It was actually meant to be somewhat of a compliment, but that obviously misfired. :)

As far as Detroit is concerned, your comments give the impression that you may not have been following the evolution there too closely. I have; for over three years. It's actually quite fascinating regardless of one's philosophical stance. Do you have any idea which crime prevention firm I might be referring to?

You're right, usually it's only the threat of force followed by twisted morals that is so prevalent in history. Still, it wears off eventually.

Does government prevent every person from violating the non-aggression principle? Clearly not. There is no claim that anarchy would, either. However, the key difference is that in anarchy, paying for creators and enforcers of the law would be voluntary, and the competition (as opposed to the government monopoly we have now) would allow innovation, accountability, and reduced cost.

> what stops anyone from just becoming the biggest baddest ass on the block? <

Reading "The Virtue of Selfishness" may help you begin to figure out the answer to that one.

Anarchy simply means "no rulers." Another word for the modern movement is "Voluntaryism," meaning that all acts should be voluntary and not the result of coercion by force or fraud. Most of the anarchist videos and articles I've seen are 100% in favor of the free market; for emphasis, this is often called "anarcho-capitalism." Even the anarcho-communists seem to concede that with the non-aggression principle, participation would be voluntary, so I think we're right back to free-market capitalism, and people can voluntarily join a commune if they want.

The mechanisms for courts, law-making, and protection would be very much the same, with the important exception that they would be voluntary. Competition would lead to improvement, lower costs, and better accountability.

Did you know that there was a perfectly good, market-created voluntary system for resolving disputes prior to the government court system in England? It worked so well that the King decided he wanted a cut of the compensation, and then established the courts -- nominally for the people's good, but in reality so he could be a parasite of the already functioning system. I read an article about this, but can't find it to link to at the moment.

I just scored a 79. It grabbed my interest, I'll come back to it later after a few chores I must do. This is the kind of method needed to enlighten those we disagree with politically. I do not feel intimidated by the instructions nor by my score. I feel totally open minded and comfortable about proceeding.

And that is where you go off the rails unless you are joking. Voluntary cooperation to achieve a shared objective does not constitute a government. Even today's world of ever more intrusive nanny governments, most of society is based the (mostly) voluntary division of labor. The ebb and flow of such arrangements is constantly and naturally changing, from "If I cook, will you do the dishes" to the complex dynamics involved in something as "simple" as the manufacture of a pencil where most of the participants (such as the lumber jack and the graphite miner) are not even aware of each others existence.

Surely, not even in YOUR wildest imagination, do these voluntary associations constitute "government"?

Wikipedia: A government is the system by which a state or community is governed. Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state. A form of government, or form of state governance, refers to the set of political systems and institutions that make up the organization of a specific government.

Huh? How does never initiating aggression against another person violate that person's liberty?

Do you believe the majority of humans use force for the sake of force? That they simply enjoy it regardless of the consequences? Or do you think humans use force because it is the easiest way to get what they want in certain circumstances? If it was easier to get what they wanted by using reason and negotiation, would they still prefer force? It seems to me the best way to reduce the violent tendencies of humanity is to provide them with opportunities, I think the NAP is the best moral system to providing those opportunities.

It's not the end all answer to peace on earth, although I would hope the further it spreads the closer we could get to that ideal, but it is the best place to start. Any approach that requires the initiation of force is doomed to collapse, as eventually the slaves will rebel.

you don't doubt my good faith , which is why you make the effort? are you implying something of an ad hominem nature here? they tell you on your own freedom academy website -the page on "mentors" not to do that.... You're the new guy on the block writing posts on a website for people interested in AS and Objectivism. It seems like your good faith is more in question until we get to know you better ;)
"contracting with private security" how is that contract enforced? Yes, I'm sure they work for small groups-the reason they are there, is because the govt has already broken down and you have a situation that is chaotic. That's my point- so a few are able to be protected by these private firms-the rest are still living in chaos being unproductive because they are spending time protecting themselves and their property and children aren't able to learn. Biff in Back to the Future Three was able to be protected, but the town was not this nice everyone getting along well, etc. lol
I agree that most are not sociopathic-100%. But in a chaotic or corrupt situation most will use force because it is being used against them. I agree to the conflict of small government. You still have not answered my question about remedy and enforcement of contracts. Ultimately I will challenge you on intellectual property and environmental issues. but I will state again-reasonable people disagree-how do you handle disputes? Your private police force disagrees with my private police force. now we have a mini war-we're back to a feudal existence. Invention will diminish. Building assets will go mostly towards protection. there have to be some rules.

I don’t doubt your good faith, which is why I make the effort to reply. My short answer would be “complete the tolfa.us curriculum and refute LOGICALLY what it contains, but only after completing the whole course.” That may consume more of your time than you can afford right now. Believe me it took me decades to get to where I find myself now.

You see, the problem is that you continue to apply conditions which exist under a government monopoly on violence to create a scenario which supports your current convictions. First of all, the vast majority of humanity is decent and just. Sociopaths are outliers and as such make up only a tiny minority of society.

The remedy against these outliers is that In a truly anarchic society, the vast majority of people will own defensive weapons or other devices, know how to use them and be free to do so. Contracting with private security and crime prevention services is another option which has recently been demonstrated to be highly effective in the police vacuum created by the bankruptcy of Detroit. Having lived and worked in several countries which can easily be described as lawless in comparison with the USA or Canada I have seen this free market security mechanism at work with great effect.

This is in complete contrast to the present state of affairs where the vast majority of “good” people are disarmed by “government” and left effectively helpless against predators who simply ignore the laws and acquire/use whatever weapons they desire to.

You ask about dispute settlement mechanisms. They already exist in abundance today. Free market arbitration services and insurance policies (such full coverage auto) are proliferating everywhere, especially as government courts become more corrupt every day.

"Why would everyone else stand around and allow it? I know I wouldn't and neither would most of my friends."
well, then, you'll always have to have the biggest club and we're back at fiefdoms. and all that protecting will keep you from getting anything done and being productive. what mechanism do you have for disputes? and again remedy?

Why would everyone else stand around and allow it? I know I wouldn't and neither would most of my friends.

In the current system there is a perfect avenue for bullies and sociopaths to get away with it - sign up for a government job. They got them for every taste. Small time bully? Become a clerk at your local DMV. Serious sociopath? Sign up as an IRS agent or with one of the thousands of (militarized) police agencies. Have psychopathic tendencies but queasy around blood? Become a politician. Want to get into some serious killing? Join the military. They maintain a few really cool shooting galleries far enough from home so that your family and neighbors won't have to watch what you're up to. Over the top, power hungry psychopath? Interested in killing in the thousands by proxy? Take a shot at running for US president.