Why? I'm still waiting for sth to explain how he feels either a monopoly of or initiation of force are necessary in free market capitalism. "YOU explain how it works" or "Because it is" are not arguments.
okay, you're either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding my rhetoric here.
how can i make myself clearer? what i am saying is that there is no historical or other non-hypothetical case in which a capitalist free market can exist, let alone without the use of force, because capitalism is an economic system predicated entirely on force and coercion.
i think you are jumping to the conclusion that good will and 'voting with your dollar' are enough to prevent corruption on any scale, let alone a capitalist system large enough to provide goods/services for a large population. what i am saying is that that has never been proven to be the case, and cannot be because of the 'inherent' nature of capitalism.
i reconcile this the same way i reconcile the lack of anarchism in the world today; it's a personal philosophy for me that informs the decisions i make, not a system of beliefs that i think everybody must follow. otherwise i would be using the same rationale for coercion that states use -- 'it's good enough for almost everybody, and if it's not good enough for you then tough, dems da breaks'.