>
> Chuck has a point. As Nozick realized, capitalism
> requires a regime of enforceable property rights and
> contract and tort law. Therefore it requires a state, so
> no anarchism. Right wing libertarians tend to be
> minimal-staters--jets and jails, as an old TA of mine
> who liked the view once put it. He might have added,
> judges.
Nozick realized this because he is not either stupid or deluded by ideological purity the way some are. But some right libertarians really claim you don't need courts, that you can contract for arbitration. You don't need state built roads, all roads can be privately built and maintained. As for money, gold will do. Setting aside whether or not this state of affairs would be desirable, most people would agree it is not workable. But there are purists who claim it nevertheless.
Just like there are left wing anarchists who really think a completely stateless society is possible. I don't. I particularly don't think a modern technological society is possible w/o some kind of state.
But my original point was a critisicm of the jealous guarding of the term 'anarchist' by some lefties. I think it silly and childish. As silly as telling someone that they are pronouncing their own name incorrectly.
-- no Onan
Undefeated, everybody goes home