[moorobot]

As for the 1st part, you essentially don't argue with my point that what you say would happen in a stateless society is not what would really happen under one.

As to the 2nd, I have no idea why you made those points. Neither paragraph has anything to do with anything. Please try and understand my point before criticizing it. Let me try again.


[ QUOTE ]
Anarchists aren't satisfied until bargaining comes down to the individual.

[/ QUOTE ] But my primary point is that this is utterly utopian. Human beings are not going to stop joining with one another for common purposes, no matter if you think that is a good idea or not. It simply doesn't matter whether you think this would be a good idea...it is a fact and needs to be built into all sane political theories. Groups are going to come together, they are going to have more power than isolated individuals, and the groups, therefore, are going to have there way. In fact simple economics should tell you that anarchy incentivizes the use violent cooperation amongst people for common goals, as there is no longer a state (the 'monopoly on the legitimate use of force' which puts its competitors-other producers of violence-out of business, so to speak, so they are unable to achieve there goals via violence) Essentially, anarchocapitalists ask, as you admit, "What would a capitalist economy in which there is no collective action and no willingness to coerce one another look like?" This question, while perhaps of some interest philosophically, is utterly irrelevant politically. The better question to ask politically is: "Given that humans will try to coerce each other and will engage in collective action, what should our institutions look like?"