Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
@Loki : The problem remains: How do you reliably sort those who are well meaning from those who aren't? Who decides who is well meaning? Who decides who decides who is well meaning? The capitalist answer is that there is no reliable way, and even if there were, the well meaning people still could not adequately provide good and services through a monopoly because of lack of information about the complexity of the economy. Instead, firms should peacefully compete to provide goods and services, and then their success can be measured by comparison. Further, the capitalist would argue that monolithic power structures on average attract people who are not well meaning.

The economy is an organic by-product. It has no purpose other than the provision of the desires of the organisms that make it up. The unit of purpose resides at the individual level... no one truly knows what is best for you. The statist fallacy is that the economy exists for the purposes of some imagined abstraction "the good of the many," "the collective," "the volk." These entities do not actually have needs because they do not actually exist as self-perceiving organisms.
Stop talking about states or capitalism or whatever. You're talking from a warped perspective and ideological strawmens.

How to organize, when to use force, what regulations should exist, who/what enforces those regulations. Stop talking in ideological absolutes and start talking about practical interactions. You want to live in a world of purely voluntary interactions, fine, seems like a good idea, but how do you put that into practice.

Tell us how things will be organize, and prove that organization works, and the provide the product in a convenient format. This is how a capitalist will sell it right? So create the product, make a place, make it work, then people will follow.

Just remember, it won't last forever, someone will change it.

The thing is you promote the idea that somehow absent some of the organization mechanisms which exist in the world somehow the world would be somehow bet better. Prove it. You can't, and I doubt you can even make the attempt. The thing is the world is already anarchy, the organizations that exist in the world is emergent structure which has arisen naturally, and that dissolution of those structures may only lead to their emergence again perhaps in a different configuration, and not necessarily for the better.

I agree that the world could be made better, and that states have problems and that the existing organizational structures in the world aren't great, but until you give me a option that isn't a fantasy, you're never going to convince a great majority of people. Maybe you will, maybe it'll even work, but I doubt it.