: : Oh I understand it only to well, I've read Adam Smith, Milton Friedmann (the 'anarcho' capitalist who calls for state provision where, shock, horror the market fails!), Novack or is it Nozick something like that and more, I find it all wedded to ideological utopias and very, very ready to ignore, not just reality and consequences but their own logic.
: I will respond to your long post when I find the time, but I just had to say a quick "thank you" for demonstrating your ignorance of what is called anarcho-capitalism. FYI, Robert Nozick, Adam Smith, and Milton Friedman (that's with one "n",) don't qualify. Nozick is a philosopher, not an economist.
Early Nozick or late Nozick?; after all, much of Thatcherism/Reaganism was based on Nozick's ideas of minimalist state - ideas which he later rejected.
When you hear someone talking about 'rolling back the state', you're listening to one of Nozick's disowned kiddies.
I'd broadly agree with Lark's assessment of anarcho-capitalism; and I've no more faith than he does in rule-by-corporation.
Why do you think that corporates would make a better government than a state? - after all, if real-world corporations were any more benign than governments, then McSpotlight wouldn't exist.
Neither would Corporate Watch.
And British American Tobacco wouldn't be supporting black-market smuggling in order to expand their market share in South America and the Far East.
: I'd tell you who you should be reading, but somehow I doubt that it would make much difference.
(What are the bets that Ayn Rand crops up somewhere?)