Comment: Definitions again.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: But you're slipping into... (see in situ)

Definitions again.

You are claiming you know what anarchists believe or don't believe. Again, all anarchism means is "absence of government". By definition, absence of government requires a society in which nobody governs anyone else. If that society existed, it would have no crime because the very minute someone controls another person, they are creating government. In that fictional society, where nobody governs anyone else, unalienable rights don't even need to be spoken or written to exist. They would be a natural byproduct of the fact that nobody governs anyone else.
What you seem to think anarchy is, is this lawless society where anyone can rob from anyone or kill them, with no legal repercussion, only the natural action taken by those who have been abused. However, even in a lawless society, the act of the criminal to control the victim fits the defintion of "government". A lawless society doesn't consider or respect unalienable rights. However "anarchy" isn't defined as "a lawless society". Anarchy is defined as "absence of government". And no, that's not double speak. Laws can exist without anyone enforcing them or controlling anyone else. Government simply exists when control is exersized, whether that control is in the manner of enforcing laws, or simply initiating force for natural or random reasons.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).