The problem with your argument is that it is ahistorical. You refuse to take into account the history of racial discrimination in the South and the degree to which racism was enmeshed in the fabric of Southern society. The government banned Blacks from riding on street cars because it was a means for the wealthy elites to manufacture consent on the part of the White working and middle class to their exploitative practices. Divide et impera, anyone?

You are ignoring all history up till the point you choice. Is this ahistorical, or simply disingenuous?

The wealthy elites used an instrument called government to divide the races. This then tells some here that even more government will cure the problem.

It was the British government (and tobacco) that started slavery on these shores. It was the Federal government of the USA that protected slavery for generations.

So, tell me. Why was the rest of the world able to do away with slavery via peaceful means about the time we had a war? Could this unnecessary war and Reconstruction have muddied the waters any?

Could the Jim Crow laws (and a famous SC decision) have had any effect? Notice that big government is involved in all of these things?

LWM claimed: ---> Is he thinks the "Austrian school" is the only "libertarianism". I think their a bunch of loons and so do most people. They even think Hayek was a socialist!

You sir, are an idiot. You would have to work your way up to "loon" status. You have no clue what "they" believe and what most people think is crap anyway.

We live in the Idiocracy, and you want me to worry about what your little buddies think?

...I was literally tortured in high school because I dared to treat those who had more melanin in their skin as worthy of friendship and respect.

Too bad you did not go to a little private school that I know about. Every color, and every religion. Yes, Buddhists, Hindi, pagans, Jewish, and perhaps even a few Christians. They come in all shades. I have never witnessed any racism at all. We had a gay fellow (brown) who was English and he is descended from Indians. He was the most popular kid in school. Odd that, eh?

sounds too good to be true? It does sound so, but I have seen it. (so, don't believe if you want)

Did you read my entire comment, or just the parts you decided you could use to disagree with me? Because I explicitly acknowledged that slavery was the result of state intervention. But so was capitalism. And slavery allowed capitalism—actual, historical capitalism, not whatever idealized version of it that you choose to use as your model—to succeed. The raw materials that the British used in their textile mills and other industrial establishments that were the backbone of the initial explosion of the 19th Century were extracted by slaves.

Please, address all of my argument, not just the part of it that you feel like dismissing.

I read it. I wrote about what interested me at the time --- a little tired of writing at the moment.

But, I'll make a few comments so as to not make you feel you wasted your words.

The money quote had to be "Capitalism has historically always required the use of a state, and continues to do so. Anarcho-capitalists routinely ignore the role that state action plays in the creation and maintenance of markets and capital."

It is so wrong that I do not know where to start. Medieval Iceland alone is the counterexample to your hypothesis.

http://libertariannation.org/b/history.htm#ice

You actually need to rehearse your arguments more thoroughly. At this point you are successfully convincing me that you are incorrect. ...

That is fine. One can not write as many words as I did this morning and write as if the product were going in a journal.

It took many years before I could leave the idea that there had to be some minimal state. But, all states grow. They grow until they become monstrous. Take a look on-line at the Articles of Confederation that we used to run this country for the first decade or so --- and look at us now.

See?

... Tell me, Bucky... what would you call a man who was in favor of a guaranteed minimum income for all? If you are a wingnut like Walter Block, you call him a socialist! ...

I do not know why i should tell a bigot like you anything. However, I will after you tell me a thing.

What do you call armed thugs (but in a pretty uniform) who rob, rape, pillage, destroy hope, and justify it by pretending to help out a few people. (and then screw them over)

Iceland did not have a capitalist economy in the 10th-13th centuries. The production of commodities by wage-labor was not yet the dominant mode of economic activity; most people were engaged in subsistence agriculture and related production, with some surpluses ending up in a market (which was actually a market, i.e. a place where trade occurred, not this abstract notion of the-totality-of-all-exchange constituting a market). The people who ran the country got their wealth through means other than the creation of surplus value.

However, the link you provided is useful for other purposes (among my many hobbies, I am a fantasy role-player engaged in the creation of a new fantasy gameworld, and this is right up my alley). I'll keep reading. Thanks.

You are most welcome. However you are using a textbook definition to see the past as you choose to do so. I think you should broaden your definition of "capitalist" or tell me that I have to always say 'free-market' when talking to you.

Regards.