GENIUS FORUMS

The difference between market anarchy and monarchy is that market anarchy is a voluntary society, whereas monarchy (or any form of government) is necessarily violent- because all government is rooted in taxation, and taxation is theft. Thus, all forms of government require violence to function, whereas market anarchy promotes peaceful interaction.

The important point is that government is unnecessary. Police, courts, roads, schools, etc. can all be provided more efficiently by the market, i.e. through competition, rather than coercive monopoly.

You seem to want to argue for performance-based (“KPIs”) criterion for public appointments. You have not demonstrated (only asserted), and continue to avoid demonstrating, that the government is responsible for monopolising appointments to the public office. Thus, you make a huge, religious leap in logic in separating the public office (police, courts, etc.) from government, thinking that you can successfully hang whatever you consider is left of "government" in such a manner whilst “explaining” away the need for its systems.

Fund raising (often corporate derived) and pressure groups are an aspect of competition , not an arm of the state--they are market-driven, and of capital. These are the ways in which both political parties and public appointments are influenced in Western politics.

So, where’s the monopoly? No, Sage. What you are looking at, dead in the cold, hard face, is plutocratic oligarchy.