I agree. Anarcho-Capitalists often tend to use the argument that government is simply a group of people organized in a political body (which is true), and that people are inherently corrupt (also true), which means that government will inevitably be corrupt, and so we should not have a government. However, they totally ignore the possibility of a system of checks and balances and a separation of powers to protect against the inherent corruption of government officials. The Anarchists take a few logical positions, and then extrapolate them forward to one particular end without giving due regard to potential alternatives.

http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/...

She wouldn't have voted for anything, being female.

Depends on which civil war you mean.
If you're referring to the conflict between the nation of the United States of America and the nation of the Confederate States of America... one generally doesn't refer to wars between sovereign nations as "civil wars".

Nearest thing we had to a civil war was the whiskey rebellion in the late 18th century, and the cultural revolution of the mid- 20th century.

There are many ways to violate an individual's rights that do not involve the initiation of force.

Why was the Civil War not actually a civil war?

I agree that capitalism is not inherently anarchistic. I never said it was (although I have seen other people make that claim). I simply said that Objectivism was inherently anarchistic. Objectivism may strongly endorse capitalism, but it is not capitalism in and of itself. A common mistake I often see many Objectivists make is assuming that a criticism of Objectivism is automatically a criticism of capitalism. That an individual could be pro-capitalist and anti-Objectivist is a possibility that doesn't seem to occur to some Objectivists.

And I'm not being intellectually dishonest at all. I'm simply following Ayn Rand's idea's to their logical conclusion. Most of these arguments are laid out by John W. Robbins in his book "Without A Prayer: Ayn Rand And The Close Of Her System," which was praised by Ron Paul who said it should be read by anyone who wants to endorse freedom using arguments that cannot be refuted. You can get the book here:

http://www.amazon.com/Without-Prayer-Ran...

That actually depends on the situation. There are many ways of stealing that do not involve the use of physical force.

No, I'm perfectly clear on the distinction between initiation of force and using force in retaliation. My point is that sometimes a government must initiate force. Ayn Rand asserted that the only way to violate man's rights is through the initiation of force. However, that is simply untrue. There are many, many ways to violate the rights of an individual that do not involve using any force at all. Therefore, punishment for such violations of man's rights naturally requires the government to initiate force.

Well, I generally find the thinking from the Mises Institute pretty good, but these anarcho-capitalists are just looney. Their theory (and I think that true Objectivists would have to agree) is that if everyone truly respects everyone else's liberty, then no government is necessary.

That theory is fundamentally flawed in that it totally misses a fundamental nature of humanity - some humans will always seek to rule other humans. If we only had spears and axes, we could probably deal with a society without government. But with the ability of one human to exert the types of force available today over huge swaths of humanity, we need a countervailing force. That force would necessarily be governmental in nature.

That's not to say that the governmental structure shouldn't be severely limited, it should. But not having any government is foolish.

That said, you might want to find my comments on another thread about my feelings on the inevitability of tyranny, regardless of whether created by a government or just a powerful individual. I think that a well crafted government can slow the inevitable tyranny, but I still have come to the conclusion that tyranny is inevitable.

people.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that liberty loving people will always succumb to tyrants. It is endemic with liberty - those that love liberty have no desire to impose their views or desires on others, thus they don't seek elective office. Tyrants, on the other hand, live to impose their will on others, and thus actively seek out elective office as the modern societies acceptable way to be a bully. Thus, we end up with the tyrants in charge. These same tyrants know that placating the populace is the way to maintain their power (Bread and Circuses) and thus lull the majority of the populace into willing serfdom. When the liberty lovers (aka Tea Party) try to reassert themselves, they are vilified and their efforts to restore liberties are twisted to seem to be bigoted, anti-minority this or that.

And those positions of power are not merely political. They have infiltrated the schools, at every cycle of political power they entrench more and more persons in the courts, and the media - those that like to tell others what to think - slant to the collectivist left.