If there is order it is by definition not anarchy.

Anarchy is , by definition, a lack of government, not a lack of order.

Whether you call a set of rules followed and enforced government, vigilante justice, whatever you call it, it is the same entity. Democratic and representative governments allow the people to choose which laws are followed where historically it is the few who choose laws.

Vigilante justice works outside any established law. I agree on Democratic and representative governments.

Regardless, there will always be laws, there will never be anarchy.

True.

The difference is that this recent dangerous rock star popularity of these free-for-all theories do not lead to any more freedom, it takes the ability to determine law away from people, and gives it back to those with the most power.

And presently, the gang with the most power is the government, who is steadily taking more from the people. You don't have to have an anarchy, for the thugs to gain and keep power.

I actually do dot advocate anarchy. I advocate a constitutional minarchy, much smaller than what exists now.

Any anarchy, as stated, would very quickly turn into tyranny.

Possibly.

I'm curious, why do you believe we are headed toward tyranny now? This is a very, very odd idea and seems separated from reality, much like your insistence that anarchy of any type would actually lead to more freedom.

For the last 100, and accelerated in the last 50 years, the "progressives" have worked to remove the safeguards of true rights (life, liberty and property) in the US government, circumventing, and sometimes outright ignoring, the constitution to push their agendas.

This can be seen in several programs.

The central banking system which funnels value from savings up to banks, by allowing them to inflate the money supply. This inflation of credit is the primary cause of booms and busts in the stock market and has virtually destroyed our economy.

Legal tender laws, which make difficult to keep and trade in monies that could retain their value, by refusing to enforce payment of contracts in other than the legal tender.

(This, along with the central bank, allows them to "fund" programs virtually at will, instead of having to ask permission from the people, in the form of a tax to pay for it.)

The building of a welfare state through massive entitlement programs (paid for by debt), has made nearly half of the population reliant on the government for some, if not all, of their livelihood or survival. This government interference damages the market, causing less wealth to be produced. This forces people to choose between a smaller government and putting food on the table. Over the generations, it has changed the national attitude from one of self reliance, and pride in one's accomplishments, into one of entitlement, envy and fear. It has caused the government to be viewed as the great provider for a nation of children. In short, a religion of the state.

to be continued...

... continued

The PATRIOT Act, the NDAA and the recent stripping of citizen protections from FISA, all go far to remove any meaningful right to privacy we have.

The constant barrage of gun control legislation which chips away at what ability we have to defend against any oppression the government decides is necessary for the "public good".

Add to this the attempts by recent presidents to bypass congress (our lawmaking body) all together through thousands of executive orders over the last decade.

So, you have a systematic degrading of the citizenry financially, socially and militarily, all resulting in an increase of government power. The case could be made that we are well on our way to tyranny.

Economy of scale actually becomes less efficient when companies get as big as many are now. The only reason that it seems different, is the protectionist regulations they lobby congress for, to reduce competition from smaller, more adaptable companies and the fact the fiat currency system forces the use of the "money" that the companies have amassed, for use in trade, preventing the market from choosing a more efficient medium of exchange.

Free market capitalism is a logical argument, you just refuse to accept it.

Wrong, the U.S. is not a semi free market capitalism, it is a mixed economy being government ownership, a civilized society is one based on voluntary action and exchange rather than the use of force, the voluntary exchange is the very best for the good of society.

The use of force is not civilized, it is barbaric.

For the free market to work perfectly, it must be perfectly efficient, and people perfectly informed.

This is true of any system, so it is not a net argument against the free market.

If it's not perfectly efficient, then the bad things that start to happen (business start to get the upper hand, pollute the environment, etc).

Describe the effects, to the consumer, of a system where "businesses start to get the upper hand". Pollution of someone else's property is properly addressed by protection of property rights (see The Coase theorem), with or without the action of government.

All I was saying is that people make decisions that are not always in their best interest.

Who decides what is in your best interest?

Is it not the right of each to decide that for himself?

This is the "people are too stupid to know what is best for them, so the state must decide for them" argument.

For the free market to work (not become corrupt, etc) people have to NOT make bad decisions...

For the free market to work, all that is required is that consumers be free to choose the relative value of their available choices and be free to produce what they are better at producing to trade for those things which they value. The quality of the individual decisions is irrelevant, as a trade ALWAYS reflects that relative valuation, and communicates to the savvy producer, the demand for his product.

The purpose of the free market is to efficiently allocate scarce resources.

and be fully rational which is not the way they behave.

People use means, to achieve ends. Because your ends are not their ends, and because they do not act in a way that will achieve your preferred ends, does not mean that they act irrationally.

True. So we agree that one of the side effects of Libertarianism would be that people would have to uproot their lives and move each time their "market" does not support enough competition to be "efficient" and fair.

The market, left to itself, is always efficient (that is its purpose. It is not the function of the market to be "fair", nor is it the function of government to make it so). To try to make it "fair" is to substitute political decisions for economic ones. This decreases the efficiency of ANY economic system, and is the primary reason that the economy is in the poor shape it is in.

Because as soon as you have to go on the free market and "buy" your police and court, more money means you get better quality. Additionally, inefficiencies in the economy create corruption in the very organizations that are upholding your rights.

Here is where people misunderstand libertarianism, and capitalism. If we are talking about government courts and police, then the less power you give government to do favors to one or another, then the less power they can sell to the highest bidder (in the court system). As for police, people already have a right to hire private security (increase the quality of their police protection).

.. but being taxed is not the same as being discriminated against.

It is, if you are being taxed differently from someone else, based solely upon your ability to produce.

Low taxes is not a human right.

Correct, but equal treatment by your government, IS.

I (and most people I think) don't see all the "rights" the same. I think you see everything under the umbrella of "property rights" and they are all equal. This is not the case in our society and never will be.

That is because many see access to resources as "rights". Nothing can be a right, that must be supplied by the labor of another. To argue that the resources of another are your right, is to argue that you have the right to the service of another. How is this compatible with the idea that slavery is unjust?

People don't see the "right to discriminate" and the "right to free speech" the same way. The effect the right has on the society MATTERS.

How people see it is irrelevant. In exercising your right to discriminate, you do not violate any of the rights of anyone else. Neither do you violate the rights of others when exercising your right to free speech, on your property, or property which you have rented/borrowed for that purpose.

When you exercise your "right" to government services, paid for by the labor of others, you are violating their property rights.

The effect this has had on society is increased poverty, generational welfare, the near destruction of the black family in the inner cities, the whole "entitlement" culture, a poor economy, the eroding of natural rights, a huge federal government, and massive debt.

you've said:

"I believe of a small central government"

and then

"Localized and small is better"

These are exactly opposite.

Centralized gov does not work, it's extremely slow and ineffective. It was use during Communist era in Czech Republic. It was horrible fail.

You need mufti layer system with efficient feedback.

Ordinary people should not have vote on education, it's the most important area and must controlled by professionals. It cannot be defined by people's personal beliefs and feelings.

Switzerland has direct democracy system which I find as the best.

As ideology the best one is Communism but all it's previous and present applications are/were true fail. It's the final stage that any society could reach but it may take hundreds of years util people will be ready to live that way without turning US into North Korea 2.0

Making smaller government you do not solve any problem, you just restart the cycle.