[Emu]

Since Helm already responded to most of it, I'll just respond to a few choice quotes.

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

I've been an ancap for several months now. An agorist is essentially a type of ancap; agorism is basically a variation which opposes patents on that basis that it's an illegitimate form of monopoly, recognizes the possibility of some common property in a free-market society (think air), and views the key to establishing a market anarchist society in the practice of Counter-Economics. I don't see how coming across this type of philosophy and getting interested in it can be viewed as a "flavor of the month" given the positions I currently have.

I find that most people that give themselves -ist labels oftentimes do so because they agree with a few of the simple aspects of it and refuse to acknowlege contradictions -- exactly what you're doing here. You've had, what, 3 or 4 different people telling you quite explicitly about the inherent flaws in your system and you're STILL sticking to it? You don't even defend your positions with why they would work as opposed to what would, theoretically, make them work, like that "you know there's fiat currency, right?" thing you said below. I don't know what the hell fiat currency is, honestly. And you're not describing how 'fiat currency' would make the system work, you're just giving us vague allusions and links to websites that describe it better than you could. If you can't describe it as well or better than some website, you don't know enough about your political theory.

We don't live in a capitalist society. We live in a corporatist republic.

What Helm said. Capitalism ALWAYS evolves into corporatism. The only thing keeping Microsoft from being the only provider of computer software are things like anti-trust laws -- imposed on us by the government to protect consumer and entrepeneur rights. Notice: By the government.

Oh, and as far as no one getting a chance - it's called fiat currency. With the abolition of government, state-sponsored currencies will become valueless.

When you first said that, I'll admit, I immediately thought of this.
But I guess that's not what you mean.

But here's what dictionary dot com says a fiat is:

fi·at ( P )
n.

1. An arbitrary order or decree.
2. Authorization or sanction: government fiat.

This gives me the impression it has to be authorized...Authorized by WHOM, exactly? The people with the goods? Who won't want to give it up? Or would this be the last act of the government before you and your rough and tumble band of road warrior entrepeneurs overthrow it?

It isn't very profitable to engage in combat.

So what the fuck were all the fights for over the past TEN THOUSAND YEARS? Fun? They were for profit, and it worked pretty well, obviously, because now we have states -- a natural progression from a society of groups of people who are under the control of a person who has a lot of wealth who acquired it in the absence of a state.

What is your basis for socialism if not for economic considerations?

It's socialism, not capitalism. Capitalism is almost purely economic in nature, socialism is almost purely social in nature. Why do you think America was so frightened by the Communists during the 50s?

And can you not see how empowering the State would enable it to spread it's own propaganda and crush dissent?

The "state" is not an entity in any real sense. The state in America is controlled by a political party. The 'state' won't be spreading its own propaganda. The political party in control will use the state to spread its propaganda; look at what the Republicans are doing now.

You are right to say that the people need to be educated, but I do not think that the State will educate the people in a manner which is anti-statist. Likewise, the State won't eliminate the classes which it serves.

It's like what Helm said--it's who you vote for. Take the No Child Left Behind act, which focuses on reading, writing and math. Every other subject suffers: Science, social studies, history, the arts, and even P.E. for fuck's sake. The act is ridiculously diabolical, really. It's practically designed to produce not only work drones, but even the blue-collar workers in our country. The act is so ridiculously strict that even if say, three kids can't pass the test, the school doesn't get the funding. The entire school suffers for it. Not to mention the fact that the school spent MORE money than usual in order to bring the kids up to par, and if they fail anyway, it's as if they lost all the money they were going to be given PLUS what they spent. The school suffers, the children suffer, and they come out uneducated and without prospect for the future...and voila.

Consider that for a minute and ask yourself if a Democrat would ever pass a law like that. I believe one of Kerry's platform promises was that he'd reform and/or get rid of the NCLB.

First of all, justice doesn't change with the times; perceptions of justice do.

What's percieved as justice becomes justice. Justice is not a universal constant in any sense of the word.

You provided no proof of your own. You merely made assertions without giving them basis.

Doesn't the burden of proof rest on you for making the assertion that "ancap" would work?