How did merchants work in collaboration before merchant laws? They made their own. I never said anything about barter, but if you study the history of money you'll see that it came about as a medium of exchange on the market. It was not decided by governments until governments took the process over with the establishment of central banks. People decided on the medium of exchange. Decentralized areas are harder to invade and occupy than a centralized country. Centralization has the mechanism in place for control of the massesAnarchism: Welcome to the 10th century BC. You need government for laws. You need laws for commerce. You need commerce for an effective economy beyond barter, you need government for reliable currency, common defense etc.
No. I don't agree with murder, rape, theft or any type of initiated violence for violence sake. Those people should be sued for what they have done. Free market justice systems can provide those services. Plus, you seem to want protection (who doesn't). Free market protection agencies can do the same, if not a better job for economic factors, than what we have today. The idea being that you are free to choose if you want it or not.You think anarchy will mean no coercion? Tell ya what. Suppose I shoot faster and more accurately than you do. Thanks for your stuff, thanks for letting me rape your sister. Seeing as there is no form of government, you'd best hope your clan is tougher than mine.
Vastly different philosophies. Pacifism would result in what you have described above because it won't use violence for anything, not even self-defense.Anarchy is just as clueless about the human condition as pacifism.
Ignorant, no. Rational, yes. You are conflating anarchy with anarchism. Anarchy would be the actual realization of a social system without rulers. It's not a system without a set of rules to protect the weak from the strong. Anarchy simply means no rulers, but it most definitely would have "rules." Anarchism is the theory of individualism and self-rule covering a spectrum from human action to free market economics. Hundreds of years of intellectual thought has been put into anarchism. Those nutjobs at the WTO were simply fools who destroyed property. Lastly, one the defining characteristics about libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. Rationally speaking, if you follow the non-aggression principle to its ultimate end you have anarchism. Government is force which goes against the NAP. Thus you can't have a libertarian society with government as its a contradiction of terms. I just want to make this clear and defend my ground that anarchism is not some philosophy of the ignorant but a well thought out theory of social order.Forgive me, but I find anarchy, like pacifism, to be a philosophy popular among the very young and the very ignorant. "Small l" libertarianism is practical. Anarchy is not practical and will never be implemented, despite what the nutjobs protesting at the WTO meetings might wish.