No mechanisms would need to be put up, imo. A group of people can form coalitions and elect leaders to speak on their behalf. However, when this coalition tries to impose their will (through force, enslavement, or simply taxation) on people who do not agree to this, it is the same as invading another country and subjugating the local people to your rule. The same "mechanism" which prevents the US from taking over the world would prevent governments from taking over unwilling subjects in an AC land: desire for liberty.

No society has completely eliminated externalities (second hand smoke, pollution, etc), so holding AC land to a higher standard is unreasonable. However, there would be fewer externalities if the government didn't try to maintain so many common areas. By distributing common areas, it reduces the need for regulation protecting these areas, as the private parties can pursue judgment against the offending parties.

Nice sentiments but presumably you hope that one day this will not just be in your head. In the real world governments have always formed. Anything other than just 'trust me, in AC land no power will ever get powerful enough to be able to leverage that power for its own good'.

Are you suggesting there would be no defenses?

Not at all. I'm asking you to explain why governments won't form.

Re-read my post. Governments likely will form, where Governments aren't needed for most goods and services, which is sort of the point of AC. And just like government shouldn't be imposed on people, neither should AC be "imposed" on people. Anyway, it would be ineffectual, since there could be no way to prevent a government (with some authority over willing subjects). If AC were "imposed" on a group of unwilling people, they would likely just make a contract/agreement to set up a government.

In AC land, many contracts specifying coalitions and group efforts would likely arise. They wouldn't be governments, per se, because participation would be voluntary. However, they could perform many of the same functions that government currently performs. For example, an agreement by a bunch of citizens in one region to set up a school/road system/sewer system could be done, if such a company didn't step in and supply it on their own.

Your criticisms are now tending toward the transition to another form of rule, which never is completely seamless (see Iraq's shift to your beloved panacea, democracy). Removing some of the numerous government monopolies would be a good start toward an AC society.

Of course! Everything is fine, except for the "few" things I want to meddle with.

I've never made any such claim. Keep on strawmanning.

Sure. Mostly because "perfectly efficient" is a boogeyman. There is no such thing. For there to be perfect efficiency, there must be some universal, objective set of criteria by which to measure that efficiency. Since people have subjective personal preferences, there is no such universal objective set of criteria.

This is a bait and switch. The natural regulation of your heart is not comprable to the bureaucratic and violent regulation of markets you are championing.

Unless you think things would be better if we had a coercive government committee deciding when your heart should beat.

Everything is fine, except the things I want to meddle with. But no problem! No proposal!

Speaking of, just like clockwork you whip out your own bait and switch. Nobody here is defending fraud.

How is X the natural level? At some point, nobody had ever heard of t-shirts. Demand was zero then.

How would one do this?

If a population is concerned enough about this to bring about the removal of government in the first place, we should instead be asking YOU by which mechanism a government is going to come about.

My criticism has always been the same. Governments will form. But I'll give you another chance. Make any presumptions, any starting point you like and give me a plausible explanation of how you impede a form of government funded by taxation of some sort appearing. Don't direct me too that website, (yes I'm well aware you are not responding to my criticism of that), it doesn't provide one. Any resource you will like me to read I will but please have something more than 'trust me, it won't lead to government' because if that really is the only argument ACist's have against this valid criticism then 'trust me, it will'.

Fair enough. Human nature. Government. AC. Government. AC. Government. AC. etc etc. Why is AC progress if the end product is government? It's not, so show me how you would break the cycle.

Your reading comprehension is poor. Re-read my last post, which addressed this directly. Look particularly close at and around phrases like I'll summarize: forcefully removing a government from a society (in other words, forcing AC on a people who want government) would not work, and would result in the rise of government.

On the flip side,

Edit: It's weird you have settled on criticizing AC by saying "government will exist." As in, you are almost conceding it would work better, just that it would be hard to set up. Is that a criticism of AC, or just a hurdle in implementation?

Again,

And 200 years ago (and for thousands of years before) it would have been considered human nature to enslave other people. The case would have been made "For thousands of years human beings have been enslaved. That's the way it is, human nature. The pyramids likely would not have built without slavery. It's worked out pretty well for society. And look how far we've advanced? Why do you think it can be changed?" Pointing to the status quo is not an argument for its efficacy or desirability.

Ok I'll concede that point. Why is it just hard and not impossible. And just for the record i haven't just settled on it, it's always been a stumbling block for me.

Sigh. How is AC an advancement in the area of political science? Show me how it won't inevitably lead to government of the kinds you so detest now?

I'll give it another try, in fewer words.

You don't impede it.

You have willing participants. If you didnt have willing participants, you wouldnt have AC. Any government needs willing participants, or at least subjects that are unwilling to violently object. Does that make sense? No one is trying to "impose" their beliefs or government onto other people, which is exactly the point. If people want government, it will exist. But I am arguing that, for the (substantial, IMO) number of people that want minimal government involvement, they will be better off in an AC-type land. And this AC land would be functioning society, with schools, roads (as desired), and grocery stores.

It's voluntary, not externally imposed on people. Also, I never claimed it was some advanced political structure. It's simply minimal political structure.

As I've said, it may, if the people demand it.

The few things I want meddled with right now are the war (ending it) and the budget (balancing it).

My point about heart regulation and other forms of regulation we see in nature and in the man made world is just that: we see regulation everywhere. Why do you think that is? Do you think everything would be better off with no regulation? (Granted it's a tongue in cheek argument)

Anyway, like I said before, there is no problem. Superleeds is right when he says that AC would be a step backwards and that eventually governments would again form and we'd be right back where we started.

Anyway, this thread is seriously boring me now, like when we used to run in a circle in gym class. Damn gym class violently forced on me by those damn monopolistic schools. I'm out. Good luck with making AC a reality. You'll need it.

Ok I guess thats the best I'll get. Put me in the 'Not willing' category please.

Ok I said I was out but I saw this and couldn't let it slide.

We have willing participants now, otherwise there would be a revolution. Yes, you were born into it. Is everybody supposed to be born free into AC, and then they get to choose if they want government?

Now I'm really out. I hope.

X can be zero yes. Thats why i didn't put 1 or 2 or 5 million or y gazillion.

Slides don't exist in nature; they are human constructs made of plastic or metal. People desire them, because they are fun. They're not natural, and are more inefficient when constructed by nature. Thus, humans have improved upon nature. Thus, cloning and genetic... oh nevermind. I suck at intentionally trying to set up terrible analogies.
Correct. But there are millions of sheep who are willing to moved into another direction. All that is needed is land...

What's your answer to the first question? You are asserting that X, the demand before any advertising, is somehow the natural (ie. better, optimal) demand.

Careful. Some could read between the lines and think you think you know what's better for them than they do themselves. Off course I wouldn't do this.