[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]

but rather due to their systems of property rights, legal theory, and free trade, all of which developed on the market.


[/ QUOTE ]

All of which were established by a government. The market adapts to whatever given legal framework or property rights regime exists in a given area; it does not create them. None of the cultures I listed had legal systems that sprung whole cloth from the market. And despite what you may have heard, English common law was not particularly libertarian. Property use was regulated by tort law and real property law, both of which were extremely complex. The common law was simply another form of regulation based on rules crafted by judges and juries rather than a legislature or administrative body.

[ QUOTE ]

There have indeed been a number of thriving anarcho-capitalesque societies, including but not limited to the American west, the pre-state Alaskan frontier, Medieval Iceland and Ireland, and some parts and times of Medieval Europe. That these eventually succumbed to government is not an argument in favor of government or against anarchy. In some places it was a cultural problem, i.e. in the American west many people still believed in the Government Fairy, the same on the Alaskan Frontier, so government is what they got. Medieval Iceland and Ireland were conquered by invading governments, but that isn't a knock on anarchy either, it's a knock against being smaller, having fewer resources, and being behind the technology curve. As pvn has so eloquently pointed out, when the Death Star enters orbit it doesn't matter what form of government or lack there of the US has. All else being equal a society based on an untrammeled free market will produce rings around a modern style neo-mercantilist, interventionist, welfare-warfare state. As it was it took mighty England almost a thoudand years to conquer almost Stone Aged Ireland.



[/ QUOTE ]

Your response contains a great number of factual assertions that are unsupported by evidence. In particular, your claims about production are not supported by historical example.

The American West did not begin to thrive until they were under the control of territorial governments. I wouldn't count Alaska as a flourishing civilization even today. What scientific innovations or population explosions took place in Renaissance Iceland and Ireland? Please provide evidence or citations to authority.


[ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't. Better adopted, clearly. Better adapted, hardly.



[/ QUOTE ]

Except that time and again, governments have outperformed anarchies. It is not like there has been a shortage of anarchic regions throughout history. They just haven't performed nearly as well as regions with governments.

[ QUOTE ]

Your argument could just as well be claimed to show that history presents a "strong case" for religion as the "better-adapted" form of philosophical endeavor than science.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Religion helps keep the worker bees in line. It is possible that eventually religion will outlive its usefulness to societal progress and stability. If so, we are not there yet.