So, in response to some things HeadThump has said...

It seems to me that anarcho-capitalism requires one major thing to work properly:

1) the ability of at least one person to own capital

...yes? 

non-pretentious

Doesn't politics automatically connote pretentiousness and pompousness?

Or is that too existential and maybe I should take the question to the philosophy thread?

</taking the piss> 

Some visions and ideology instead of the one dimensional pie throwing popularity contests!

(hmm there's no pie icon so I'll go with the cheese) 

I'm super duper tired but this kind of sums up my stance on things:

http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html 

Edited the thread to make it a more general political discussion. I doubt things will justify having seperate "Political Economy" and "Political Other Factors" threads ;).

Carry on lads!! 

No wonder you have a pathological hard-on for anarco-capitalism; anything suggesting the green eye shades of the accountant must scare the holy be Jesus out of a believer.

First question comes to mind, what incentive would there be to join such a society for anyone reading this thread? At the very least they possess a means to the internet and that would not have occurred without either the fullfillment of a a profit incentive or the intervention through of a state.

A short list of societies that sound more appealing than these various stripes of Anarchy.

1) Life in these United States.
2) Life in the EU
3) Life in Modern China,
4) Life in Maoist China
5) Life in Stalinist Russia
6) Life as a serf in Tsarist Russia
7) Life as a Galley Slave in the Roman Empire

The advantage with any of these alternatives is that you are not confronted with the all compassionate, all knowing, quintesence of reason, the demos of the 'people' 24 hours a day where every aspect of existence is by some token a political expression. Compared to that, the pint of water granted after rowing the ship for eighteen hours straight sounds quite inviting.

I didn't put Life under Pol Pot because Anarco-Primitivism is the same thing, no matter what Chomsky may say to the contrary. 

where every aspect of existence is by some token a political expression

Can't virtually any action or in-action be given a political dimension in any society though? 

 

I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. Rant? 

eventually humor is one of the things that will be on the What Anarchists Oppose list. I have even heard some radicals state that all humor is counter revolutionary.

Bear -- true, but no one else would care about how you would make a cheese sandwich. That link inert gave makes it sound like you would have to run it through a committee first under some of the forms of Anarchy described. Certainly, the animal rights oriented anarchist (not listed but it all really seems quite arbitrary) would object to udder exploitation, so no cheese sandwhich.
If you object then you have to become a cheese eating hermit under the rules of banishment. 

I wrote "non-pretentious" for a reason. 

titled the thread 'Political Economy?' You should of titled it 'the lyrics of Zack de la Rocha and how we can live by them', that would have been more your depth.

BTW, thanks Shambler, change was forward looking. 

'Fuck you, I wont do what you told me.'