: : 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?
SDF: As I said here, Gee, you're the one who suggested "quasi-religious quack," not me. I guess it's something you want to talk about.
: 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?
SDF: Gee responded, even though I didn't say anything! That's of course expected -- it's easier to bicker than it is to discuss substantively. You still haven't shown how it is that, under any atomized, individualist society,
: The only benefit one would derive equally is the protection against force.
As you said here. Uh, if government can't be trusted to provide any other benefits equally, why this one? Still secretly planning your world dictatorship, so things can be arranged as you please? Don't tell me you're going to let Asarulim have the last word in that thread!
How about this notion that tenants would gleefully hand over large portions of their wages to landlords (as they do now) if there were no government to back up eviction laws? For or against?
Do chronic malnutrition, racism, and slums magically disappear once we declare the world to be anarcho-capitalist? The individuals affected by such things don't have the individual power to change these situations all by their lonesomes -- of course, once they create those evil collectives... implicit in your arguments, Gee, is the notion that anarcho-capitalism is the best thing for US, Gee, whereas for some of us, it isn't, because it leaves things too firmly as they are...
How about the idea that if Gee says:
: The economy shouldnt be 'fixed' by elites or quasi 'egalitarian' interest groups.
as you do here, then it's not going to happen? Well? Is it or isn't it?
Is everyone going to suddenly give up on the notion that economic prosperity is predicated upon the stabilizing influence of government control of the money supply? Should we go back to the 19th century boom-bust cycles on a whim?
Still promoting this idea that monopolies give us lower prices, when monopolies give us lower prices only temporarily, so they can drive competitors out of business?
Still don't think that businesses need government, even when today the businesses are buying more security "cops" than the real cops the government itself is buying?