to debate the entire Austrian perspective, interesting as it the subject might be, is a lot off stuff for one thread. I have a lot to say about it, and I'm surely willing to debate, but If you add a debate about (your form) of autarchy ass well, I would really advice you to make different threads about parts of those topics.

Little Paul: "to debate the entire Austrian perspective, interesting as it the subject might be, is a lot off stuff for one thread. I have a lot to say about it, and I'm surely willing to debate, but If you add a debate about (your form) of autarchy ass well, I would really advice you to make different threads about parts of those topics."

Obviously there are a great deal of topics that fall under the wide umbrella I've deployed in my original post. It's certain that I will probably be lacking more in some areas as opposed to others, with regards to my wherewithal in rebutting every objection to Austrian theory, philosophy, and methodology.

Because of this, and the fact that I am most likely the only defender of Austrian economics presently posting here, I will be unable to effectively respond to every single argument, though I shall try my best. In the event that we do happen upon a subject that I do not feel confidently about, I will try to steer the poster in the right direction to a source that /does/ have the answers and can deal with their concerns.

Einstein: "1) How can the weak defend against the strong"

By hiring the strong to protect them, of course. How else?

"a. How could Jews fend of a government bent on their destruction?"

LOL, what?! Are you suggesting government exists to protect the Jews?

"b. How come the Mafia succeeds even when everyone else is against it, including the victims of it?"

I don't see how this is an argument against a completely free market. If anything, the mafia's presence in spite of law enforcement's best efforts, is a black mark against the government's ability to stamp out organized crime in whatever form it manifests. Granted, such criminal enterprises would most likely persist even in an autarchy, the scope of their activities would be limited; by the fact that much of organized crime's "bread and butter," so to speak, either wouldn't exist (such as labor unions), or would become legitimate markets (such as drugs, gambling, and prostitution). In effect, the free market would largely make honest businesses out of them.

"2) How do you prevent the formation of a hostile government?"

This is certainly a problem that is a center of much debate in anarcho-capitalist circles. /My/ preliminary thoughts on the subject revolve around the fact that it is much more profitable to engage in trade and commerce than it is to wage wars of conquest. As v. Mises wrote in his magnum opus /Human Action/, "All the materials needed for the conduct of a war must be provided by restriction of civilian consumption, by using up a part of the capital available and by working harder. The whole burden of warring falls upon the living generation."

There is very little incentive for war when there is no such thing as politics or political power. Wars, after all, are never initiated by common men, but by heads of state and territorial warlords. They seek to enslave populations, or to subjugate rival political entities -- or countries -- to their will. In a world of "market anarchy," there are no geopolitics; no arbitrary borders separating us; no restriction of movement or trade. People are free to come and go as they please, and conduct their business as they see fit. We are separated only by geographical boundaries, culture, and perhaps language.

"a. How well did the allies prevent Germany from becoming a belligerent nation?"

Again, you are pointing out even more reasons /against/ the existence of state. If Germany had had no government, there would be no such thing as a Chancellor, no such thing as the NSDAP, and therefore no hierarchy for Hitler to maneuver and manipulate his way to the top. Moreover, in spite of the existence of rival governments, it did not prevent the atrocities that lead up to the second World War -- or any wars, for that matter.

"b. Was the fractured nature of Russia when the Red Revolution was going on enough to stop the formation of a government that covered all of Russia?"

You are simply confusing yourself here. All of Russia's revolutions were initiated by people who desired to substitute the incumbent governments with their own.

"3) How do you effectively stop terrorism?"

Terrorism is politically-motivated violence committed against innocent people, yet committed nonetheless as an affront to influence those same peoples' government.

"Thus I seek to educate such believers, or if education fails, humiliate them until they break and realize their system cannot work."

Your mistake is in believing that I am advocating some sort of system. The free market, as you should well know, is more of a dynamic process than it is a system. It is driven by individuals, not central planners and bloated bureaucracies. Everything is determined according to simple, yet universal propositions like supply-and-demand and marginal utility. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict what direction the free market may take. But whichever way it goes, it is most certainly to the greatest benefit for the largest number of people.