: SDF: You're not a quasi-religious quack? How so?
Why did you split up my sentence to make it appear as two different meanings? You are well aware of the method of presenting opponents in a debate as being founded upon some religious or mystical belief so as to make them appear to others as being less credible. This is a method used generously on all sides of the political-philosophical debate around capitalism, socialism etc.
: SDF: Which argument am I not affecting? And why should I prove or disprove anything? If I disproved anarcho-capitalism like I've done before, you would ignore it.
You did not disprove it except in the comfort zone of you own mind. If you consider that proof or disproof is to be gained by referring to some social 'scientists' and insisting that certain outcomes will arise then your definition of 'proof' is rather loose. If you had said that you had shown why you believe such a system might collapse then you would be making a valid contribution.
QUICK! BEFORE ANYONE NOTICES! Fulfill your duty to the C&A board by having the LAST WORD on all threads, respond !
Regardless of how clever you imagine yourself to be in predicting a response, you will note that I have not been intimidated into not responding in some attempt to 'disprove' you, you have not shown anything other than the approach of a frustrated college boy trying to outwit a competitor for the benefit of onlookers.
Did you have a contribution to make?