Originally Posted by Helm
OAO, look outside of your ass for a while. The combined force of more than one human working in concert (besides being a small state in themselves) can overpower nature, and also single humen working alone. There begins both civilization, and class inequality. The State, big or small, strong or weak comes in much later. Read some Marx or even the Kropotkin you like, or something, before loudly declaring yourself an anarchist, especially such a rediculous one as a anarcho-capitalist. The will to power, control and safety is hard-coded into men, and as animals they will seek it, in unison if they have to. True market economy isn't fair and never will be. Taking the regulator out ( the state ) will only serve to make things worse. People aren't fair. They will not go by the rainbow fairlyand rule of libertarian non-agression. People who are oppressed by a system, be it by it's inherent flaws or their OWN inability to keep up with it will revolt and destroy it. Therefore there are two options, either stick to the libertarian shit to the very end, and perish along with the foolish system that JUMPS STRAIGHT from capitalism to anarcho-capitalism, without taking into account that philosophically speaking, the modern man is still a swine, or take measures to contain and control the dissident masses. Enter fascism. Even the most basic understanding of human nature, politics and economics will lead you to these probable scenarios.
The only job as "regulator" that the State truly has in our modern society is maintaining advantagous market conditions for favored actors (i.e. corporations). Other than that, it's just about throwing enough breadcrumbs to the common man to keep him from revolting, and also destroying opposition to the State. You, as a seemingly radical socialist, know this.
The thing you fail to understand is that measures are taken to control the masses. There is no utopian assumption that everyone will respect property; this is why private defense agencies (i.e. police) are contracted. They're even more effecient than the State, thanks to the subjection of force to competition. Furthermore, many anarcho-capitalists recognize the right of individuals to form collectivist societies... the point is that we shouldn't be forced to join them.
Furthermore, the very argument about the system being oppressive can be applied to socialism itself, be it in a statist or anti-statist tradition. The very inequalities of life that can result from ignoring preference in both the material and immaterial planes can lead to dissatisfaction, not to mention that people tend to desire individual ownership (as opposed to merely possession).
And finally, Marx's justification of egalitarian collectivism is flawed because it assumes a false theory of value.
Anarchism (as Kropotkin will tell you) is a byproduct of a refined society. One that abolished classes through communism, and one which gradually evolves into non-agression. And therefore, we should be more concerned with the stepping stone (socialism) than with the end result because we cannot get from here to there.
Kropotkin? What about individualist anarchists, like Tucker or Stirner? Even the ansocs don't deny their legitimacy.