@ Claymore1. What is the Government for you after all? It is a group of people who claim the exclusive right, usually within a certain geographic area, to initiate force in order to get others to accept their opinions as reality. It is a legalized mafia.2. By referee, I mean someone to whom, you (as an individual) or a group of persons (as a population) delegate to someone who thinks is better fitted for taking certain decisions, whether is a decision that affects an individual or a group of individuals.OK, let me ask you: Can I delegate authority to another individual which I don't have myself? Can I appoint a delegate for you and you for me?3. About The People, it's just an expression that I use to define a group of individuals that are actually the ones that decide who the referee should be. What makes any particular collection of individuals a "group" that decides who to appoint as referees? Should membership in a group be voluntary, or does that not matter?4. What is FREEDOM for you? What is your definition of Freedom?Its living w/an absence of coercion. Its ultimate ownership of one's self.5. I don't actually have a solution... that's why I making questions to the supposed people that truly understands how an Anarchical System works.Understanding the concept of "an anarchical system" (actually I'd call it the ABSENCE of a 'system') is very much different from being able to say, exactly, how state-created water monopolies in Portugal can be converted to a free-market enterprise. I am not an engineer or person w/experience w/running water-delivery services. That said, I imagine there are probably (somewhere) examples of successful conversions of public services into private ones. It certainly isn't an insurmountable problem. Many essential services are provided by the free-market (or whatever semblance of it remains) and I see no reason why the provision of water would be any different.

Dear Jeff, Do you say that we do not need referee in economy or we do not need referees at all? If the former then I have no quarells wih you ;).If the latter, then how do you resolve the conflict between two people who are arguing and soon maybe killing each other because each of them claims that the other initiated the force first and he has the right to respond with appropriate force. I would say that in this situation we need a referee who will resolve those type of situations (answer the question who has initiated force and what reaction is appropriate).best,Radek

@ mava again..Sorry, I made a mistake. I confused Italic with Italian... Yes, Portuguese is an Italic descendant... Sorry for my confusion!! I just noticed when I saw the translation at Wikipedia, lol

@KashyapMe too. I was pretty damn good at school, but only at physics, chemistry, math, geography, biology and geometry. I completely ignored all the bs they teach in history and literature. That was, still, a blue pill.So, anyway, I am very curious about science, but I believe that most of official science is a lie. This must be so, since the human nature doesn't change, and we know that all scientists were lying about geocentricity around Galileo's time, because we can read much earlier descriptions of heliocentricity from Greece, and even from Sumer. I assume for safety that most scientists are simply prostitutes today as the history shows they always were.With that said, I was reading on Economics when I came across the name of Maurice Allais, who also happen to observe an interesting effect during a solar eclipse. The way he explained it is that the space is not uniform in all directions. I think he is wrong, and the way to explain it is by accepting that the gravity is not a pulling, but a pushing force (not attractive but repulsive). If one assumes that, then it becomes clear that if there is gradient to the permeability of objects by such force, then there definitely can be an anomaly observed during an event such as eclipse.Conventional (I have a chair) science is saying that Allais lied about his observations without actually saying so.

Today I don't have much time to answer in detail so, here it goes...@ShaneYes, that's exactly my point.One question. What is the Government for you after all? You talk about the Government as an entity that "kills innocent people" in a very strong way... Are you referring to the US Government and their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, or against the American People?By referee, I mean someone to whom, you (as an individual) or a group of persons (as a population) delegate to someone who thinks is better fitted for taking certain decisions, whether is a decision that affects an individual or a group of individuals. This is nothing more that defining individual roles in society, according to their past experience and rate of success in executing such roles. About The People, it's just an expression that I use to define a group of individuals that are actually the ones that decide who the referee should be. A question for you. What is FREEDOM for you? What is your definition of Freedom?I don't actually have a solution... that's why I making questions to the supposed people that truly understands how an Anarchical System works. :) If I had all the answers to my questions, I wouldn't be here investing my precious time :)Portuguese is the 1st most spoken language in South Hemisphere and in several growing markets. If you want to learn, search for a school or on-line lessons. :) I'm thinking in going back to my Russian Lessons. (Russian is very easy to learn)Sorry if my English is sometimes, awkward. @mavaWhen you said: "If you allow that the monopoly can lower the prices to undercut the competition, and survive as a monopoly, then there is no way I can explain how competition would work."well, that's a big question I also have that no one has answered me yet... About the Depopulation issue, I'm not going to comment such issue since in my opinion, it is a very complex theme. It seems that you are regretted for mentioning but don't worry, I'm not going to continue trough it.Although I completely agree that the world has now a very big problem in matters of Natural Resources. We are growing to big, to fast for the resources that are at our disposal, but if you notice, that growth is coming from the middle east and Africa. In the rest of the world, it is actually decreasing. (Statistics in Portugal shows that if my country continues in the same path of population decrease, by the end of the century we will have a population decrease from 10 million to 6 million).This is a problem and I actually see a Big World War in the near future to battle for natural resources...I actually agree in certain approaches that an Anarchist system uses to solve problems. My interest comes from the job I have as a Researcher (and PhD Student), because of the failure of the current Democratic systems and also, because of the little I know about Anarchism. (in Portugal, most ppl think that Anarchists are those kids that appear in the news trashing and destroying everything).@KashyapKashyap, First of all, the Newton's Projectile Movement Model is flawed... why? Because the error when predicting the position of a projectile that travels at speeds near of the speed of light, the position error is massive. This means that the Newtons model does not work for objects accelerating or travelling at speeds near of the speed of light. Einstein showed this and proved it. This is Pure Physics and I learned this when I had 19 years (I'm 27 btw).Mathematical models (which Newton Projectile Model also is), like I said, are used to Approximately Approach a certain behaviour. There will always be an error! Like their is in Physics and other Science disciplines...When you say:" A model useful for rockets cannot be used to

@ ClaymoreBefore I go any further, I just want to say: GOOD FOR YOU!I wish I could speak/write Portuguese (or any other language besides English) as well as you communicate in English!ON WATER MONOPOLIES:I think we must keep one very important fact in mind when discussing this: The kind of water monopolies which you refer to would NOT even exist in their present form, in the first place, w/o the coercive power of the STATE/GOVT. Please keep in mind that the very EXISTENCE of water monopolies exists BECAUSE of govt.That said, your assertion that an "anarchical system" (this is kind of a contradiction in terms...there is no 'system' in a free society) wouldn't guarantee affordable access to water is not really a point. I could just as easily assert that govt. is quite capable of denying access to resources like water.HOW to transition from the current situation is the question. You're, obviously, a very intelligent person. I would ask YOU to contemplate the question. What is the most equitable solution that YOU could come up with? If YOU can't deal w/the problem...do you think, maybe, the SAME kind of market anarchy that produces entrepreneurs of all kinds (doctors, engineers, etc.) just might produce SOMEONE that COULD come up w/a solution? When you unleash the productive capabilities of MILLIONS of humans--unencumbered by govt.--the sky really is the limit. The SAME specialization of labor YOU mentioned would ENSURE that no one died from lack of water.

@ Claymore1. YOU SAID: "Our society is very differentiated. We have doctors, engineers, entertainers, lawyers, etc... each and everyone has it's own special gift and we will never be able understand and learn everything."I wholeheartedly agree. The division of labor has been one of the greatest human innovations. An innovation, btw, that is wholly attributable to the kind of spontaneous and undirected social organization (i.e., FREE-MARKET CHAOS) that anarchists advocate for.2. QUOTE: "Every time we get sick and need to go to the doctor, we select him and delegate to him, the decisions that can lead us to recover or to the coffin... hey, humans aren't perfect!"Yes, we are each, ultimately, INDIVIDUALLY responsible for OURSELVES. In a free-market, the doctors who help more people to recover will have more success than those that put folks into coffins.3. QUOTE: "Referee's will always be there in but the difference is, if the People has enough knowledge and education, they have the ability to choose and to substitute the referee/government/lawyer/doctor, what ever you want to call it..."Define your terms: what do you mean by "referee" and "the People" (why the capitalization?)? I would ask you: Why not let "referees" (I assume you mean neutral arbiters here) arise to prominence through the SAME anarchical mechanism that produced the "doctors, engineers, entertainers, lawyers, etc." you previously mentioned?4. QUOTE: "I think it's a matter of having the right tools in order to be trully free, or in other words, to be truly educated!"Maybe FREEDOM is the "right tool"...? To be "truly free" requires an absence of coercion. To be "truly educated" requires the FREEDOM to pursue knowledge unencumbered.

I've worked off and on (too long) in Hollywood, almost 20years now so please excuse my layman approach, however, it feels to me as if our system of economics are being run by Dennis Nerdy (Wayne Knight, from Seinfeld) inside Jurassic Park and he hasn't taken time for a good long conversation with Dr. Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum's character) as to why his calculations are doomed to fail. I'm predicting the fence on the Velociraptors is going to default very soon. Days, months perhaps a year or so, but it's appointment with the approaching Iceberg (All Aboard the Titanic, is that the band on deck warming up?) is destined. ~ Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, economics, biology, and philosophy. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.

I've worked off and on (too long) in Hollywood, almost 20years now so please excuse my layman approach, however, it feels to me as if our system of economics are being run by Dennis Nerdy (Wayne Knight, from Seinfeld) inside Jurassic Park and he hasn't taken time for a good long conversation with Dr. Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum's character) as to why his calculations are doomed to fail. I'm predicting the fence on the Velociraptors is going to default very soon. Days, months perhaps a year or so, but it's appointment with the approaching Iceberg (All Aboard the Titanic, is that the band on deck warming up?) is destined. ~ Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, economics, biology, and philosophy. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.

@Mava, to answer your question:"A monopoly can not exist, without violence. Would you agree with such a statement? The only way to have a monopoly is through violence."What kind of violence are you talking about? In my country, there are several companies that have the monopoly of several products and I never saw violence being used to impose the monopolies...Water companies in each district that are going to be privatized, EDP (the power company) that was privatized long ago, has the power distribution monopoly, GALP another monopoly, which has the Gas, Gasoline and other kind of Petroleum bi-products. These were all companies created by State Capital that were privatized and ended up in foreign capital hands and now, profits are leaving the country because of that... they are not used to sustain the social state nor used to develop the country economy.So, do I agree with the statement? If the violence you are talking about is physical violence, then No, I do not agree.Monopolies are sustained by assuring that no competition is allowed to enter in the market. Several tactics can be used to assure that, such as "dumping", use exclusivity service contracts with transportations companies for example, to guarantee that the competition can't transport their products at lower prices, aggressive marketing campaigns, exclusive contracts on raw materials suppliers, and others I can't remember.About my line of thought, i don't know if you really understood what I was saying. A monopolist company can keep their prices up in order to maintain a high profit and when a new competitor enters the market, they could just lower their prices in order to kill the investment of the competitor. Competitor goes bankruptcy and then, the monopolist company can charge again what it wants for the product. Why? Because it can.But I still maintain my question about Cartels... This is a common practice that is very hard to prove, despite being illegal in several countries (in Portugal also). How can the free-market system, avoid a group of companies, artificially maintain high, the price of a product, creating in fact, a Cartel? This is also a monopolist system, despite having several participants.About the monetary system, I'm not going to comment a lot, just to make a question... even if the governments would agree about the theory of depopulation (which is a bit silly in my opinion, since the population in Europe is actually decreasing in numbers), how could it be done without imposing it?If in an Anarchical system there is no coercion, how could the world depopulates? Many cultures around the world would think of that as pure stupidity and refuse to do such a thing, so I'm not seeing how would the People of the world even agree on that, without being coerced actually.So many questions... :)

Claymore: "Well, you can't just appley your own definition of rationality to Game Theory and expect it to work lol. It doesn't work that way... In Game Theory, rationality is defined as taking an action that retrieves a better payoff. "That isn't my own definition of rationality. That's the objective definition of rationality. To know the difference, ask yourself how words, concepts and definitions are formed. Also, how is taking an action that results in a better payoff NOT acting according to the best of one's judgement?You keep talking about games and game theory, but tell me how it is in any way relevant to reality. Games are not reality. You cannot extrapolate behaviour from games to reality. There's a lot of difference between a real and artificially created environment. All these Nash equilibrium situations you talk of can exist only in environments created by game theorists, not in reality.The truth or falsehood of an idea does not depend on the number of its adherents. Having 50 Ph.Ds in econometrics does not make it a 'science'. Econometrics attempts to 'model' human behaviour using equations. It is flawed right at the root. From your comments on monopolies and cartels on a free market, I see that you haven't delved into economics. The dumbed-down argument for why monopolies cannot exist in a free market: the problem of economic calculation. Unless there is a market for the various inter-mediate goods produced, a company cannot perform an implicit earnings calculation to determine whether it is making a profit or a loss. Without a P&L mechanism, it cannot allocate resources to the most valued ends. If it does not allocate resources properly, it will be eaten up by its competition. All the monopolies which currently exist are State granted. Water companies built by the State classify as a State granted monopoly, unless the State will not harass any company which attempts to provide the same service. By controlling access to roads and highways, it pretty much has a grip on any company which wants to enter a pipeline dependent industry. As for cartels, the only reason to be worried about them in a free market is if they have the ability to raise prices above the market value. In which case, competitors would enter and force prices down. A final point. A question is not an argument. Present arguments against anarcho-capitalism showing where you disagree and why. For example, a question as to how gravity works does not invalidate the theory of gravity.

@Claymore,Well, if you look at it, you should be able to detect by now, the trouble with your argument.You stated, that first of all, the monopolies you speak of, were in fact, created by the government. This was exactly what I was alluding to in my question.Secondly, you stated that if the government did not create water companies, then no one would have. Are you certain on this second thought?A monopoly can not exist, without violence. Would you agree with such a statement? The only way to have a monopoly is through violence.For, without violence I will come to your region and offer water cheaper. Why? Because I will arbitrage away all the wealth of the existing water company that foolishly believes it can afford to keep the prices high. The more other companies they are colluding with, the merrier it is for me. If all the companies around me, that had an ability to deliver water to the region, collude to charge more than I, then they have just assured their own demise.You worry, that I have no funds to buid anything capable to compete with the existing suppliers. You should not. For as long as there is no central bank, then we can be rest assured that the free market will establish the interest rates high enough, to insure that needed capital is always ready for the deployment.It does that by knowing all the myriads of complicated details both about the project and about the rest of economy and about the real demand for the project's deliverables. This is something no science will ever able to calculate, but the free market does it naturally, because it simply "takes survey" of every participant's real intentions and demands, by asking them to put their money exactly where their mouth is.So, don't worry about the capital, worry about the central bank. Let me digress, this is a major cover-up to say that the current crisis was a result of housing bubble crash or greed or deregulation. Very few (only as far as I know, well Jeff have as well as Antal Fekete), are consistently pointing at the real cause - depletion of real capital relative to real demand due to decades of free market being forcibly blinded by the governments through counterfeit interest rates enforced by it's central banks. This is extremely politically incorrect truth, because the solution will require depopulation (therefore all the talk about it without any explanations), and no government is brave enough to acknowledge it, they all cover it up. Back to our ships. Now, you kind of need to decide which line you are going to support. Either your monopolist companies keep a price too high, or are they keeping the price too low (to blow me out of business), because, obviously, they can not be doing both.If, however, there is violence to deal with, then I think you will have to name the party doing the violence. It starts with "G".

@Pacop, you stated that:"Rationality is defined as the ability to act according to the best of one's judgement."Well, you can't just appley your own definition of rationality to Game Theory and expect it to work lol. It doesn't work that way... In Game Theory, rationality is defined as taking an action that retrieves a better payoff. Nash equilibrium states that an Agent is in a Nash Equilibrium when he has no other possible action to choose, that can offer him a better Payoff. Many Games don't have a Pure Nash Equilibrium, that's why there is something called, a Mixed Nash Equilibrium.Stating that Econometrics is a Joke is a very serious statement... Do you have any research to prove it? I say this because in Spain, if I can recall, at the University of Val

@PacoupYou didn't understand me... I stated:"Here in Portugal, there are several water companies in several regions of the country and all have one thing in common... they all represent monopolies!"Let me reformulate. In each region of the country, actually in each district, there is only ONE water company!Each region can only receive water from ONE company! This is clearly a monopoly since i am unable to buy water from any other company because well... there is no other company...Now, take your conclusions from there...Again... I'm not American, I don't know how the American government really works and to what accounts does the American People has access to. In Portugal, all state expenses are public and can be accessed from the Internet. That why we know how incompetent they were in the last 30 years...

Game Theory.. Rationality.. Econometrics. Claymore: "Game Theory requires that the agents act Rationally and humans, are very far from that. Also, markets don't have a rational behaviour and that's why Game Theory has lost its place in the economic system, to Econometrics "First off, understand what rationality is. Rationality is defined as the ability to act according to the best of one's judgement. To act, you need to have some idea of a causal link between your action and the desired outcome. This is derived from the fact that action is purposeful behaviour (action has to have a purpose, which is to achieve the desired outcome). Now, it is axiomatically true that all men act. Which means, they see some causal link between their action and desired outcome. They judge that 'this' action is necessary in order to achieve 'that' outcome. May be true, may not be true. But they do act according to the best of their judgement, i.e. they are rational. Game theorists have no clue as to how men act in the real world. They create zero-sum game type of circumstances in which "self-interest leads to a lose-lose situation", and use this "Nash equilibrium" to 'prove' market failure. Seriously, how can anyone fall for such nonsense. There is no parallel whatsoever between game theory and the real world. Humans don't live in a vaccum satisfying the conditions required for game theory to work. As for Econometrics, its a joke. It's an off-shoot of a flawed epistemology. Econometrics attempts to establish causal links between phenomena caused by human action using empirical data. That's the methodology of physics, applied to rational beings with a volitional consciousness. You can get a better idea on methodological issues here: http://mises.org/resources/94The reasons given for why anarchy wouldn't "work" are apparently the same as the reasons given for why freedom wouldn't "work". http://mises.org/daily/5076

Gosh, so many answers! Did I really provoked all of these comments? :)Some of you stated that since Jeff owns Dollar Vigilante, he is allowed to apply the rules that fits his needs and if someone wishes to interact in this forum, that someone must comply to his regulations. Well, in this case, since this is a blog, I can concur. But... what if it was something else... something that it could decide whether a person would live or die.Let me give you one real example (again from Portugal... I love my country, despite the recession...)Here in Portugal, there are several water companies in several regions of the country and all have one thing in common... they all represent monopolies! One of the things that the FMI agreement stated was that, companies owned by the state should be privatized and this raises a problem. Since these companies are clearly monopolies and since they supply water, that all Portuguese Citizens need to drink in order to live, who would regulate and avoid that these new privatized companies, would end up charging forbidden prices for the water supply, if there was an Anarchical system, here in Portugal?Since there is no way for a new company to born in a month or a year (or ever), because of the costs to build a new pipeline infrastructure in order to compete in a free-market style, these new privatized companies have the possibility of charging very high prices in order to obtain the maximum possible profit... I'm really interested in knowing how that problem can be solved.In my opinion the existence of a referee could be seen as someone belonging to a group, that was allowed by the majority of the group, to take higher level decisions. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as the group maintain an eye on the referee and understands what the referee is doing and how it affects the group (knowledge about how things work). If someone doesn't agree in how the group works or doesn't wan't to comply with the rules, that someone is free to leave. Simple! :)I think that there is the misconception that a Whatchman has "super-powers", well... i don't see that way. I see the referee as someone that was simply elected by the group (like someone that is better fitted for the job) to take decisions that can actually affects the group, but i don't see the difference from this job when compared to other jobs such as, a doctor that helps ppl to feel better or an civil engineer that builds houses for people to live.Ed Bugos actually got my point when he stated:"The debate is not over whether to have law or not; it is over whether it is better provided by a coercive monopoly or competitive agencies. I know some readers will think that would be worse because then the rich could just buy the police, etc. It's not that simple. But that's another idea altogether. The point is that in anarchist society you could still have a moderator. It just wouldn't be a bureaucrat in Washington."@Ed Bugos, when you stated this:"The criticism is basically that "game theory" is an inappropriate framework for understanding society, which is a complex organism, founded on complex relationships between people guided by the principle of the division of labor."Let me add something that I learned when I researched in the field of Game Theory.Game Theory requires that the agents act Rationally and humans, are very far from that. Also, markets don't have a rational behaviour and that's why Game Theory has lost its place in the economic system, to Econometrics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econometrics).@PhilosophistaWhen you stated:"Did it ever occur to you the population is stupid Because of the system?"Well, I agree but changing the system to Anarchy wouldn't change that, it would actually kill the system altogether... See it as, feeding a child that passed trough a long period of starvation. You need to feed the child properly and very slowly in order for the body to slowly absorbs the nutrients and recover.The apply's to the current society, it needs time to change and it needs a transition period and probably a transition system that has referees, while society get's educated.The biggest problem with Portugal after the revolution, was that people weren't accustomed to be free... They didn't knew what fredom was... and after the revolution, some problems erupted :S @Shane, you stated that i said:"Anarchy as an "unproven" and "Utopian" model."I never said that. What I said was:" it is not possible to firmly say without any shadow of a doubt that an Anarchistic Society would be the one free statist coercion, economic depressions, legislative injustice, and even waste. Actually that is an Utopian state and that is not possible since we are humans and humans are inequitably flawed and prone to fail."There are no perfect system and problems will always erupt, that's how nature works. :)Our society is very differentiated. We have doctors, engineers, entertainers, lawyers, etc... each and everyone has it's own special gift and we will never be able understand and learn everything. Every time we get sick and need to go to the doctor, we select him and delegate to him, the decisions that can lead us to recover or to the coffin... hey, humans aren't perfect! Referee's will always be there in but the difference is, if the People has enough knowledge and education, they have the ability to choose and to substitute the referee/government/lawyer/doctor, what ever you want to call it...I think it's a matter of having the right tools in order to be trully free, or in other words, to be truly educated!Sorry again for the big post... Cya you all!

I like Max Keiser--esp. when I first started listening to him--but as time has passed, his statist views and 'solutions' have really begun to annoy me. I would LOVE to see him in a debate w/an anarchist like Jeff Berwick.The whole idea of govt-as-ref has been tried innumerable times and has ALWAYS FAILED.Those who adhere to this premise believe political power (i.e., the legalized power to coerce, steal, and murder) can be given to mere humans who will only wield it wisely. They seem to believe there is a race of humans, somewhere out there, who are immune from corruption, pettiness, mental-illness, favoritism, etc.Take govt. courts, where justice/fairness are allegedly upheld, for example: You have a govt.-appointed/paid judge (who has near-total immunity for his courtroom actions) presiding as a 'neutral' party/'ref...a govt.-appointed/paid prosecuting lawyer...a govt.-licensed defense lawyer...govt. appointed/paid cops & investigators...all sworn to uphold govt.-passed 'laws'...a govt.-educated jury given strict instructions on how they should enforce the 'law'...and then there is the defendant/citizen whom ALL of the above govt. agents are allegedly SERVING. If these people are serving ME...why are they ordering ME around at gunpoint and making me do things against my will? ALL of them are paid w/money confiscated (be it taxes, fines, lawyer fees, court fees, etc.) from citizens/defendants OUTSIDE their little govt. gang...in short, their very LIVELIHOODS depend on continuing and expanding the system of legalized extortion. But statists imagine these people are NEUTRAL REFS?! It is a totally delusional worldview.

@ Claymore1. Society isn't ready for anarchy yet.Most anarchists I know readily acknowledge this and see the move towards a truly free society as a gradual and evolutionary one, rather than a sudden and revolutionary change. This in no way negates or disproves anarchists' assertions that the existence of a state is A) Immoral and B) Counter-productive to the best interests of the VAST majority of humanity.2. Anarchy as an "unproven" and "Utopian" model.First off...anarchists I know of do NOT say total freedom would result in "Utopia". Only that it would be DRASTICALLY preferable to what exists now. Big difference. On the contrary, I would say STATISTS are the actual "Utopians"...they persist in a religious-like belief that granting a TINY # of humans near god-like power over the rest can result in a society where virtually every problem (hunger, homelessness, education, environment, etc.) is eliminated. Believing that a small minority of people are capable and entitled to such power is, quite frankly, insane.Secondly...since the state (as powerful as it is) is incapable of REALLY controlling the actions of 100's of MILLIONS of individuals...well, this alone indicates that the VAST majority of folks are well-behaved and civil to one another, as well as capable of navigating life on their own. If people were as bad as many statists make them out to be...there is NO WAY a small minority could keep them in line. In short, in their PRIVATE lives and interactions, people ALREADY demonstrate the capacity to function w/o the coercion of the state forcing their actions. 3. People are "too dumb" and/or "incapable" of handling freedom.The same was said, less than 200 years ago, about slaves descended from Africa. So, this isn't really an argument AGAINST anarchy so much as a rationalization of the current system.

Two comments.First,>> "Oddly enuf, Jeff the anarchist has a statement below here that that these posts don't appear until moderated,"Folks, this way misses the point. Jeff is not making an argument for lawlessness. Just that it is ludicrous to think that the state can be a neutral arbiter and better check than free market competition.The truth is that competition puts economic power in the hands of the consumer. The referee, insofar as it is used to protect crony capitalists and labor monopolies, puts economic power in the hands of the producers -to be split between the left and the right -the left thinks labor is the producer; the right thinks the owner of capital is the producer. This is the status quo. To reject the state, however, is not a vote for lawlessness. Perhaps a better term, which many Austrians tend to prefer, is a "private law society". In this society you would have law. The police and judiciary would simply be private.The debate is not over whether to have law or not; it is over whether it is better provided by a coercive monopoly or competitive agencies. I know some readers will think that would be worse because then the rich could just buy the police, etc. It's not that simple. But that's another idea altogether. The point is that in anarchist society you could still have a moderator. It just wouldn't be a bureaucrat in Washington.Some anarchist writers have used the cooperative as a model for society as they would see it. We all know there are rules in a co-op. This would not change under anarchy. What would be different is that there would be true consent (not like Max thinks). You would have the right to secede from any organization or community whose rules you didn't like. You can't really do that in a society whose rules are all made by one big central planning bureaucracy. Jeff is just saying that, like the structure of production, society itself can sort out norms and create spontaneous order. There would still be law.The difference between private and public law can be a matter of ethics. Rothbard wrote a lot about this subject. I'm not myself that adept at understanding law. But he wrote that there are laws that reflect norms in society, which are meant to ensure harmony...the protections of property, enforcement of social contract, etc....and there is legislation created by bureaucrats that amount to privileges.Second point,>> "Actually, many things in life are a zero sum game. You eat continuously or you die. You get medical care or you die. You have shelter or you die. Letting the most powerful control all of these without any oversight...as bad as fascism."Steve: this isn't quite what Jeff meant. Of course there are many things in life that are zero sum. And a free market system won't change that.There are also many things that are positive sum (exchange). There are many things that are negative sum (government). Your examples are pointless. Look, "life is exchanges." Within that sphere, which can be properly called free market capitalism, Jeff is contrasting voluntary exchange, which is mutually beneficial by definition, with exchanges where the referee tilts the playing field. The criticism is basically that "game theory" is an inappropriate framework for understanding society, which is a complex organism, founded on complex relationships between people guided by the principle of the division of labor.Ed Bugos

the feeling of injustice of the moment comes from the fact there ARE referees; the governments and the notation agencies (moody etc...) and that they are corrupt,( that is even uglier than a football referee receiving advantages to let one side win, because the future of the planet is not a game. I am talking about the planet because obscene greed (not wealth seeking) goes hand in hand with all forms of destructions)The second difference is that there is no public watching the capitalist " competition", so we can not judge if there are fair or not, and can not really understand the decisions made by the referrees unless one is very knowledgeable and not gullible.So, there might be a necesity of a referee, but a non corrupt one, specialist in this "sport", not just any ofiicial, and also more transparency. That could mean more education in the domain of capitalism (obviously the only way to run humanity so far, if ethical and not glamorized like the US have made it, nor demonized like others did,) and perhaps some form of elected (again, no glamour or big bucks ) of a comittee made of all horizons of people, formed of course, known for their wisdom, sense of ethics etc...) sounds utopic, this a kinf of "tribal counsel" still,otherwise, I do not see any good coming from a totally free market because moneymaking does not favour altruism and thisone is fundamental for evolution. Just imagine a game of any sport without refree AND with no public, where it is ALL about winning (the cool, playful, detached BIG businessman, I believe, exist only in hollywood movies, eventhough some do exist, I hope))

"Oddly enuf, Jeff the anarchist has a statement below here that that these posts don't appear until moderated, LOL."Good point Steve!Jeff here, is the referee :)

Steve's comment is actually very characteristic of what I find people think Anarchism is (or is it what the government told them it is?). Steve obviously thinks that Anarchism is a system where we all agree to have no rules or laws. This could not be further from the truth.Unlike the state, Anarchism is full of rules, but all the rules are private, and the benefits or losses (yep, losses, something the state always socializes) that are due to the implementation of those rules affect only the owner of the that private property who instituted the rules.This board, is a private resource, no one is bound to use it, and as is proper for any private resource, it is being fully managed in full accordance with the rules and regulations that the owner believes would benefit his goals. If the owner is wrong, then the rules he imposed will generate a loss for him. No one else is affected, you can always post on Obama's Twitter Page.Yes, Jeff is not a referee on his private property, but an owner, as you should be as well, and I support such rights of your's to the point that you, for instance refuse doing business with me because of my color, and beyond. He is not judging your behavior, he simply chooses to conduct his business with you or not.The main difference here is that a referee is NOT choosing the path of his own business, instead, he INTERVENES into the business of two or more other parties, which by the definition, is NONE OF HIS BUSINESS.

Wow! I'm quite happy with all the comments! I never thought it would bring so many counter-answers!Ok, first i will start to give you all some information about my life in order for you to understand a bit more, why did I wrote what I wrote. To start, I'm not American n'or Canadian, I'm Portuguese :)Portugal is a Social State (be aware that Socialism is very different from Communism.), the result of a revolution that took place at the 25 of April of 1974 (the Cradle Revolution) and took down a Right Wing Fascist Dictatorial Government, so a Big Brother system is something my country is familiar with :)In the times previously to the Cradle Revolution, it was very hard to access knowledge and only those with monetary possessions (money inherited, parents with solid financial companies and others sources of high income) would be able to study at higher levels of education (medical doctor, lawyer, electrical engineering and other degrees) with the exception of merit scholarships but these were very very rare. This was a way of controlling the People, to deny the access to Knowledge and that is why Portugal, nowadays has a big problem with the elder society that is getting unemployed... because they don't have the technical knowledge to access new jobs.Due to right wing decisions in the beginning of the 90's, our Agriculture, Industry and Fishing's, have been constantly and gradually put to an end. Subsidies coming (or imposed if you ask me) by the European Union, were used to "pay to not produce". Strategic state companies such as Electric company (EDP) or Telecommunications company (PT) were privatized and the revenues coming from those companies that would allow to maintain the social state and would allow the investment in the economy, were no longer available for that...Why did this all happen? Simply... the people did not have the knowledge to understand what was happening... Remember when I said, access to knowledge was denied in order to maintain control over the population? This was one of the results... a society without knowledge will never have the ability to self-organise.Maybe i took a "too much of a Science Guy" approach, I confess that and for that, I'm sorry. Unfortunately, we can never be fully impartial. Our life will always influence our opinions. " Oh, by the way they'll just rest up for the next game, so it never ends for their team. They understand the game, that's why they're playing it so well, that's why almost no one on the planet is taught Austrian economics, it's not by accident. That's why almost none of the public can answer even in the most basic terms what is or why we need a FEDERAL RESERVE to handle and control our money."You got my point Bill Lodderhose, control the access to knowledge and you will control the people! :)"Who Watches the Watchmen?" you ask? well, the ones that are being watched! :) Give to the people access to knowledge and the Watchmen will fear the ones that they Watch :)Kashyap, you commented about Philosophy knowledge which is not verifiable knowledge. Just because a group of people says something is inequitably true, doesn't make it True... In fact, we have the opposite in this world, it's called Mass Stupidity! :)I'm glad my comments spawned so many others! :) It's good to discuss these themes with people that have different approaches a problem! It gives me the opportunity to improve myself! Thank you all for that :)

"Well, that is not possible to prove... Why? You need to test it, take note of the results and test it again with the same initial startup base, but since this is not possible (to reset the entire system to the initial state), it is not possible to firmly say without any shadow of a doubt that..."Replying to just this part. This is the methodology of empiricism. If you employ deductive reasoning starting from axiomatic premises, you do not need to "test" the conclusions. The conclusions are universally true, since the premises (axioms) are universally true. And this is the methodology used by political philosophy to make the case for anarchism. Hence, there is no need to empirically prove it. It is always true.Also, saying a society is not ready for such a system is a judgement based on your observations in a particular field. On what basis would you extend one observation to all humanity? Simply extrapolating human behaviour in one case to all of human behaviour is scientifically invalid, even in empiricism.

Humans, unlike mathematical models, do not hold scarce resources forever. This is the point that all too many socialists do not understand at all.Factors that tend to reduce the share grabbed to zero or below:- Death- Children- Needs, which can be satisfied in exchange for resourcesMost socialist believe that if you allow someone to buy a big farm and to keep a billion dollars, then he will only get richer and his farm bigger, or at least, that those will never be reduced. So wrong.Whatever skills to provide goods and services that he had to earn this living, will not be seen in his children. They will waste (pay in exchange for goods and services) way more and at faster rate than their father could ever accumulate.I believe socialists worry about that, because they never themselves are true producers. They think they produce something needed and that they do it efficiently, but somehow there is no demand by a free market for their efforts, it is always from a public purse and through coercion. To them, obviously, if they were allowed to keep this river of honey (flowing from a concentration camp called government), they would grow way too rich. And they would. This is because they experience no forces of friction in their artificial market.Thus they actually have no idea, how hard it is, not only to accumulate, but also, and often even harder to maintain. I would say that if this was true, then we would see some big fish growing to the point that it would be able to swallow mountains. For the same reason that we do not see it in fish, we should not worry about it with people or corporations.Besides, the world does not any single example, of anyone at all, getting out of hand, on his own honest work. And yet, there are many examples of people and organizations getting way over abusive and out of hand, and in every single case, like a clockwork, we find that it could not happen without government.