http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryis...
This is a good summary of anarcho-capitalism, aka voluntaryism. It outlines some history and the people who have advocated for it. Lots of good sources and points. There is very little here that is not inline with Rand's capitalistic ideals. This is not the "anarchy" spoke of by violent provocateurs dressed in black. This is the ultimate society built on the concepts of individual sovereignty and VERY limited government.
Rand's definition of Capitalism bears no resemblance to the capitalism that we think we have had in this country for the last 100 years. Even she says that no society has every tried these principles in a pure form; though I believe that that should be our endgame, to use reason to convince others of the possibility of self-rule.

"I heartily accept the motto--'That government is best which governs least;' and I should like to see it acted upon more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,--'That government is best which governs not at all;' and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
Henry David Thoreau
Civil Disobedience - 1847

your arguments are compelling

One sec

Lol as in my arguments are compelling or as in you're getting sick of talking to me XD

methods must be tested-BUT
you're wearin me down on this one

that was pretty good. Let's say I was framed. How do I get remedy? Let's say I'm from a different culture. I can't stand you guys over there-so if you got fleeced out of a $1000 I would jump up and down with joy and not cooperate with your DROs.
so now the DRO is only worth the enforcement of the county. I'll only trade now with businesses inside the county with a track record. fiefdom. Or I grow my fiefdom to a certain point and basically align with all the DROs in the tri-state area. I bring the DROs lots of business. I don't pay the little guys for their service and I steal their inventions. The DROs all look the other way.

I have been thinking about copy rights and patents and how they jive with anarchy.

Why can't you take the idea or patent to your DRO and have their assurance that others won't use it. Then the DRO will compensate you for any infringements, and go after the perpetrator in a waysimilar to what I listed before.

Anarchy is a method not a contract. You don't have to know the outcomes of every scientific endeavor to know that the scientific method is a good method.

"the nature of people is often negative" only if they are cut off from opportunity

To keep people in line, because the nature of people is often negative, as witnessed by the high crime rate and the rise of violent crimes. If not for government who would collect the taxes to then provide firemen, policemen, emergency services?
Could or wold the private sector do this and perhaps do it better?
Who is going to regulate our food, drugs, water, environment, transportation, security, and national health. Could the private sector do this? If they could, who would pay them, oversee them, and regulate them?

my biggest problem is property rights protection. I see private solutions for the remedy by there still needs to be an enforcement mechanism and agreement between borders. Why publish a book if it will be plagiarized the next day? how would I earn back the time and talent investment? Private enforcement puts you into fiefdoms. It's inefficient

so are you saying we have to pass to see what's in it?

Exactly! If The government is necessary, why can't they have competition?

I have a particular interest because I am looking at ways to run a space colony. Ayn Rand seemed to think that we need courts, but I am not clear on why conflict resolution cannot be a contracted personal service. The annoying thing about government is that it has no product except coercion and no purpose except the acquisition of power. This puts it in the same class as religion, in my opinion, yet both are universal in the human experience. Why? Is it because people are afraid of accepting responsibility for their own fate, as Taylor Caldwell (The Devil's Advocate) seemed to think?

If the nature of people is often negative, why is the solution to give people a legal monopoly on force?

As for regulation on food drugs water and such pyruvate industries could easily benefit from critiquing systems. Privatize the fda. Anyone can sell whatever food they want, but unless it's inspected and approved by the fda I wouldn't. The difference is, if the fda makes a mistake, too bad you still have to use their seal of approval. There's no competition to take their place. And if the fda fails they won't go out of business, so they get comfy and relaxed and their standards slip.

This was beautiful! You should speak up more my brains getting tired trying to hold this ground myself lol.

Anarchy is about aligning interests. So many things that are wrong with the world exist because the people involved benefit more from the exacerbation of the problem instead of solution.

The bottom line is; government does not, and cannot work because it lacks the incentive to do so, Governments have no self-serving interest driving them, and therefore are in contradiction with human nature and are destined to fail.
Governments are ran by one of two groups; appointed, seemingly benevolent individuals who, once appointed, have a vested interest in expansion of the problem they were appointed to resolve, to guarantee their survival, or the alternate government appointed official is the one infiltrating the branch of the government that is regulating their market with intentions of guaranteeing special privileges for themselves.
All of the speculation as to how Anarchocapitalism would function is moot, because the self-serving interests of individuals would prompt solutions that would evolve at an exponential rate surpassing all previous human expectation. The solutions would be beyond our current ability to speculate!
True laze-faire capitalism has never been experienced, and the lack of historical data leaves man fearful of his true potential.

You have self defense. How often do you see a violent crime happen and the police get their in time to stop it.

Imagine a woman accuses a man of raping her. She goes to her DRO to submit her accusation and they start an investigation. From what they find they agree that there is proof that she was raped by Bob. So they go to Bob's house and tell him he has been accused of rape and then they and Bob agree on a date to go to court to defend himself. They tell him that if he wins they will compensate him for his time. Bob goes to court and the DRO has substantial proof that he did it and his testimony fails to prove otherwise.

Knock Knock Knock.
The DRO knocks on his door to inform him that he lost the trial. They tell him they will drop all coverage with him, and since the DRO has a contract with the power and water company his service with them will be shut off. Also the road infront of his house is privately owned and by being convicted of a crime he no longer has a contract with the owner of said road and if he is caught trespassing he will be escorted off the road.

The DRO agent tells Bob he has three options. Sit in his house without water or electricity or a way to feed himself, try going on the run without being able to get any kind of business done even for his basic necessities, or come with the DRO agent peacefully to a place where he can work out his debt to both the women and the company. They will base his work for them off of his skills, or offer to train him in another field for a fee. they tell him he will work for them for a period of a certain amount years and they will garnish his wages until he pays off the debt he owes.

None of those make a good case for having a government! I know that private companies could have taken care of all of that without arresting someone. In fact if he forgot to pay that bill you can bet he would have a collections agency calling him to get the money. And if he was denied a renewal on his tags, that would have been the end of the story. He can't get tags. If he wants them he needs to call the owner of the road he was on without proof of insurance and prove that he had it. No reason to force him to meet court dates and do paper work.

you have a point that our court system is not as effective as it could be but you are dead wrong that the courts aren't used. let's start with traffic court.
here's a story for you. My son was pulled over for a tail-light that was out. He did not have the most current insurance card in the vehicle so he was ticketed, even though his insurance was current. The ticket required he go to court to prove the insurance had been current. He moved, forgot about the ticket (his big fail) and a year later was at the DMV renewing his license tags and they had the police come over and handcuff him and drag him to jail. He was released, had a bunch of paperwork to take care of and meet a court date. when he went to court his case was dismissed because after all, his insurance was always current and he had committed no crime-except forgetting about the original court appearance. If the officer had let him call his insurance company during the initial stop-the court system would not have been needed. but we are all about compliance not logic and everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

This is a wonderful point! However.... What if it is a good or service not everyone wants? You should force them to pay for it anyway? And you can deny someone access to just about everything. Security guards don't respond to calls from the company 4 blocks down.

no. :P

I've come to a point where DRO's act almost like a mini government who you voluntarily pay for the services you want. They also have to compete with others so they don't lose customers. If you wanted to "opt" out of our government, what do you do? move? You either accept the whole package they offer or you don't, and no one likes the whole freaking package.

but there is a point at which no one will take on the risk. that is what ended up happening with the sub prime mortgages. you still have to have an enforcement mechanism. In your society the only enforcement mechanism is what-shunning? a gun is showing up somewhere. once it does in the name of enforcement you have limited government instead of anarchy.