-23 votes

Is Ron Paul an anarchist? I don't think so, but...

Is Ron Paul an anarchist? I don't think so, but anarchists have provided evidence in their comments to try prove otherwise. And until now, anarchists at DP were hiding behind Ron Paul's belief in capitalism within the moral framework of limited government. Most of the evidence that anarchists use to claim Ron Paul as one of their own can be found on the first two pages. I'm opposed to the anarchist ideology and in spite of what anarchists say about Ron Paul, he's convinced more citizens of the merits of limited Constitutional government than any other politician in my lifetime. I'm not bringing up this topic to condemn anarchists, but to have an honest discussion about the merits of limited government vs. anarchy.

I recently posted a topic at the DP Liberty Forum titled "Can unalienable rights exist in a free market?" By free market, I meant a market operating in a stateless society, a.k.a. anarchy. Even though unalienable rights exist in anarchist societies, there's no agreement on what those rights would be and no mechanism to protect the free exercise of those rights. But I had mistakenly associated the lawlessness of the Fed, Wall Street and Obama with anarchy, and they are not anarchists, they are fascists. So I changed the name of the post to "Obama, Wall Street, and the Federal Reserve, a Fascist Regime" and pointed out how fascism severely restricts our ability to exercise unalienable rights. Fascism occurs when powerful business interests partner with a dictatorial central government and impose severe economic and social repression.

Many of the replies to my post argued that the definition of a free market doesn't mean a stateless society (anarchy), and for the most part they were right. But many advocated for an idealized form of free markets, i.e., no government intervention, taxation, or subsidies of any kind. I argued that this idealized form of a free market can only exist in a stateless society, and the resulting anarchy would eliminate the ability to exercise unalienable rights. Below are a couple quotes from someone promoting the idealized version of free markets. This link is the comment with the quotes. http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2969576

"Mark, do you believe that taxation is theft, and thus morally wrong? I do, and that is an important part of what makes me a free market capitalist..."

"A true free market capitalist would see taxation as theft of an individuals means of production by use of force, and thus, it is morally indefensible."

In my initial reply, I challenged him/her to admit they're an anarchist. Later I responded with the following argument: Ron Paul advocates for capitalism within the moral framework of limited government, and that requires some taxation. And being you oppose all taxes, how can you support this country's founding documents, which created a limited gov't with the power to tax? You obviously want to eliminate our country as founded because it has the power to tax, and that would mean eliminating the second amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. So why don't you admit you're an anarchist who opposes the founding principles of this country? The links below are the reply to my position stated above, followed by my reply.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2976341
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2976503

The person I quoted above also wrote a post titled "The Constitution supports drones and so do I". In the post he said "Our job as liberty loving citizens is not to repress the development and use of these technologies [drones], rather it is to work within the parameters of a free market in order to use these technologies to enhance freedom and personl liberty." I replied saying the Constitution defines the use of drones, particularly within U.S. borders, not the free market. Here's the link to the post on drones. http://www.dailypaul.com/273257

There were many replies to my post that supported a market completely free from government while saying they supported limited government. This seems to be a contradiction, so I thought it important to talk about the merits of capitalism within the moral framework of limited gov't vs. a completely free market that operates outside of government. If interested, you can read some of the comments yourself, here's the link.
http://www.dailypaul.com/275602

The first reply to this post said the Bill of Rights protects our unalienable rights from government, not people. But governments are created and run by people, so without people government wouldn't exist. And history recognizes King George III as the tyrant that made the Revolution, Constitution and Bill of Rights necessary. Also, the Declaration of Independence specifically mentions the king and lists his crimes against the colonies. So the Bill of Rights protects our unalienable rights from people who run government.

I've read all the comments thus far, and while I support the anarchists idealized vision, i.e., a world where law enforcement by government is virtually obsolete because people are educated to voluntarily make moral choices, there is not one comment that offers practical solutions to get from the current immoral, chaotic state of the world, to a world so voluntarily moral, we no longer need government.

On the contrary, the general consensus among anarchists is that it's hopeless to even try restore a legitimate representative government, so we should all sit back and wait for the global system to collapse and start over. But of course, that's exactly what the tyrants they claim to oppose want us to do. Why? The fascist crony CRAPitalists who control the corrupt system are prepared for a global systemic collapse, at which point, they will control a fragmented neo-fuedalistic totalitarian nightmare. I've spent a lot of time over the years conversing with anarchists, and the plan of INACTION espoused here is a common thread. So I've concluded that the anarchist movement is a front for the very tyrants they claim to oppose.

But to all those who support the practice of capitalism within the moral framework of limited government, don't give up the fight. We can look back on history, from the barbarians to ancient Greek democracy, the Roman Republic before the Roman Empire, the Enlightenment, the Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and know there are tried and true methods to improve the human condition. Check out this post titled "Morals, Ethics and the Role of Gov't in a Capitalist Economy"
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=917

After reading hundreds of comments, most of them from anarchists, there's an important point I need to make. There's compelling evidence demonstrating Wall Street crimes that have not been prosecuted, I'll provide some links below. The one thing that makes me doubt the anarchist claim that their ideology is based on morals that oppose crimes like fraud, is they never call for the law to be enforced. They never point out specific crimes that could be prosecuted. They never express moral outrage over the actions of private sector criminals. It's always the big bad gubbermint victimizing the poor private sector. While they condemn all government as evil, they never call for prosecution of criminals in government either.

So think about this, if anarchists have zero interest in holding criminals accountable now, why would they want a moral standard applied in a privatized world with no government? They argue that having laws against crime is the only reason crime exists, so if we just get rid of government law enforcement, no crime would exist. They use this same "logic" to defend Mexican drug cartels and mafia organizations while condemning government laws that criminalize their viscious business practices. Bottom line, we need to take down criminals in the public and private sectors if we're going to be a just, moral society.

Th first link is Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General for TARP, saying "fraud" by the nine largest banks caused the financial crisis. The second link is William Black. He's former Deputy Director of the Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. After the 1980's S&L meltdown, he helped obtain 1000 felony convictions of "elite" bankers. In this radio interview, he lays out compelling evidence that could result in criminal convictions of top Wall Street bankers. If millions of citizens emailed these links to local attorneys, Sheriffs, county prosecutors, State Attorneys General, and U.S. Attorneys, it would make a difference. R.I.C.O.(Racketeering, Influence, and Corrupt Organizations) and "honest services" statutes, would corral Wall Street criminals and their bipartisan co-conspirators.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343248
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/10/18/prosecuting-wall-street/p...

For more info check out this post titled "Crime of the Century"
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=697



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You still haven't explained

You still haven't explained how you support the Constitution which wouldn't allow your precious small government to do what you want government to do; legislate morality.

Maybe you're thinking of a different Constitution; but you certainly aren't thinking of any of the State Constitutions or the Federal Constitution.

I've explained it clearly and concisely...

numerous times. But you insist on pretending not to comprehend my explanation because it proves the irrational nature of anarcho-barbarism.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Actually you haven't. The

Actually you haven't. The Constitution doesn't grant the govenrment the authority to legislate morality or non-violent crimes at all. So, I'm just trying to find out how you support it, since you keep complaing about government is needed to legislate morality.

Philistine, the enumerated powers doctrine...

which is part of the Constitution, is based on the moral principle that the power of those who govern needs to be restrained. And the Bill of Rights, which are also based on moral principles, further restrain the power of the people who run government. Anarcho-barbarism places no moral restraints on markets or society, which under a Constitutional Republic, are subordinate to the moral restraints underlying the rule of law.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

What exactly do you think the

What exactly do you think the US Constitution authorized the Federal Government the ability to control? The US Constituion limited the powers of the Federal Government to only a few things and none of them had anything to do with controlling the morality of the governed.

And the 10th amendment stated that, that power which was not explicitely granted to the Federal government in the US Constituion was left to the States. However, the States, within their very own Constitutions are also not permited to control the morality of the people; because that wasn't one of the powers granted to the States within their Constitutions.

I really don't think you know how Constituions work; nor what it actually means if something in not expressly written within a Constitution.

Constitutions are rules; these particular Constituions happen to be rules of govenrments. Unlike in most instances, if something is not written in the rules -granting the governing body the power to control it- then the governing body has NO jurisdiction over that particular item/act/deed/whatever. A Constituional Amendment would be needed to add that power to the list of powers granted to the governing body by the Constituion.

Nowhere in any of those Constitutions are the Federal or State Governments given the power to control morality or the non-violent actions of the people.

You are a complete joke. The

You are a complete joke. The Civil War had nothing ot do with slavery. The South was already moving away from slavery because it was too costly; you do realize that to maintain slaves one has to feed, clothe, house, provide medical treatment, and security so they don't runaway. This is far more expensive then, just paying someone to do the damn job; and buying a slave wasn't that cheep. The African slavery would have ended for the same reason the Irish slavery ended years before it; it became too damn costly to maintain. Just think, the Irish were sold for 1/5 what the Africans were sold for.

Your whole premise is entirely nonsense.

As I pointed out before, the US Constitution allowed slavery; did it not? But I thought we needed some government to protect people's rights. It did a wonderful job for them; didn't it? The government sactioned slavery; and the very first slave was due to a court case. In that time we had indentured servitude to repay value lost or stolen; however, when the value was greater than the person could ever repay, the court ordered him to eternal indentured servitude. Making him a lifelong slave. I find it interesting that the first person to own an African slave was a black man in NY.

PS, I like how you changed your post before I commented on that nonsense.

Philistine, once again you prove that...

you're not willing or able to think logically. First, no one with any credibility denies that southern states fought the Civil War to preserve their welfare economy, which was subsidized by slavery. Second, slavery still exists today, but it's an anarcho-black market. And anarchist comments have repeatedly stated that they want to eliminate government so poor oppressed mafia organizations can "legally" operate their black markets free from moral judegement.

Regarding the edit of my comment. Isn't that what the edit function is for? I guess you think that freedom is only for anarcho-barbarians, and everyone else is supposed conform to their perverse notion of "freedom."

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2974976 (evidence of treason)
http://www.dailypaul.com/274979 (solutions to limit fascist gov't)

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1026 This link will get you to the pdf file "Knowledge is Power". For more evidence of treasonous acts by elected officials check out the sections "American and Chinese Communism, a Partnership" and "Closing the Loop on Terrorism"

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

You are a lunatic, if you

You are a lunatic, if you think the un-Civil War was about slavery. Maybe you should read Lincoln's inagural address and also some of his letters to a lifelong friend; they betray what you are saying about that un-Civil War.

As far as the black-market is conserned, the things found there are the things which your government has banned -or otherwise made illegal- which the Constitution didn't grant the government the ability to do. Those who are employed in a slave-like fashion(meanining unable to quit) are those who -for one reason or another- are unable to be employed in the white-market; your government has created these conditions also, seeing as how many of these people are immigrants.

While yes the edit function does exist, it was meant for simple typos not necessarly for what you used it for.

Philistine, why did slave states secede...

from the Union? The main reason was new states were supporting abolition so eventually, Congress would be dominated by abolitionist states that would vote to abolish slavery in the south.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

The North was heavily in debt

The North was heavily in debt using paper fiat currency, with very little exportation. The South still manufactured and exported and primarily still used gold. The North was desperate for the gold that the South had in abundence and the North had very limited amount thereof.

Don't forget, at that time the States still were semi-independent. The US being a Union wasn't considered a single country. This didn't happen until after the un-Civil War.

So yes, the Union was seperating because the North was trying -through legislation- to take the wealth of the South. Lincoln untilized the un-Civil War to turn a Union into a Country, redistribute the wealth, and do it all under the auspices of freeing the slaves.

LOL totally false, and I

LOL totally false, and I believe the South had the legal right to secede. The South was economically and therefore politically unable to compete with the North because the North had embraced capitalism and the South had embraced savagery/slavery and feudalism. Animals.

Ventura 2012

Sorry, but the North was

Sorry, but the North was nearly bankrupt and hit was heavily over-leveraged, i.e. it had a lot of debt. The South had poduction and exportation, the North's exportaion dwindled and with the use of their fiat paper dept incured.

As people can find out if they realy desire to look, slavery was ending. But it doesn't make as good of a story as the lie; because the lie is what has been sold for many years as the reason for murdering 600,000 plus people. If people realy knew it was to confiscate the wealth of the South, they may feel a bit different about Lincoln and the un-Civil War.

Lol I really don't know where

Lol I really don't know where you're getting your history from. Capitalism > Slavery/Feudalism

Ventura 2012

Possible Solutions

The current US regime is fascist. In my opinion, the first step to restoring Constitutional government is restoring the rule of law. Initially, Bradley Manning was unjustly charged with "aiding the enemy", which carries a death sentence. But unlike Bradley Manning, there is compelling evidence that US political and business leaders are "aiding the enemy" and they should be charged with treason. Even if there seems to be little chance of holding the traitors accountable, we must try, it's our duty as citizens. Bradley Manning and troops on the ground put everything on the line for the principles of freedom that America stands for. In order to support them, we must do our best to restore the rule of law here at home.

In the first link below, you'll find evidence of a US/China/Saudi conspiracy to sponsor terrorism, and use the resulting terrorism as a pretext for eliminating individual liberties around the world. The first link is a comment that takes about five minutes to read and another forty minutes to watch the inserted videos, which are not far out youtube vids. The second link is a pdf file that provides much more detail of treasonous acts by government officials. Check out the sections titled "American and Chinese Communism, a Partnership" and "Closing the Loop on Terrorism" in the pdf file "Knowledge is Power".

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2974976
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1026

This next link is a short post on derivatives and possible solutions to reign the "dark" derivatives market. It also provides evidence of financial crimes to be prosecuted.

http://www.dailypaul.com/274979

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

You still never answered the

You still never answered the question how you plan on getteing the tyrannical government to put itself -or agents thereof- on trial? They put Manning on trial because he did something they didn't like. They all are complicit in the looting, enslaving, and murdering of people foreign and domestic; there is no way in hell that they are going to be facing trial for anything.

Philistine, yes I have answered it and....

I'll do it again. First, people need pay no attention to the fatalistic anarcho-drivel coming from you. You want all citizens to give up without a fight so the tyrants you claim to oppose can continue implementing their fascist global agenda. The odds that Constitutionalists face today are no worse than those the founders faced when they decided to take on the British Empire. If they had listened to anarcho-cowards the Revolution wouldn't have occured.

So how did the founders do it? First, Thomas Paine and others published material like "Common Sense" which lit fires in the minds of men that generated the ground swell of support necessary for the Revolution. The rest is revolution 101. Organize, educate, motivate, put everything on the line and do it. Unlike the founders, citizens today have the advantage of having the law on their side. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are still the law of the land and we must demand they be enforced, starting with locking up traitors.

Citizens must pressure law enforcement to act. One option is emailing some of the info I've provided to local attorneys, Sheriffs, county attorneys, State Attorneys General and U.S. Attorneys. Also, by law the public airwaves must be used to serve the public interest, but currently they're being used to defraud the public. Citizens must petition the FCC to revoke the broadcast licenses of offenders and take our airwaves back. There's much more in the pdf "Knowledge is Power" that I linked to in the previous comment.

The Declaration of Independence ends with these words: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." The founders knew the price of freedom, total committment with no guarantee of success.

We have troops who are putting everything on the line, so the least we can do is make a committment to do our best to restore Constitutional government here at home. That's the DP mission but anarcho-barbarians slither out from under their rocks to oppose it. The founders faced similar fatalistic rhetoric from British loyalists and overcame it. There's one intangible factor called zeitgeist: There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Fascism

Requires government. You are aware of that right? How can we be supporting fascism if our desire is for their to be no government by which to favor the select few over all others by monopolistic force? You are aware that these giants we are fighting became giants through government force, no?

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

Fascism Requires Government, You are aware of that right?

There's only a thin veneer of lies separating Fascism and Communism, and you're working your way towards understanding that. One of your fellow Anarchists said something that summed this up nicely. HE said: "If anarchism is the absence of a state, both political systems are impossible."

Government is collective force, and the only legitimate purpose of government is to defend liberty, to serve justice. An Anarcho-Barbarian wants free market solutions to serve justice.

In Anarchy, a Fascist will no longer need "the state". because government is collective force, and it's now available down at the local WalMart. Welcome to an Anarchists Utopia.

Anarcho-Nazi: "Welcome aboard. You'll find Rent-A-Goons on aisle 666."

So now that you understand Government is collective force and the proper role of government is to serve justice, let's take another look at Anarchism under a new light.

Anarcho-Fascism: The merger of collective force and corporate power.
Anarcho-Communism: Collective force owns everything.

Which are you? Remember, don't try and tell me about how you're going to create a state to stop me. It's mob rules now, and I'm going control my mob from behind closed doors. After all, we sign the checks, not you.

You really don't think of

You really don't think of actual monetary costs; do you? That sounds just like a statist. That is exactly how we got into this mess. The Democratic Statists on the left clammering for the Wealfare State, and the Republican Statists on the Right clammering for the Warfare State; and none of them even entertaining the idea of the financial costs of any of it.

Yes; in a volutaryist system, you would be free to try and impose your will on others. However, the financial costs to do so, would be much greater than you are obviously imagining; leaving you with two options: continue and most likely going bankrupt, or give-up.

Under a voluntaryist system, your company is going to have to compete for market-share against -potentially- an infinite number of competitors. This is going to bring your profit margin down; with little recourse but to try and provide a better widget at a better price. The use of force in this will cost you more than just producing a better product. Mercenaries aren't cheep; and high quality mercs really aren't cheep.

Do you really think that people/companies are going to hemorage money on nonsense which is more likely to bankrupt them, then make them rich?

Like I said earlier: "You are a liar and fraud."

"You really don't think of actual monetary costs; do you? That sounds just like a statist."

OF course I do, and so does somebody who practices extortion, and slavery. They serve the profit motive as well, and when you think you're going to get justice buying collective violence in a free market, that's what people will buy. They'll want to get the most they can for their money, and there is no better way to acquire profit with violence than to take liberty.

How are you going to stop me from doing it? Don't try and tell me about how you're going to create a state or a government to do it. Don't tell me about how you're going to collectivize people and try to get them to serve justice (defend liberty) rather than just serve there own self interest.

You reject my principles remember? "Freedom, liberty, and their common defense."

Don't claim you'll now embrace those principles, because remember: 'government is not supposed to be used to enforce a moral code.'

No principle is allowed to be enforced through violence. Your only answer will be to choose nihilism, and turn a blind eye to all the injustice I can create. You oppose my principles. You oppose defending liberty. You oppose serving justice.

"the Republican Statists on the Right clammering for the Warfare State"

Like I said earlier: "You are a liar and fraud." Point me towards my "clammering for the Warfare State" posts... Can't? Nope. That's because you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

"Under a voluntaryist system, your company is going to have to compete for market-share against -potentially- an infinite number of competitors."

Perhaps in a just society, but that's not what you'll be creating. You're just a capitalist who can't defend his own political system and can't figure out why a capitalist supports justice.

I won't have to compete with "an infinite number of competitors" because I can now buy collective violence and use extortion, monopolies, cartels, and gangland government to squash out my competitors. I'll take over your "free markets", and it will be as easy as tempting weak people through their covetous nature.

You'll have nowhere left to hide, because you've rejected the very idea that you can oppose me, that you can create an island in the storm, a country, and that within your country you will enforce a principle so people can be free to produce and compete.

You will be nothing in an ocean of violence, none of which you can compete against as one man. Whatcha going do? Collectivise? Nope. Fight? Nope.

SERVE a criminal at the end of a gun? Yep.

"Do you really think that people/companies are going to hemorage money on nonsense which is more likely to bankrupt them, then make them rich?"

Do I really think that companies will pay to use collective violence to stifle competition? ROFL

You're kidding right? Do you know where you are? Do you know how Libertarians feel about Fascists like you?

Well first of all if it is

Well first of all if it is you and a few people who come to my house looking for trouble then I will shoot you. If you are talking about an organization forming to extort money and such it would be highly unlikely. It would be much easier and much less costly potentially to just work for it. I guess you don't like work; most statists don't.

If you were to higher poeple ot loot and such for you and you want to continuously ship them out to get shot at, shot, and killed to steal other peoples things, then the price will sky-rocket and you will no longer be able to afford to do such stupid things. Do you under stand?

When the likelyhood of dying increases, the mercs will charge more money then the people will be willing to spend. Why you ask? Because wherever the money would be coming from to pay the mercs -a business- will have to fight competition for customers to try and keep some of their previously held government protected market share. This company or companies won't be able to continuously afford to ship high quality mercs out to possibly get killed. They would never be able to maintain that policy, because it would cause them to hemorage money. This is why government which go continuously off to war end up broke; this is the current US problem. Unlike government which could tax everybody for their stupid policy, these wealthy people or compnies would have to foot the bill entirely themselves. They couldn't push it onto the consumers without risking losing market share to compeditors. Also, unlike government these individuals or companies won't be able to pass the bill on to future generations either. This is why all of your ridiculous claims will never be sustainable in a volunatryist system.

I don't need to collectivize people; the natural economics of the situation will cause your stupid plans of tyrannical grandure to bankrupt you; that is why people like you -tyrants- need governments to exist.

Private mercenary....

armies are a booming business, so to speak. And in a stateless society, their business would only grow.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

The individual private mercs

The individual private mercs earn $100k and up; the companies charge huge fees. The people and companies who pay for this, have their income and wealth protected via government. Without government, the people who hold their wealth in paper assets will lose it. Without government, the companies will have to compete with potentially an infinite number of competetors -this will severly hamper their market-share and drive their profit down. How would they pay the exhorbetant fees professional mercs would still be chargeing? Most people -private mercs- are not going to keep that job, if the pay gets reduced to $20-30k per year. You have a problem not associating costs; but then again that is the problem with all statists.

If you just apply the market forces you pretend..

to believe in, you would be able to answer your own question. Mercenaries would charge what the market can bear. The fact that you pretend not to know this is just another example that anarcho-barbarians are sociopathic liars.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2974976 (evidence of treason)
http://www.dailypaul.com/274979 (solutions to limit fascist gov't)
my website: http://www.standupforyourrights.me

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

When the market wouldn't bear

When the market wouldn't bear the price that the mercs want -for getting shot at- how many of them do you really think will stay mercs.

You talk of todays security firms. I told you why they are so big and why there are so many of them; and that is because the individuals who just get hired start making $100k and over. THis is a very good incentive to get people to do that job. If the pay is $20k; I highly doubt that as many people would be as willing to get shot at, wouldn't you?

You assume that there will remain the high level of security companies and security specialists in a voluntaryist system. I doubt your premise because, as I've stated, who will be willing to get shot at for $20k? Not many, and especially not the people who are currently employed as security professionals.

People who want what you have.

"When the market wouldn't bear the price that the mercs want -for getting shot at- how many of them do you really think will stay mercs."

Sure they would, and if not, people would volunteer to steal what isn't theirs. It would be as easy as tempting them. How charitable are you going to be? If you can't afford security, I have no doubt you won't be thinking about charity.

You know you're undercutting all your own arguments right? Can the free market provide for your security solutions or not? Why would greedy people not incorporate and use their 'infrastructure of collective violence' to claim dominion and run a Fascist global economy without any of those pesky "statists" getting in their way?

Like I said, volunteering to take what's yours will be BIG Business. I won't even need that many "highly trained mercs". In fact, If you can't afford security, I could probably take what's yours with a stick AnBarb, and that's the world you'll create, a world filled with barbarians beating each other with sticks.

"I highly doubt that as many people would be as willing to get shot at, wouldn't you?"

Not at all. The world is filled with covetous people trying to take what isn't theirs and shooting at each other Anarchist.

"I doubt your premise because, as I've stated, who will be willing to get shot at for $20k?"

It doesn't really matter what an Anarchist thinks. Remember how you thought companies wouldn't be willing to pay for collective violence to stifle competition?

"Who will be willing?"

People who want what you have. People who want to serve justice on Anarchists. People will be lining up, volunteering to shoot at you Anarchist, and since you condemn "freedom, liberty, and their common defense", we won't even break a sweat.

You do realize that

You do realize that incorporation was created by government right? Without a government how does somebody incorporate?

The free market will provide security; as much as you and your town or whatever are willing to afford. However, if you want to continuously ship them out to get shot at, shot, and killed to steal other peoples things, then the price will sky-rocket and you will no longer be able to afford to do such stupid things. Do you under stand?

The provision security will not be expensive, because the likelyhood that they would get killed is low. However, when the likelyhood of dying increases, the mercs will charge more money then the people will be willing to spend. Why you ask? Because wherever the money would be coming from to pay the mercs -a business- will have to fight competition for customers to try and keep some of their previously held government protected market share. This company or companies won't be able to continuously afford to ship high quality mercs out to possibly get killed. They would never be able to maintain that policy, because it would cause them to hemorage money. This is why government which go continuously off to war end up broke; this is the current US problem. Unlike government which could tax everybody for their stupid policy, these wealthy people or compnies would have to foot the bill entirely themselves. They couldn't push it onto the consumers without risking losing market share to compeditors. Also, unlike government these individuals or companies won't be able to pass the bill on to future generations either. This is why all of your ridiculous claims will never be sustainable in a volunatryist system.

Philistine, mercenaries have...

existed for thousands of years. So only irrational anarcho-barbarians would suggest they won't continue to exist.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Yes they have existed, in

Yes they have existed, in places with governments intact; that is what I've been saying.

Dude,

I'll ask you again. What if anarchism IS the idea whose time has come?

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.