestimate how much of leftwing policy is truly driven by a hatred of the rich as opposed to a love of the poor. Many are willing to sacrifice the liberty of ALL just to get to the rich. Again, think of the public education system we have now).

natedogg