[Agamemnon]

A long time ago, freedom for slaves was considered utopian. Now it is a reality. If those slaves and everyone who felt with them gave up and accepted “reality,” slaves would never be free.

Equality on physiological grounds was/is inevitble. Is Natural Law inevtible? No. 'Natural Law', or a state of anarchy, had its heyday with the caveman. It's gone, and it's not coming back. Debating its finer points is, again, useless within the context of 'real life'.

A supply of defense services on the free market would mean maintaining the axiom of the free society, namely, that there be no use of physical force except in defense against those using force to invade person or property. This would imply the complete absence of a State apparatus or government; for the State, unlike all other persons and institutions in society, acquires its revenue, not by exchanges freely contracted, but by a system of unilateral coercion called “taxation.” Defense in the free society (including such defense services to person and property as police protection and judicial findings) would therefore have to be supplied by people or firms who (a) gained their revenue voluntarily rather than by coercion and (b) did not—as the State does—arrogate to themselves a compulsory monopoly of police or judicial protection. Only such libertarian provision of defense service would be consonant with a free market and a free society. Thus, defense firms would have to be as freely competitive and as noncoercive against noninvaders as are all other suppliers of goods and services on the free market.

Nice. Lets replace police and military services with mercenaries. Great plan, how could that ever go wrong. Please. This quote doesn't seem to address what happens when I hire my offensive contractor. Why would a company/entity not be free to provide, oh, say, assasination services? Without state regulation/control mechanisms, I see no reason for a company not to profitably hire itself out as a murder-for-pay enterprise. Apparently the only thing stopping this scenario in your utopia is a) natural good will toward one's fellow man and b) hiring mercenaries to defend yourself. This does not seem like an adequate solution to addressing public safety. I see a _lot_ more guns bought in this utopia.

What’s wrong with you? His opinion article wasn’t sourced; his works/books going in depth about the same stuff are sourced.

You claim, I believe, that you're in university, so you should probably be aware that it is not on the reader to research the source/fact you've cited, but rather on yourself. If you put out a number, with no backing, but insist its real, then find the source. It's not my job to hunt down your research for validity, that's why the author of a paper includes the footnotes, as opposed to the reader trying to hunt them down. That would be stupid. As far as I'm concerned, there is still no source for this other than your word, as I'm surely not going to do your work for you, sheesh. I'll choose to believe that the author actually has cited his work (and, AGAIN, the fact is erroneous, 11% is _wrong_), despite your shortcomings, but I'll point out that its a bad way to debate to simply claim the fact exists and make little effort to provide it.

In that sense, everyone is a monopolist. Baker Jones is the sole supplier of Jones’s bread. Shoemaker Jim is the sole supplier of Jim’s shoes. How do you define homogeneous products/services? Is massage given by a leggy blonde the same service as a massage given by a stinky old fart? I don’t think so. How do you define relevant markets or geographical location? This “mainstream” definition is meaningless.

One does not monopolize a brand, one owns a brand. Surely even you can see the difference between a brand and a product? Ford has a monopoly on Fords, but that's like saying I've got a monopoly on my own blood. It's circular and useless. Ford does _not_ have a monopoly on cars, obviously, and this is the product that would concern a serious economist.

And as for patents and copyrights – guess who grants them and enforces them? Oh yeah, the government does and in fact it is giving a monopolistic privilege to patent/copyright holders. This is the exact definition of monopoly I used.

Again, typically, you have not provided a definition for a monopoly. You're what I like to call a 'can't do' person. Instead of putting out a comprehensive idea on the way things should be, you constantly decry the way they are and whine for utopian change, but focus on the problems instead of the solutions. I'd have a whole lot more respect for your point of view if you'd actually provide concrete, realistic solutions to actual problems. As far as I'm concerned, as I've repeated over and over, your ideology is confined strictly to the realm of the imagination.

Just as Plato's Republic is interesting, but useless, so is your anarcho-capitalism.

I would think sending a probe to Mars it utopian, but it can be done and it was done.

Lol, yeah, and guess how that was accomplished. Through the harnessing of massive resources organized the only way possible; The State. Nice example.