The Anarcho-Capitalist Movement

[The1TheOnlyGonzo 184]

Your economy will fail if privatized. America's economy is in debt due to privatizing their economy through the Federal Reserve Act. Furthermore, the forefathers of America left the colonies of Britain over the privatized banking system. 

Privatized banking would cause inflation where there isn't a need for it. Money's would compete for the highest dollar, which would cause fluxuation and mass problems. 

Also if the economy is privatized how will you regulate the dollar and ensure a stable economy?

[Hanshi-Toshiro 150]

13 hours ago, Capitalist said:

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.

so confusing. A capitalist society but everybody is free, literally free. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Hanshi-Toshiro

[Capitalist 35]

6 hours ago, The1TheOnlyGonzo said:

Your economy will fail if privatized. America's economy is in debt due to privatizing their economy through the Federal Reserve Act. Furthermore, the forefathers of America left the colonies of Britain over the privatized banking system. 

Privatized banking would cause inflation where there isn't a need for it. Money's would compete for the highest dollar, which would cause fluxuation and mass problems. 

Also if the economy is privatized how will you regulate the dollar and ensure a stable economy?

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"

 

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Capitalist

[Capitalist 35]

5 hours ago, Hanshi-Toshiro said:

so confusing. A capitalist society but everybody is free, literally free. 

Capitalism = Economic Freedom.

Anarchism = No Government or Rulers. 

Can't get freer than that.

[GeneSmith 197]

14 minutes ago, Capitalist said:

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"

 

 

We use America because it's the best example of why your plan wouldn't work. The only reason America is like that is because we don't have a dictatorship we have a democracy. Which entails freedom. At one point America was the most dominant force for decades until one man was out into office who was unable to sustain a good flow of money. Instead he sent us to war and poured billions of dollars into that. With tensions being so high, yes your ideal would crumble. Because if you use modern day America with your anarchism you would have those welfare people buying guns to kill any other race besides their own. China isn't in a war. Neither is Japan, Australia, Germany or Russia. And most of those countries aren't doing to well either. It's not about what you change law wise it's what you change government wise. A president elected into office is in charge of major decisions regarding the safety and well being of this country. But the rules set in place aren't to make things worse like you suggest. It's to keep order to calm the general public. And when laws are broken that's when affirmative action takes place. You're trying to make it seem like the government is the biggest problem there is. The two party system is there for a reason. It's to give two sides of an already divided nation some incentive to actually show they care. You're quote of "An armed community is a polite one." Is plain wrong. In reality it's "A hard worker is a happy worker." The lower class is what made this country. When it was started out it was all lower class that was built up. Some took advantage of the rapidly growing community and got rich and didn't bother helping the poor that helped found America. Middle and lower class citizens are outnumbering the upper class. You know why?

 

Because the upper class capitalists make plans like this to make themselves richer. You're plan to abolish government and taxing is just wrong. I've spoke to multiple capitalists, liberals, republicans and democrats about what you're proposing. It's all been met with the same answer. Either "Is he insane?" Or "He doesn't know anything about business." They say that because I tell them about your proposition for taxes. And they say it would not kill, but destroy not only businesses but also the stock market. Mainly because there would be no financial gain. As a capitalist I would expect you to understand that. 

[GeneSmith 197]

11 minutes ago, Capitalist said:

Capitalism = Economic Freedom.

Anarchism = No Government or Rulers. 

Can't get freer than that.

Capitalism = Rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

Anarchism = No rules so no order.

That's not freedom sir. That is a playground full of children.

[Hanshi-Toshiro 150]

6 minutes ago, GeneSmith said:

Capitalism = Rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

Anarchism = No rules so no order.

That's not freedom sir. That is a playground full of children.

Agreed. You give society a trophy for losing, they go bonkers. We see this in current america. 

[The1TheOnlyGonzo 184]

55 minutes ago, Capitalist said:

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"

 

 

The Federal Reserve Act was a government based act yes, however it was an act protecting a privatized banking system which is why now America is adding to their debt in order to maintain the circulation of money. 

 

Private Banking means specific sources are the only sources to create and set a dollar value. If they are the only providers of a strong dollar, and you have to pay for their dollar. how would you pay for it? You would have to purchase from them to pay them back, increasing debt. 

 

Again the Founding Fathers left a privatized banking system that slaves it citizens. The UK also just broke away from a privatized banking system. 

 

You do realise that being a business and being privatized are 2 seperate sections right? it seems this "ideology" with become a government standard. It is know that even Anarchy becomes a form of established government.  Therefore this would backfire by trying to "free the people" 

 

 

Also the article you refer to above states the top economic free country's, all of which have large government bodies overseeing and regulating business. Hell Canada is 5th, and I know for a fact there are tons or regulations and oversight to maintain business. 

 

However you article focuses on BUSINESS not privatization. Every strong economy knows Privatization kills a strong, and stable economy. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by The1TheOnlyGonzo

[Capitalist 35]

5 hours ago, GeneSmith said:

We use America because it's the best example of why your plan wouldn't work. The only reason America is like that is because we don't have a dictatorship we have a democracy. Which entails freedom. At one point America was the most dominant force for decades until one man was out into office who was unable to sustain a good flow of money. Instead he sent us to war and poured billions of dollars into that. With tensions being so high, yes your ideal would crumble. Because if you use modern day America with your anarchism you would have those welfare people buying guns to kill any other race besides their own. China isn't in a war. Neither is Japan, Australia, Germany or Russia. And most of those countries aren't doing to well either. It's not about what you change law wise it's what you change government wise. A president elected into office is in charge of major decisions regarding the safety and well being of this country. But the rules set in place aren't to make things worse like you suggest. It's to keep order to calm the general public. And when laws are broken that's when affirmative action takes place. You're trying to make it seem like the government is the biggest problem there is. The two party system is there for a reason. It's to give two sides of an already divided nation some incentive to actually show they care. You're quote of "An armed community is a polite one." Is plain wrong. In reality it's "A hard worker is a happy worker." The lower class is what made this country. When it was started out it was all lower class that was built up. Some took advantage of the rapidly growing community and got rich and didn't bother helping the poor that helped found America. Middle and lower class citizens are outnumbering the upper class. You know why?

 

Because the upper class capitalists make plans like this to make themselves richer. You're plan to abolish government and taxing is just wrong. I've spoke to multiple capitalists, liberals, republicans and democrats about what you're proposing. It's all been met with the same answer. Either "Is he insane?" Or "He doesn't know anything about business." They say that because I tell them about your proposition for taxes. And they say it would not kill, but destroy not only businesses but also the stock market. Mainly because there would be no financial gain. As a capitalist I would expect you to understand that. 

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.

 

 

[The1TheOnlyGonzo 184]

I still don't see how pointing out counrty's with high economic freedom support your arguement. 

 

China for instance is a Communist government with many regulations, standards, laws, etc governing over business practises within the country. their dollar is also due to lack of debt and the sustainability of their market.

 

Australia, another country listed in your reference, a lot of governing over the business sector. 

Singapore has tons of government regulation, however their government loves money, so standards are lower. however pricing is higher.

 

Canada is regulated to the max, and taxed for open programs.

 

I could go on forever about how these all counter your own arguement because every major country listed has a large government body maintaining and regulating that standard you are claiming is due to privatization.  

[Capitalist 35]

6 hours ago, GeneSmith said:

Capitalism = Rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

Anarchism = No rules so no order.

That's not freedom sir. That is a playground full of children.

 

 

[Capitalist 35]

7 hours ago, The1TheOnlyGonzo said:

The Federal Reserve Act was a government based act yes, however it was an act protecting a privatized banking system which is why now America is adding to their debt in order to maintain the circulation of money. 

 

Private Banking means specific sources are the only sources to create and set a dollar value. If they are the only providers of a strong dollar, and you have to pay for their dollar. how would you pay for it? You would have to purchase from them to pay them back, increasing debt. 

 

Again the Founding Fathers left a privatized banking system that slaves it citizens. The UK also just broke away from a privatized banking system. 

 

You do realise that being a business and being privatized are 2 seperate sections right? it seems this "ideology" with become a government standard. It is know that even Anarchy becomes a form of established government.  Therefore this would backfire by trying to "free the people" 

 

 

Also the article you refer to above states the top economic free country's, all of which have large government bodies overseeing and regulating business. Hell Canada is 5th, and I know for a fact there are tons or regulations and oversight to maintain business. 

 

However you article focuses on BUSINESS not privatization. Every strong economy knows Privatization kills a strong, and stable economy. 

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.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Capitalist

[Capitalist 35]

6 hours ago, The1TheOnlyGonzo said:

I still don't see how pointing out counrty's with high economic freedom support your arguement. 

 

China for instance is a Communist government with many regulations, standards, laws, etc governing over business practises within the country. their dollar is also due to lack of debt and the sustainability of their market.

 

Australia, another country listed in your reference, a lot of governing over the business sector. 

Singapore has tons of government regulation, however their government loves money, so standards are lower. however pricing is higher.

 

Canada is regulated to the max, and taxed for open programs.

 

I could go on forever about how these all counter your own arguement because every major country listed has a large government body maintaining and regulating that standard you are claiming is due to privatization.  

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.

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Capitalist

[The1TheOnlyGonzo 184]

16 hours ago, Capitalist said:

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.

 

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. 

 

Again you talk of controlling privatization, but who is going to control it? You have no form of government apparently to oversee and regulate, so there would be no body to control privatization. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

Yea 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. 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

All the article shows is that Americas laws and regulations (or lack there of) over business are killing it. 

 

[GeneSmith 197]

@The1TheOnlyGonzo

"Again you talk of controlling privatization, but who is going to control it? You have no form of government apparently to oversee and regulate, so there would be no body to control privatization."

He stated before that the people who control it are going to be the replacement of the already established police force. Somehow by removing them and adding something new will help with regulations and the economy. Even though you'd pay more money for highly trained security. And I said the same thing, he says he doesn't want a government but in the end will create one anyways.

[Hanshi-Toshiro 150]

So if you have private military or military organizations, in a pure anarchy civilization, you will have no control over them whatsoever. 

[Jinx 166]

18 hours ago, Capitalist said:

1. There you go, also government caused WW1 and WW2....and pretty much all the other wars.

Well to be exact (which is what you seem to be trying to do here) ultimately the German people brought about World War Two by voting for Adolf Hitler & the NSDAP. Also let's remember that the NSDAP actually had no political agenda at all, so in fact, by being given the freedom to choose, an entire society almost brought about the destruction of ALL society and gave it over to a police state.......not the best example you could have picked really.

Just like the NSDAP you yourself have no political agenda, you are, just like they were, an idealist. So was Lenin, and you can pluck from history a thousand other idealists who dressed themselves as politicians and led whole countries to the brink of extinction....Pol Pot anyone?

I'd read the replies some of the folks here have given if I were you.

[GeneSmith 197]

27 minutes ago, Jinx said:

Well to be exact (which is what you seem to be trying to do here) ultimately the German people brought about World War Two by voting for Adolf Hitler & the NSDAP. Also let's remember that the NSDAP actually had no political agenda at all, so in fact, by being given the freedom to choose, an entire society almost brought about the destruction of ALL society and gave it over to a police state.......not the best example you could have picked really.

Just like the NSDAP you yourself have no political agenda, you are, just like they were, an idealist. So was Lenin, and you can pluck from history a thousand other idealists who dressed themselves as politicians and led whole countries to the brink of extinction....Pol Pot anyone?

I'd read the replies some of the folks here have given if I were you.

Just trying to tell him his ways will be destructive man

[Jinx 166]

10 minutes ago, GeneSmith said:

Just trying to tell him his ways will be destructive man

Exactly Gene. Ideology is not politics........

'' * Legalize all firearms. (Armed society is a polite society) ''

So these men:

Arthur Shawcross

Carl Panzram

Wayne Williams

etc etc etc are all people who utterly disprove THAT silly idea. In game terms he's talking about GTA Online.....is that a polite society? It's utter nonesense from start to finish.

 

[GeneSmith 197]

4 minutes ago, Jinx said:

Exactly Gene. Ideology is not politics........

'' * Legalize all firearms. (Armed society is a polite society) ''

So these men:

Arthur Shawcross

Carl Panzram

Wayne Williams

etc etc etc are all people who utterly disprove THAT silly idea. In game terms he's talking about GTA Online.....is that a polite society? It's utter nonesense from start to finish.

 

GTA Online is the purest representation of a Anarchist society with no government control.

[Jinx 166]

6 minutes ago, GeneSmith said:

GTA Online is the purest representation of a Anarchist society with no government control.

Right....and you'd be hard pressed to find a more toxic place. The Division is another good example where players are given the chance to actually co-operate to make a better world, but choose to gun each other down instead. Human beings have proved, and done so all the way through history, that freedom of choice does not work, as Orwell said ''All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others''.

[GeneSmith 197]

7 minutes ago, Jinx said:

Right....and you'd be hard pressed to find a more toxic place. The Division is another good example where players are given the chance to actually co-operate to make a better world, but choose to gun each other down instead. Human beings have proved, and done so all the way through history, that freedom of choice does not work, as Orwell said ''All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others''.

DayZ is another game that I can see as using an example. A game about surviving from hoards of zombies turned into a game where zombies aren't the biggest problem but other people are.

[Jinx 166]

10 minutes ago, GeneSmith said:

DayZ is another game that I can see as using an example. A game about surviving from hoards of zombies turned into a game where zombies aren't the biggest problem but other people are.

Which is why an awful lot of games fail to reach full potential, because while they are designed with the best intentions it's the players themselves who limit the actual possibilities. All you have to do is read through the Criminals section on these boards. The majority of posts, if you read them, are actually quests for personal power as opposed to money making enterprises. The quest for 'realism' that a lot of games aim for is interpreted as 'do what you like if you can get away with it'.....and it just devolves into anarchy which, in fact, is about as unrealistic as you can get.

[GeneSmith 197]

6 minutes ago, Jinx said:

Which is why an awful lot of games fail to reach full potential, because while they are designed with the best intentions it's the players themselves who limit the actual possibilities. All you have to do is read through the Criminals section on these boards. The majority of posts, if you read them, are actually quests for personal power as opposed to money making enterprises. The quest for 'realism' that a lot of games aim for is interpreted as 'do what you like if you can get away with it'.....and it just devolves into anarchy which, in fact, is about as unrealistic as you can get.

If you look at video game communities like the one in World of Warcraft they don't have a government but also don't fall under anarchism. They spread a disease around from person to person that spread like a wild fire. With no control over any type of community you face problems like that. Grand Theft Auto has people in jets blowing each other up. DayZ is about survival but 99% of the time it's people killing each other. It's not the government that's the problem it's not having a government that's a problem. With no upper authority there would be mass chaos and panic followed by death.

[Capitalist 35]

On 2016-11-15 at 3:51 PM, The1TheOnlyGonzo said:

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. 

 

Again you talk of controlling privatization, but who is going to control it? You have no form of government apparently to oversee and regulate, so there would be no body to control privatization. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

Yea 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. 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

All the article shows is that Americas laws and regulations (or lack there of) over business are killing it. 

 

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.