I dont like cops.

Yes I do, they depend on my money and I depend on their service. If they don't follow my orders they don't get paid and get a shitty review, which ends up the other privatized military will out compete shitty private army services, But since you don't know anything about capitalism moving on.

I´ve already answered some of these arguments earlier so not sure why you´re repeating these statements. But since Castro died oh baby it's happy days! so I'll take on this wall of statism! "Your article clearly argues every country listed above is economically growing compared to the US. Also Canada is nothing like California or Sweden, especially in business practices." Strawman argument.. I never said they are the same economically, but they are regulated shitholes. Dissaprove me that they aren´t regulated shitholes. "Again the Federal Reserve ACT may have been a government pushed bill, however it was protecting privatized interests, which had enslaved the American people to an inflated dollar." Corporate interest, it is a government invention. I´ve already stated this earlier. "Also saying every war is started by the government is far from the truth, perhaps in America's history yes, but not for the he EST of the the world. " WTF? All wars are caused due to governments, even revolutions and religious wars are due to failed governments. America is the only statepower that caused wars? Are you insane?! The Nazi government caused WW2, Soviet government caused Aghan war in 1980s etc. Those are not US governments. Oh man.. Read a book. "Anarchy would become an established form of government whether you want to admit it or not. atheism as you brought up, the belief of no true religion or God, is still just that. A Belief. All government bodies began with Ideology, and from that birthed the government's we see around us" You know that it's going to be a very bad day for the small number of people that want to create a government in a armed free society right? Especially in anarchist society based on NAP principles, but I assume you know nothing about principles. Government has monopoly on force and to establish Goverment you need to use force, use force in a anarchist armed society to gain power, good luck with that. By the way I've already made this argument before. " Hong Kong isn't Communist, it is a Democratic city-state essentially with many outside investors upping the economy in Hong Kong alone. Hong Kong is anything but free lol. The rest of China is also a third world country, so again I don't see who 1 city in a ass backwards country adds anything to an arguement that circles itself. " Do you have proof that Hong Kong is not economically free? Yes China is a communist shithole, which is anti-capitalist and anti-anarchist, so what's your point? Prove to me where Anarchy has succeeded? Egypt? Anarchy went well there. Lybia? Anarchy (ei the concept of no government or law) causes more death then life, and you can't disprove it, because Anarchy has never successfully worked." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Iceland Egypt and Lybia were collapsed governments, also a population filled with non-anarchist fundamental muslims is not an anarchist society. Nice try lol. What's next you're going to mention another war torn country filled with crazy muslim fundamentalists that fight to establish a theocratic state in a collapsed state society, cough Somalia cough..sight. Privatization will fail, and your circle of an arguement, and your selective arguing (like with your article you list above about Hong kong) prove nothing to your arguement." Prove me that privatization dosen't work instead of making non-arguments. ANARCHY CANNOT WORK AS AN IDEOLOGY TO GOVERN PEOPLE'S MORALS AND JUDGEMENT. You system has some many flaws that don't protect the citizens but rather the corporations that will end up becoming the he governing bodies of your ideal. In your system, money makes the decisions, therefore anyone of wealth can manipulate the market to their gain. So you need a state to govern your actions and moral decisions? Uhm okay. If you ask me I can handle myself pretty fine without the government telling me what to do, so you speak for yourself buddy. Yeah because corporations dont rule shit now in America, lol. Anarchy is anti-corporatist, you can't have corporate power without laws established by the government. But you don't know what the fuck you're talking about so moving on. I ask this time you fully read your own references before you post them, because you Hong Kong argument and your article referenced don't support each other. Your "Privatization will fails!!!11!" are not even arguments. My Hong Kong arguments proves that Capitalism and economic freedom kicks communist ass, compare Hong Kong to Venezuela, Cuba or China. How the fuck can you say this not an argument against state regulations and socialism? Boy you're lost. All the article shows is that Americas laws and regulations (or lack there of) over business are killing it. " Nope, and yes regulations destroys America period.

Yes it does, because the problem here is lack of capitalism, not privatization. You control privatization then you'll limit the businesses and kill the economy. All the countries you mentioned are by the way shitholes, some of them were succesful freemarket countries and are now turning into shitholes. 1. China yes, Hong Kong not. 2. Australia = Is slowly turning into a welfare state aka bureacratic shithole aka a lot of governing over the business sector. That's why they are falling down the scale. 3. Singapore = I don't know much about Singapore, yet. 4. Canada just like Sweden just like California...All the same shit with diffrent names. Bureacratic shitholes that business owners avoid like the plague that these places are. 5. They are still not capitalistic or free like Hong Kong, that's why they are shitholes and slowly degrading economically, not because of privatization. You proved nothing here. You mentioned a bunch of welfare states with high fucking taxes that kill the freemarket. That's why these places suck and are failing, not because of privatization. If you think these countries are a stable economic success I hate to break it to you, they are not and they are becoming poorer shitholes as time and welfare progresses. If you control privatization, you kill businesses through taxes and regulations.

1. There you go, also government caused WW1 and WW2....and pretty much all the other wars. 2. Dump the dollar, trade with gold or replace it with new currency that competes in the new freemarket society and that actually has some value. 3. They are not anarcho-capitalist, they supported democracy and government which anarcho-capitalists oppose. The founding fathers would be marked as a bunch of statist scum in an Anarcho-Capitalist society. We anarcho-capitalists don't care what they said or did, they don't represent us. 4. Wrong, Anarchy is lack of government, not an established form of government. Its like saying athiesm is a belief when it's a lack of belief.Try to establish a goverment in a Anarcho-Capitalist society, that means you brake NAP and will get shot or meet the angry armed people of Ancapistan.. 5. Unregulated privatization and business is called Lazzes Faire economics, if you want to call Industrial Revolution as "a killer of strong and stable economies" and not abundance.. Well then I rest my case.

America or any other country you mentioned are bad examples for the same reasons you mentioned. Anarcho-capitalism is anti-democratic, democracy is when the majority rule over the minority opposing masses, that's not anarchist in any shape or form. America is used as an example because they carry guns with regulations and have been a libertarian inspired country, thats still not anarcho-capitalist in any shape or form, there is still better examples than America like Icelandic Commonwealth etc. but that's another topic. "Race war"...Yeah, Anarchism will automatically cause a race war, not because of history of slavery and racism, or regulated and welfare infested ghettos. Facepalm* "Armed community is a polite community is plain wrong"... Not an argument, also we've been through this topic a couple of times. "Is he insane or He dosen't know anything about business".... Are not arguments. I don't care if you spoke to God or President Trump or zombie Mother Theresa, those are not arguments.

Capitalism = Economic Freedom. Anarchism = No Government or Rulers. Can't get freer than that.

Corporatist Federal Reserve is not capitalist nor anarchist, without the government there would be no Federal Reserve Act. The founding fathers were not anarcho-capitalists either so I don't know why you use those as examples. America is a crony-capitalist welfare state with high corporate taxes, a shithole compare to an anarcho-capitalist society if you ask me. Even Hong Kong is way more capitalist than USA and they're doing fine economically. So no, you're wrong. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/01/hong-kong-is-worlds-freest-economy-us-slips-on-freedom-rank.html "People in economically free societies earn incomes that more than twice the average levels in all other countries and they live longer too"

What do you mean "my system" will not have any money? There is no system, all the money the government steals through taxes and regulations will go back to the freemarket society where it belongs, there will be more money for you and me to spend than ever before when all the money that the government sits on goes to the people and the freemarket it stole from through taxes and regulations in the first place. There is no "your system" or government or welfare state in a anarcho-capitalist society. It's pure freedom and capitalism for everybody.

#notanargument

"You support the rich and greedy"... Yeah forget about me donating money to charities. How greedy does a person have to be for wanting to keep the money he has worked for, yet it's not greedy to take others people money through taxation against their will. Good thinking.. Lower class people will have more opportunities to make money in a freemarket society, only a leftist disagrees with that. Also America is not an anarcho-capitalist society so..yah that's why they have a lot of poor people because of corporatism, welfare and regulations. The rest of your whole reply is about how greedy I am. Well those are not arguments, so I'm moving on. Me being "greedy and loving rich people" has nothing to do with whenever Anarcho-Capitalism works or not. Come back when you have arguments.

So many generalities so little time. Sight. I'm going to make this quick. You don't speak the truth by babble and assumptions, you assume that if all drugs would be legal everybody would go Charlie Sheen and mindlessly snort coke and shot heroin. You speak for yourself buddy. "With no government, how are going to get all of this shit ex fund hospitals, fund police, fund your militias".... Private sector. "Banks will crumble if they keep giving loans, to druggies, businesses etc".....Duh, nobody with a business mind will keep giving loans at their own expense, especially to debt ridden druggies lol. I don't even know why this has to be said. "Good on militia but even for a small community they need healthcare"... Private healthcare. "How are you going to make a country without money and taxes. Well Hanshi I don't know."....You know that you don't know anything right? Never did I say there would be no money in a anarcho-capitalist society, no taxes produces more money for people to spend and increases profits in the private sector.

So government have unlimited resources and unlimited workers? How does that work? Even in a 100% state owned society(Like North Korea etc.) there will still be limited resources and limited workers in the government sector so whats your point? Also growing businesses produces more opportunity for jobs so you're wrong that freemarket limits work force, it's the opposite since many other businesses will bloom in other categories producing plenty of jobs. You know nothing about the affects of unregulated freemarkets, you call yourself Republican but you sound like full blown welfare eating statist queen since you desperately support the non-competing public sector and taxes. If government is such a great concept, why do they have to use force to take free peoples money to fund the public sector? Because they can't compete with the private sector that's why, because freemarket does a much better job to deliver than the government. Great ideas don't need force to be implemented, taxes are bad and that's why you need force to make people to pay taxes. Smartphones, modern medicine, modern sciences, industrial factory infrastructure, firearms, sport cars, planes, spaceships are all inventions of the freemarket, freemarket will always lead to abundance and push technology. You can't even have a socialist welfare state unless capitalism has had a chance first to build up a infrastructure. The only monopoly the government has is the monopoly of force, that's all, everything else is done by the people. If there is no government there is no monopoly of force. "I keep bringing up drugs and guns because this party is nonsensical".....First of all that's not even an argument but your personal opinion, second this is not a party but a movement get your facts straight. You don't like the idea of people owning guns and using drugs in their own terms because you want to rule over people and tell them what to do because you're a statist power hungry bastard who dosen't care about freedom and want to use force to control the behavior of the masses. "With rules there is control"... First of all principals not rules, there is a difference. People can regulate without a government using ostracism instead of force and control, if somebody dosen't obey NAP principle, they will get ostracized from the society, nobody will sell them food, water or shelter since they are a danger to the society and for everybody in it. If somebody uses force outside the purposes of self defense they'll not go very far in an armed society.

Government has a monopoly on force which the private sector dosen't, that's the difference between government and the people, also liberties will not be crushed by a corrupt corporations if it is an armed society who can protect themselves from tyranny. Everything the government can do, the private sector can also do and even better due to competition, good services and innovation to increase profits, I have already made that point earlier. Corrupt police departments will run out of business by non-corrupt police departments pretty quickly since they compete in the freemarket and people will make sure the best services with the best prices will get their funding. A armed society is indeed an polite society, read on non agression principle I have already made that point earlier.

1. Wrong, there will still be charities that will deliver handouts to the needy and you can still produce your own tools of value and collect anything of value that does not belong to anyones property or possession, just because a society is under total privatization does not mean that the only things you can get your hands on comes from the market and market only. People will earn money by how much value they can produce in a society, im not sure why you mention taxes since taxes are abolished in this society. If workers don't get payed the amount of wealth they were told by their bosses then they can leave that business and that business will suffer production loss, also not to mention they will gain a bad reputation for not paying employees for their work and services, consequences of that is that nobody will offer their services to that particular company because they don't want to risk being played, this will lead to less profits an eventually collapse of the business while other business that keep their words and treat the employees well will increase their production, reputation and that will increase profits. 2. Correct, nothing stops anybody from hiring a private army. This is where NAP comes into to the picture (Non.Agression.Principle) to avoid war breaking out. The only violence that will be acceptable in such society is self-defense, you can only attack and kill an agressor who uses force against you or others, I will quote a few good men who praised NAP. "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." Cited from "War, Peace, and the State" (1963) Locke gives the following version of the NAP: "Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." In his book On Liberty Mill states the NAP as follows: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others" In an essay called "Man's Rights" in the book The Virtue of Selfishness she formulated "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. ... In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. 3. Drugs are not illegal in a anarchist society, also your statement that nobody will have money in such a society is simply not true and misleading, aslong as you have value to offer people will pay money/resources for it, it's that simple and I have said that a couple of times now. If you can't produce enough value that will help you survive in society or you can't afford healthcare there will be charities for that, read my first point. I've already answered this. If bad people try to cause mass shooting in a armed society, they will not live very long. I have made that point a couple of times now, yet you run in circles when I have already given you an answer about what role guns play in a anarchist society, read my previous arguments instead of beating a dead horse. Is there anything else?

1. Wrong, in a anarcho-capitalist society institutions don't need to tax people for maintenance since all those institutions are moved to the private sector and become businesses/companies, their survival will be based off how well they do in the freemarket and how much people are willing to pay for their services (supply/demand), it's the people that make the decision which police department/hospital company get their funding, not the government. Businesses can provide everything that the government provides, everything the government does the market can do it better due to competition and innovation to increase profits. I never argued that loans are a profitable solution, but atleast you will pay with your own money instead of grabbing others money through taxes to fund your failed business, but since taxes are abolished in a anarcho-capitalist society, you either take a bank loan or go out of business, hence laissez-faire. 2. If I carry a AR, bullet proof amor and pay a private militia to protect my business and property. I'm pretty sure the bad guys will look after an easier target don't you think? A armed society is a polite society. The government police take ages to come to protect you if you happen to be in trouble, you'll be dead once they arrive. The only way you can be safe in any society, is to be armed and if you also get a private militia or private security patroling your neighbourhood while being armed yourself, nobody will risk death/jail or waste resources to fuck with you. Also class wars can't happen in a freemarket anarchist society since there are no elite rulers or tyranny to riot against, anyone can get rich if they can produce value without paying taxes, so I'm not sure why you ramble about a book talking about rich killing off poor people to better the economy, sounds like nonsense that a marxist would spew. 3. "Because reducing the number of trained public police officers you eliminate the amount you can have around the city protecting people"...Wrong, read my second point. "With a private police force you would have even MORE government spending to keep them on a specific payroll which would make even MORE taxes on the small businesses".... No government, means no government spending, hence no need for taxes. Read my first point. "With no guns that's a reduce on crime ultimately making that private police force useless"....Wrong. More guns means more people can protect themselves from crime, hence more guns leads to less crime. If there is no crime, there is no need for police force or guns. All the other arguments you make about not being able to afford guns and private security depends on the market and how much money you make, obviously. You clearly don't know anything about Anarchism friend.

1. Bailouts = Not anarchist nor freemarket, don't make me pay taxes just because you fail at making profits. Laissez-faire capitalism is the only economy Anarcho-Capitalism preaches. Taxes don't help businesses making money, if anything businesses are the ones who get hurt the most by taxes since taxation lowers profits. Also taxation is involuntary therefor theft. If you need money to keep your business alive, get a loan, don't make everybody else suffer and pay for it through taxes because your business is a failure. 2. Guns don't kill people, bad guys do. If everybody carries guns it will be easier to take down a mass shooter/bad guy/robber. Criminals and psychopaths love gun free zones because nobody can disarm them or neutralize them in those zones, but in a society where everybody carries a firearm it's easier to take out the bad guys. Police take their time to get to the crime scene and by that time innocent lives might have been lost which could've been avoided if everybody carried a firearm. Also I'd like to defend my property and business with an AR15 without the government telling me how to run or protect my business, thank you. 3. Private police and security will get higher pay depending on the quality of their services, therefor do a better job since they compete with other police departments and higher pay helps security departments afford better equipment/weapons to protect communities. Lower class working people will earn more money and find more opportunities in a anarcho-capitalist society due to no taxes and privatization of everything, which produces plenty of new businesses offering tons of jobs for all lower and middle class peoples. Taxes means less profits, less profits means less businesses, less businesses means less jobs, less jobs means more poor people.