Public vs. Private Business

[Squawk]

Fuck the mod note, Peacock described you with such a delicate brush...

Really, don't. Consider this a warning.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Pfft - it's more than simply "emotionally charged language", but what ever. Just don't get butthurt when people use "emotionally charged language" to describe the libertarians position in return.

its not just emotionally charged though, its downright inaccurate. andiferous basically said that voluntary associations wouldn't exist under anarchy. thats not even close to true.

No less inaccurate as the stuff presented by libertarians/anarchists.

 

[obsidianavenger]

No less inaccurate as the stuff presented by libertarians/anarchists.

do you have an example of what you mean?

 

[televator]

its not just emotionally charged though, its downright inaccurate. andiferous basically said that voluntary associations wouldn't exist under anarchy. thats not even close to true.

Okay, my self exemption didn't last long... Anyway, can you explain how this is false? And if so, would such voluntary organizations be large enough to accommodate enough people to really be effective?

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

No less inaccurate as the stuff presented by libertarians/anarchists.

do you have an example of what you mean?

Well how about the most common - the hyperbolic explanation of taxes that seems to be almost a mantra... anyway.

The concept of social obligation and the official social contract that accompanies citizenship/residency: I assume you and libertarians/anarchists agree that contracts made between individuals and/or corporations have legally binding obligations as stipulated by the details of that contract. The terms of citizenship/residency are no different. It's "force" to collect taxes owed in the same way as it is for a bank expect one to pay their mortgage.

As a lot of libertarians/anarchists like harp on about personal choice - you do have at least two alternative options available to you. Don't pay your taxes and see how long you can get away with it... much like you would if you decided not to pay your mortgage. You can immigrate to another location. You may not like them, but thats how the cookie crumbles.

Another example it libertarians/anarchists ridiculous habit of referring to any and all governments as "The State"; makes them seem like NWO nutters.

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6800
Fundamentally there is a difference between social obligation and charity:



Social obligation stems from the semi-official contract you engage upon entering a given society (via birth or immigration) to which there is a level of give and take from the individual and the society. You utilize resources, services and facilities provided by the society and in turn you contribute to the means for the society to provide the resources, services and facilities. The only way to avoid any variation of this relationship is to live as a hermit in a remote corner of some wilderness and live a completely self sufficient lifestyle with no interactions with the outside human world. What a society can do is alter the ratio of the interaction.



Empirically speaking, the societies with the highest Social obligatory interactions - e.i. social services tend to have the best standards of living: The Human Development Index (HDI) found in the United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Reports, formulates the HDI using a statistic composed from data on life expectancy, education and per-capita GNI. Consistently the highest ranking countries always offer social services to some high degree - and while some nations that do offer social services, almost all the lowest ranking nations do not. Now I'm not saying collation necessarily equals causation but it is interesting.



http://hdr.undp.org/



It's interesting that nations that provide for the poorest members of their society generally and consistently produce more overall wealth than nations that do not. There are many explanations for this; such as the in a capitalistic model, there are always power differences and the poor always constitute the majority - thus in a democratic (using the colloquial definition) type society, the majority loses trust in a negligent government and destabilization is inevitable. Hungry, cold and sick people are dangerous - and who can blame them? You're starving, your children are starving and your next door neighbour is having Steak... A countries success in the world is directly proportionate to the population's general education, before the introduction of public education the vast majority of the USA were illiterate and the nation in general was not exactly a world power at the time.



There's heaps more, but you (well some of you) will get what I'm talking about.





Charity on the other hand is things we do beyond our social obligations - out of sympathy, pity, tax purposes, or simply to feel good. I.e. not obligatory.

 

[obsidianavenger]

meh. an implicit contract can't be considered binding in the same way as a normal contract, especially if its considered agreed to just by being born... on the other hand i would agree with you that taxes aren't as bad as robbing someone at gunpoint... the acts are of the same kind but different degree (kind of like how affirmative action is racism but not nearly as bad as sh*t like jim crow laws).

anyway, the anarchists point is that the government shouldn't have to right to threaten violence against you just because you don't want to pay into their organization. if you voluntarily sign a contract then you've agreed to pay a certain amount by a certain time or face consequences that are generally agreed upon beforehand. the "contract" that you "agree to" simply by being born isn't even in the same league. theres really no option for someone who doesn't want to be a member of any state except to go live in a marginalized area that no one gives a sh*t about.

its not just emotionally charged though, its downright inaccurate. andiferous basically said that voluntary associations wouldn't exist under anarchy. thats not even close to true.

Okay, my self exemption didn't last long... Anyway, can you explain how this is false? And if so, would such voluntary organizations be large enough to accommodate enough people to really be effective?

its false because anarchists see no problem with someone having authority over someone else- so long as that person has agreed to the terms beforehand. an organization need not be 100% democratic or consensus based in order for it to work in an an-cap society. an-caps don't believe that people should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and damn everyone else. they advocate the non-aggression principle:

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."(murray rothbard).

generally its to people's advantage to cooperate in achieving their goals. a group of many people working together can accomplish way more than a single person trying to do everything. people are generally rational enough to recognize this and would voluntarily join together the same way they do now in the labor market and in other pursuits. its coercion that anarchists are against, not cooperation.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

meh. an implicit contract can't be considered binding in the same way as a normal contract, especially if its considered agreed to just by being born... on the other hand i would agree with you that taxes aren't as bad as robbing someone at gunpoint... the acts are of the same kind but different degree (kind of like how affirmative action is racism but not nearly as bad as sh*t like jim crow laws).

But in (post industrial nations at least) there is nothing implicit about the contract - birth certificates (and equivalent), residency visas and registers (of various formats) are legal documents; adherences to the contract - BUT even if were implicit contracts, they would hold the same weight as an expressed contract (the fundamental difference between the two is an implicit contract can be harder to enforce - which is obviously not the case in citizenship).

It is true that you can't agree upon the contact just by being born; but that's why your legal guardians hold responsibility over your actions until your reach majority (age of consent)- much the same way they have to sign with you on a variety of other contracts.

It would be interesting to consider minors "non-citizens" until they reach age of consent and then give them the opportunity to apply for citizenship... but that would inevitably lead to a clusterfuck of inequality.

anyway, the anarchists point is that the government shouldn't have to right to threaten violence against you just because you don't want to pay into their organization.

If you use their services, then they have as much right as a corporation or individual to seek compensation. Besides, as I understand it - violence is only a very last resort - to hear you say it, the tax departments of the world's governments are kicking in tax dodger's doors and breaking thumbs.

if you voluntarily sign a contract then you've agreed to pay a certain amount by a certain time or face consequences that are generally agreed upon beforehand. the "contract" that you "agree to" simply by being born isn't even in the same league. theres really no option for someone who doesn't want to be a member of any state except to go live in a marginalized area that no one gives a sh*t about.

There are more than one developed nations out there with a plethora of different political policies - so have at it.
(A reapplication of a common Libertarian argument for how the free market would correct sucky businesses - if you don't like how company A conducts it's commerce, go with another company.)

 

[obsidianavenger]

But in (post industrial nations at least) there is nothing implicit about the contract - birth certificates (and equivalent), residency visas and registers (of various formats) are legal documents; adherences to the contract - BUT even if were implicit contracts, they would hold the same weight as an expressed contract (the fundamental difference between the two is an implicit contract can be harder to enforce - which is obviously not the case in citizenship).

if someone isn't given the option to disagree, but rather enrolled without being asked, how is that equivalent to a contract entered into voluntarily with an understanding of the terms?

It is true that you can't agree upon the contact just by being born; but that's why your legal guardians hold responsibility over your actions until your reach majority (age of consent)- much the same way they have to sign with you on a variety of other contracts.

generally your legal guardians aren't allowed to make decisions on your behalf of that magnitude unless the problem is time sensitive/life or death.

It would be interesting to consider minors "non-citizens" until they reach age of consent and then give them the opportunity to apply for citizenship... but that would inevitably lead to a clusterfuck of inequality.

meh, non-citizens are still entitled to the same protections as citizens on most issues aren't they? aside from social programs, it seems like not doing so would be a pretty messed up. i would support something like that.

If you use their services, then they have as much right as a corporation or individual to seek compensation. Besides, as I understand it - violence is only a very last resort - to hear you say it, the tax departments of the world's governments are kicking in tax dodger's doors and breaking thumbs.

exacting fines is a form of violence. also children don't make use of government services, though in many cases no doubt their parents do.

There are more than one developed nations out there with a plethora of different political policies - so have at it.
(A reapplication of a common Libertarian argument for how the free market would correct sucky businesses - if you don't like how company A conducts it's commerce, go with another company.)

except there aren't any countries out that that don't create a tax burden of some kind, and there are often barriers to immigration that make it impractical.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

But in (post industrial nations at least) there is nothing implicit about the contract - birth certificates (and equivalent), residency visas and registers (of various formats) are legal documents; adherences to the contract - BUT even if were implicit contracts, they would hold the same weight as an expressed contract (the fundamental difference between the two is an implicit contract can be harder to enforce - which is obviously not the case in citizenship).

if someone isn't given the option to disagree, but rather enrolled without being asked, how is that equivalent to a contract entered into voluntarily with an understanding of the terms?

1> That's not really relevant to whether the contract is implicate or expressive.
2> It works under the same principle that legal guardians can makes decisions for a minor without consulting the minor - enrolling them in a given school, inducting them into a religion, choosing where they live, whether or not they can own a mobile, access to the Internet, and so on. It may not be good parenting practices, but legal guardians have near full autonomy over their minors. Once a minor gain age of consent they can effectively choose their own circumstances.

It is true that you can't agree upon the contact just by being born; but that's why your legal guardians hold responsibility over your actions until your reach majority (age of consent)- much the same way they have to sign with you on a variety of other contracts.

generally your legal guardians aren't allowed to make decisions on your behalf of that magnitude unless the problem is time sensitive/life or death.

I don't know the laws where you live, but in most places I've encountered (directly and indirectly) legal guardians have virtually complete control over their children's decisions - whether or not they employ these powers is up to them. (this isn't including child right laws, which are part of the social contract with the legal guardians.)

It would be interesting to consider minors "non-citizens" until they reach age of consent and then give them the opportunity to apply for citizenship... but that would inevitably lead to a clusterfuck of inequality.

meh, non-citizens are still entitled to the same protections as citizens on most issues aren't they? aside from social programs, it seems like not doing so would be a pretty messed up. i would support something like that.

Well one has to consider the selection criteria - but if an assurance of fairness could be maintained, then I would support it too... though the question remains, what happens to those that do not choose a citizenship or are denied.

If you use their services, then they have as much right as a corporation or individual to seek compensation. Besides, as I understand it - violence is only a very last resort - to hear you say it, the tax departments of the world's governments are kicking in tax dodger's doors and breaking thumbs.

exacting fines is a form of violence. also children don't make use of government services, though in many cases no doubt their parents do.

Sure children do - they go to walk on the streets, utilize medical care, can go to public schools... but even if they didn't, so what? The children don't pay taxes.

There are more than one developed nations out there with a plethora of different political policies - so have at it.
(A reapplication of a common Libertarian argument for how the free market would correct sucky businesses - if you don't like how company A conducts it's commerce, go with another company.)

except there aren't any countries out that that don't create a tax burden of some kind, and there are often barriers to immigration that make it impractical.

Not the originating government's problem - as i said, it's a reapplication of the Libertarian argument; if there is only one hardware store in town and it doesn't serve black people, what are you going to do?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

There are more than one developed nations out there with a plethora of different political policies - so have at it.
(A reapplication of a common Libertarian argument for how the free market would correct sucky businesses - if you don't like how company A conducts it's commerce, go with another company.)

Very nice, I somehow missed that side of the argument.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

There are more than one developed nations out there with a plethora of different political policies - so have at it.
(A reapplication of a common Libertarian argument for how the free market would correct sucky businesses - if you don't like how company A conducts it's commerce, go with another company.)

Very nice, I somehow missed that side of the argument.

It does illustrate just how flawed their arguments are. The only work if they conceptualize governments into some kind of abstract devil entity which is the exception to the rules - that is of cause if you don't forcefully liquidate their assets; ie the everyone's assets into a smaller collection of private ownership.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It does illustrate just how flawed their arguments are. The only work if they conceptualize governments into some kind of abstract devil entity which is the exception to the rules - that is of cause if you don't forcefully liquidate their assets; ie the everyone's assets into a smaller collection of private ownership.

Well, we know that their position is that they should benefit from the contributions of other people to a society while refusing to contribute themselves, which is completely nonsensical on its face. You can further note that they usually make arbitrary exceptions to their rules when it benefits them, so for instance they disapprove of government paying for medical care because they are healthy and/or have health insurance but they want the government to provide police for them because they can't afford bodyguards. Or they don't make exceptions, and wind up looking infantile and foolish by claiming that everything should be private including the police and courts, and somehow it is more fair that rich people can enslave poor people than it is that everyone be treated equally.

 

[televator]

its false because anarchists see no problem with someone having authority over someone else- so long as that person has agreed to the terms beforehand. an organization need not be 100% democratic or consensus based in order for it to work in an an-cap society. an-caps don't believe that people should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and damn everyone else. they advocate the non-aggression principle:

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."(murray rothbard).

generally its to people's advantage to cooperate in achieving their goals. a group of many people working together can accomplish way more than a single person trying to do everything. people are generally rational enough to recognize this and would voluntarily join together the same way they do now in the labor market and in other pursuits. its coercion that anarchists are against, not cooperation.

I must say I'm pleased with your level of discourse compared to the people who were in here before.

I'm actually good friends with a libertarian here at work and I'm surprised by how he started out at one extreme only to end up today in a position where we can work out some agreeable grounds... He admits that government can do and has done good things, and to disagreeing with the yahoos who absolutely demonize government. We often end up where having options that INCLUDE public/federal options and some mandatory regulation is a good thing. He still says he's about "free market", but I'm not sure that's really what it is he's agreeing to at that point....

Ultimately where it gets a bit sketchy is how the Government gets its income to fund it's optional programs. He seems to claim that the government could make ends meet by actually taxing large businesses more whilst leaving it up to choice for the public to pay into the system. I'm not sure If I agree with it all (or if any significant amount of libertarians would too), but my biggest concern with all that is that I'm not entirely unsure of whether that could lead to some sort of separatist state and whether or not if that is a good thing. That's entirely different from what the US has always been, and it still wouldn't do much to address the differences in how we view laws that affect civil liberties.

 

[obsidianavenger]

1> That's not really relevant to whether the contract is implicate or expressive.

uh, yes it is. simply writing it down without having the other person read over and agree to it doesn't make it an explicit contract. explicit means explicitly agreed to, not actually written down regardless of agreement.

2> It works under the same principle that legal guardians can makes decisions for a minor without consulting the minor - enrolling them in a given school, inducting them into a religion, choosing where they live, whether or not they can own a mobile, access to the Internet, and so on. It may not be good parenting practices, but legal guardians have near full autonomy over their minors. Once a minor gain age of consent they can effectively choose their own circumstances.

i agree. so shouldn't the minor be able to opt out as an adult?

I don't know the laws where you live, but in most places I've encountered (directly and indirectly) legal guardians have virtually complete control over their children's decisions - whether or not they employ these powers is up to them. (this isn't including child right laws, which are part of the social contract with the legal guardians.)

on time sensitive issues yes (a child can't choose their school when they are old enough to make the decision). but citizenship can wait, since children themselves don't really make use of social services- their parents do, perhaps on the child's behalf.

Sure children do - they go to walk on the streets, utilize medical care, can go to public schools... but even if they didn't, so what? The children don't pay taxes.

exactly. so you can't say they are participating in government services at all until they become autonomous as adults. until then they only really participate in society by proxy, through their parents.

Not the originating government's problem - as i said, it's a reapplication of the Libertarian argument; if there is only one hardware store in town and it doesn't serve black people, what are you going to do?

open your own hardware store; if you don't someone else probably will. if that were really the case, and there was a serious unmet demand by black customers for a hardware store, someone would open it. the incentive would be there, the market would be there... i suppose its possible such a situation could arise, but it wouldn't be stable, because racism or no, a business opportunity is a business opportunity.

theres no niche where a libertarian society could appear, no opportunity for one to arise. every existing state makes it illegal for someone to declare themselves free of taxes or restrictions. the hardware store that only serves blacks doesn't prevent you or someone else from opening another hardware store elsewhere, nor does it prevent other hardware stores from serving blacks. and yes, i know you hate the term "the state" lol but it really is more convenient than saying "governments".

 

[obsidianavenger]

its false because anarchists see no problem with someone having authority over someone else- so long as that person has agreed to the terms beforehand. an organization need not be 100% democratic or consensus based in order for it to work in an an-cap society. an-caps don't believe that people should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and damn everyone else. they advocate the non-aggression principle:

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."(murray rothbard).

generally its to people's advantage to cooperate in achieving their goals. a group of many people working together can accomplish way more than a single person trying to do everything. people are generally rational enough to recognize this and would voluntarily join together the same way they do now in the labor market and in other pursuits. its coercion that anarchists are against, not cooperation.

I must say I'm pleased with your level of discourse compared to the people who were in here before.

I'm actually good friends with a libertarian here at work and I'm surprised by how he started out at one extreme only to end up today in a position where we can work out some agreeable grounds... He admits that government can do and has done good things, and to disagreeing with the yahoos who absolutely demonize government. We often end up where having options that INCLUDE public/federal options and some mandatory regulation is a good thing. He still says he's about "free market", but I'm not sure that's really what it is he's agreeing to at that point....

Ultimately where it gets a bit sketchy is how the Government gets its income to fund it's optional programs. He seems to claim that the government could make ends meet by actually taxing large businesses more whilst leaving it up to choice for the public to pay into the system. I'm not sure If I agree with it all (or if any significant amount of libertarians would too), but my biggest concern with all that is that I'm not entirely unsure of whether that could lead to some sort of separatist state and whether or not if that is a good thing. That's entirely different from what the US has always been, and it still wouldn't do much to address the differences in how we view laws that affect civil liberties.

probably because i am somewhat of an ex-libertarian myself and so i'm not as emotionally invested in the idea that the government can do nothing but evil

the main problem, as i see it, is just that- to be fully consistent a libertarian has to abolish the state and become an anarchist, which comes with its own whole host of problems. examining the evidence, it seems like price controls are very bad for the economy, whereas taxing and redistribution actually does minimal harm. regulations are a kind of intermediate... my concern though, is that regulations often spawn the need for more regulations, because in many cases they can create moral hazard.

i think the most frustrating of the libertarians are the knee-jerk DEREGULATE kind. for example, when you have federal deposit insurance, deregulating the banks is the most idiotic thing you could possibly do. they are then free to take enormous risks with chances of gigantic payoff... and suffer NO negative consequences if it doesn't pan out. think things THROUGH people.

your friends proposal doens't sound unreasonable though... i've heard plans, for example, where everytime you make some kind of contract with someone (labor contract, a purchase, anything) you can pay a certain percentage to the government... or not. if you don't, and the other person breaches the contract, or defrauds you in some way, then you have no recourse. presumably there would be enough excess to fund stuff like cops, and protections for the very poorest (given the size of many business contracts these days) but... i haven't even attempted to do the math, so who knows.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Edit: removed section pending revision: Heh I made a semantic error, rendering my point faulty.

2> It works under the same principle that legal guardians can makes decisions for a minor without consulting the minor - enrolling them in a given school, inducting them into a religion, choosing where they live, whether or not they can own a mobile, access to the Internet, and so on. It may not be good parenting practices, but legal guardians have near full autonomy over their minors. Once a minor gain age of consent they can effectively choose their own circumstances.

i agree. so shouldn't the minor be able to opt out as an adult?

They are - unless you live in North Korea, you can renounce your citizenship.

on time sensitive issues yes (a child can't choose their school when they are old enough to make the decision). but citizenship can wait, since children themselves don't really make use of social services- their parents do, perhaps on the child's behalf.

I'm not arguing that children should necessarily be granted automatic citizenship - there are mutual advantages to working it that way though.

exactly. so you can't say they are participating in government services at all until they become autonomous as adults. until then they only really participate in society by proxy, through their parents.

But I'm not saying that they are... are we even having the same conversation anymore?

open your own hardware store; if you don't someone else probably will. if that were really the case, and there was a serious unmet demand by black customers for a hardware store, someone would open it. the incentive would be there, the market would be there... i suppose its possible such a situation could arise, but it wouldn't be stable, because racism or no, a business opportunity is a business opportunity.

Clearly you're not familiar with history not 60 years ago... in many countries.

theres no niche where a libertarian society could appear, no opportunity for one to arise.

Sure there is - it's just those areas suck at the moment. Cry me a river (another typical libertarian attitude)

every existing state makes it illegal for someone to declare themselves free of taxes or restrictions. the hardware store that only serves blacks doesn't prevent you or someone else from opening another hardware store elsewhere, nor does it prevent other hardware stores from serving blacks. and yes, i know you hate the term "the state" lol but it really is more convenient than saying "governments".

Oh I don't hate the term "state", I just do not like the misuse of it.

But there are plenty of opportunities of libertarian and anarchist to pull themselves up by their own boot straps and make a neo-capiticlistic paradise... they just won't do it. Why? Cause they're too comfy in societies that were effectually supported by the "state". That is of cause, you believe a libertarian society can only flourish from within a society that is already post-industrial. lol

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Removed section revised.[

uh, yes it is. simply writing it down without having the other person read over and agree to it doesn't make it an explicit contract. explicit means explicitly agreed to, not actually written down regardless of agreement.

Not quite: Expressed contracts simply means the terms are expressed (verbally or written) and agreed upon. Comprehension will is ethical, is not necessary (see "fine print").

Explicit is similar but slightly different to Expressed - as clarity of conditions and terms are inherent with Explicit... either in details or language. This makes the specific case of Explicit vs Implicit a different conversation and irrelevant to my point.

 

[Andiferous]

Yeah, I tend to think pure anarchy is impossible. But most pure ideologies are impossible, because people are in no way pure to begin with.

The extreme of libertarianism / anarchy would be zero social and/or government influence. Technically, not even social clubs and cliques.

i've been avoiding this thread cause theres enough drama in it already, but it drives me crazy when people misunderstand the libertarian/anarchist position in this way. voluntary organizations, even ones that seem to exert control over their members, are perfectly ok. people working together/cooperating for a common good is not only ok, its desirable. the only thing not ok is some organization calling itself government forcing people to participate in such things. social influence is fine, social control (in the form of jailing/punishing people who don't hold up to some social ideal) is not. also note that refraining from stealing and murder are not "social ideals" they are requirements of the non-aggression principle which most anarchists (at least an-caps) see as the root of their position. influence still allows someone the option to choose differently. control/force does not.

Maybe, I'm no anarchy expert.

As a term the one is in direct contradiction to the other. Where there is contradiction, I tend to find problems.

Also, political positions are often defined by their extremes, but as I say, pure political ideologies are likely impossible since I have not yet met a pure human being. This is to say that there is a hybrid near anarchy that may include some of the good stuff like social responsibility or influence; but these are not inherent to the political libertarian extreme "anarchy" but likely some tainted version, so rather shouldn't be included in its' definition.

For instance, philosophically speaking, how do you separate influence from force? At what point are you no longer complete master of your own personal government?

If someone decides to label a political party by the name of 'anarchy' and creates new definitions, I can't really speak to it. This isn't a value judgement, as you'll find I'm fairly libertarian myself.

 

[Andiferous]

Really, don't.

It's Anarchy!

 

[Ilikemustard]

Also, political positions are often defined by their extremes, but as I say, pure political ideologies are likely impossible since I have not yet met a pure human being. This is to say that there is a hybrid near anarchy that may include some of the good stuff like social responsibility or influence; but these are not inherent to the political libertarian extreme "anarchy" but likely some tainted version, so rather shouldn't be included in its' definition.

That's why I don't refer to myself as an anarchist, but rather an anti-statist.

My position is not for a utopian world in which everyone is expected to agree to a non-aggression pact, and we all go about our peaceful lives without any form of authority.
I just contest that the roles played by the government can be carried out by private firms more efficiently, and that the services provided by said private firms adapt more readily to society's demands due to their competition.

I also contest that giving an entity a right to a monopoly in areas such as protection and law is dangerous and prone to abuse and corruption.

Do you get annoyed when people like mustard misunderstand every other position?

I don't even fully understand what your position is, how can I misunderstand it? As Gnug said, you've argued against what I've said, but not fully defined what you are advocating.

Just saw you come online too, do you have some sort of alert system for whenever someone replies to this thread?